Talk:Nicolas Steno

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reference[edit]

I don't think this sentence is referenced, so I will delete it.

(Possibly, his remarkable insight in geology made him realise that the formation of the Earth's strata could not be brought into agreement with the creation stories in Genesis - stories which nobody at the time dared to question.)

-user:haow 5:29, 4/10/06

Burial and exhumation[edit]

I've restored portions, since bodies of saints are of import. Novangelis (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Skull[edit]

What about his missing skull? Its mentioned in passing as if it's a stated fact, but it's not talked about anywhere. Was his body found to be missing a skull when it was exhumed? Is there another reason? How do you know the skull was missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.102.19.7 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^This

I came to the Talk page for the sole reason of posting something inquisitive about the skull, so ^^this also. Was it stolen? Googling his name, I can't find anything about his skull at all -- except the same sentence from this article, cited in countless other websites. 70.56.49.158 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^Same here... Also it reads as a double-negative (without the missing skull) -> (with the skull missing)--69.196.165.154 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found multiple references in a quick Google search, all are nearly verbatim what is in this article. Either those entries on the web are copy and pasted from Wikipedia or this entry was copy and pasted from one of the other sources on the web. Can someone who is familiar with the history of Nicolac Steno kindly verify information on the missing skull AND if this article was copied from external sources? Or perhaps, entered by the Roman Catholic Church, in which case, the data should be more complete.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The detail of the missing skull should not be included unless it is somehow relevant to the article, key to our understanding it, or crucial to understanding Steno. As the sentence is currently worded, in fact, it implies that we readers should already know about the missing skull. The statement about the missing skull should either be expanded, if it is indeed important to the article, or deleted if it holds little or no bearing on the rest of the article. Wikipedia tries to avoid trivial facts.Zacmea (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbor[edit]

While he may have live across the street from Peder Griffenfeld(Peder Schumacher), does this have bearing on his life? If the two didn't interact, this may only be trivia. Novangelis (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)ahmm his skull is not missing it's been hidden in a national museum[reply]

Possible link to Niels Stensen items on “Himetop – The History of medicine topographical database”[edit]

I suggest that somebody, interested in this page, could insert an external link to the following page describing, with pictures, some Steno’s memories in Florence: http://himetop.wikidot.com/niels-stensen

I don’t do it myself because I’m also an Administrator of this site (Himetop) and it could be a violation of the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy. Thanks for your attention.

Luca Borghi (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides he is the "father of geology"[edit]

Interested in the claim that he is the "father of geology". I've also come across this distinction being applied to James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and William Smith. Who decides? :-) I've amended the sentence in the introduction from "considered father of geology and stratiagraphy" to end in "by some". This title seems to be a very subjective distinction and I am not sure how contentious it is in a fact based encyclopedia. Very interested to hear opinions on how somebody is declared to be a "father" (or a "mother") of a scientific field. --mgaved (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the reason is simply chronological. You could also add Hooke to the list. IMHO it would better to refer to both as the fathers of modern geology. If making a distinction is critical, we may refer to Steno as founder of the science of Geology and Hutton, father of the modern geology per this reference [1].--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we're talking about the earliest, Wikipedia's Geology article suggests Theophrastus (372-287 BCE) :-) "The study of the physical material of the Earth dates back at least to ancient Greece when Theophrastus (372-287 BCE) wrote the work Peri Lithon (On Stones)." Current edit giving him shared credit with Hutton and referring to "modern geology" looks nicer, cheers! --mgaved (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Well, chronologically speaking those other you mention could only be the "son, grandson and great-grandson of geology" (and William Smith is actually only named "the father of English geology). But of course it is always better to name who actually has bestowed that title upon the person, since there are always going to be others disagreeing with such characterisations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing I changed it to was "His investigations and his subsequent conclusions on fossils and rock formation has led scholars to consider him one of the founders of modern stratigraphy and, together with James Hutton, the founder of modern geology." --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

It would be nice if Google could give a head's up when it unleashes these mass visits through their doodles. Anyway, the lede has this rather obtuse statement: "By 1659, Steno had decided not to accept a statement as true simply because it was written in a book, but rather to rely on his own research...." with a curious reference. Surely this can be stated better. More generally, the lede should be expanded to conform to our style guideline. Eusebeus (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you one of these aristocrats that does not want to make his hands filthy? The reference is from one of the best Dutch historians on the moment on which this article owns a lot of information. It is possible there is an English translation of this book. If not someone should start. Greetings from Holland. Taksen (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any great scientists who did accept a statement as true simply because it was written in a book, instead of relying on their own research? It's a meaningless platitude. I'm sure great historians throw platitudes around, but that's not what makes them great historians. It's also not appropriate style for Wikipeia. --Nbauman (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nbauman: The "book" platitude seems more appropriate for a Disney-esque write-up than Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gef05 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page view statistics[edit]

Welcome Googlers. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nicolas_Steno --Nbauman (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the infobox to the top. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop[edit]

What was he bishop of? Not clear from the article... AnonMoos (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this he was Bishop of Münster 1680-83. I have added the word "bishop" in the relevant sentence. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was auxilliary bishop of Munster and titular bishop of Titiopolis (today's Turkey) according to New Cath Ency. I changed the article accordingly. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more info[edit]

This looks like it might give you some more reference material http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Steno/steno6.php EdwardLane (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steno was a Catholic priest[edit]

Google Honors Blessed Nicolas Steno, but they don't mention that he was a Catholic priest, but he was. He was beatified by John Paul II in 1987. Some of his accomplishments: The Danish natural scientist — who was born “Niels Stensen” on Jan. 11, 1638 — is widely considered the father of geology. Fittingly, today’s green-topped logo is rendered as rock strata with embedded fossils — reflecting twin ideas for which Steno is best known. The strata illustrate Steno’s “principle of original horizonality,” which essentially says that rock layers form horizontally — and only appear differently if later disturbances cause the deviation. And the fossils in the lower stratified rock help illustrate Steno’s “law of superposition,” which — simply put — says that the oldest rock layers are sequentially deposited on the bottom unless otherwise disturbed. For such research, Steno also became known as the father of stratigraphy.--79.222.242.97 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same article? The lede mentions than he was a bishop, and there's a whole section, Nicolas Steno#Religious studies, about his career plus another one on his beatification. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy[edit]

The duct is known today as "Stensen's duct". This is the common term used in facial/dental anatomy texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.235.246 (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Stensen's duct is named after Niels Stensen and not Nicolas Steno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.115.3 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same guy, as explained in Nicolas Steno#Early life and career. Favonian (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed[edit]

Why is he called "Blessed" Nicolas Steno?--Duckwing (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the title given to people who have been beatified by the Catholic Church. Favonian (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it jarring. The title is not very common in general English usage; calling him "Blessed" makes it look as though Wikipedia believes that he had been objectively blessed by a higher power. Per MOS:HONORIFIC, "Blessed" or other honorifics are not used when naming a person; I've therefore removed the appellation from the first sentence. The lead already tells us that he's been beatified by the Catholic Church.  Sandstein  21:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving it out is fine with me, though I find it strange that we happily include the worldly "Sir" in other articles. Doubt that Wikipedia believes those people have been objectively assigned to lord it over us commoners. Ah well, this is not the right forum for that discussion, and I don't feel up to tackling the aristocratic lobby. Favonian (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I assume that "Sir" is a more commonly recognized honorific and leaving it out would be more controversial to many than putting it in.--Duckwing (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says he was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1988, yet he apparently dies in 1686. I'm no historian, but how did THAT happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choshizen (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're no theologian either, huh? One can only be beatified after someone has died. The process may only start years after one has died and follows a specific path. One is named Blessed if a miracle can be attributed to that person. If a second is attributed, then they are canonized and given the title of 'saint'. Mangwanani (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beatification[edit]

Does anyone know what miracle he is claimed to have performed in order to be beatified? --Duckwing (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 11 January 2012[edit]

"Without the missing skull" is redundent at best, and just an awkward double negative, used twice in the article. It should be "without the skull, as it was missing" or simply, "but with the skull missing" or something along those lines.

98.143.89.34 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It's not a double negative and your changes are arguably more awkward than how it's presented. — Bility (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that "without the missing skull" is not actually bad, as it can readily be read as "without the skull, which was missing", which I don't think would be arguably more awkward. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"N.S."?[edit]

Why are his dates given in 'old style and 'N.S.'? I presume the answer to this question will also explain why the styles are 10 days apart instead of 13. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation may be found at Old Style and New Style dates. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That explains what the terms mean, but it doesn't explain a) why it is used here and b) why 10 days instead of 13 days is used. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does explain both. Denmark, like other Protestant countries, had not yet switched to the Gregorian calendar (it didn't happen until 1700), so Steno was born on January 1, "local time", but we (and Google Doodle) celebrate his birthday on January 11. The gap between the two calendars has widened since the 17th century from 10 days to the present 13, which is illustrated in a table in the above-mentioned article. Favonian (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "Explain" might have been the wrong word. The article NS explains the calendar issue in general but does not explain why two dates are given in this article. It is not done in all articles about people born at the same time. And the relevance of the fact that in his day the difference was 10 days is a bit obscure. In his day "old calendarists" celebrated Christmas on January 4 (10 days later), but they don't do it today. Today they celebrate it 13 days later, on Jan 7, and in the future they will celebrate it on another date. Is all this because when he moved to Italy he started using NS? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steno's consecrator[edit]

There has been some back-and-forth regarding the identity of the person who consecrated Steno bishop in 1677. At present, the infobox names Pope Innocent XI based on references by Kardel and Garrett Winter. The former says that Steno was "consecrated by Pope Innocent XI, as bishop and apostolic vicar", whereas the latter states that Innocent was "appointing him Bishop [...] and Apostolic Vicar". So far, so WP:RS, but I found an article in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, where it says that Steno was "von dem Cardinal Barbarigo zum Titularbischof von Titiopolis geweiht und vom Papste zum apostolischen Vicar für Hannover und die nordischen Missionen (die Hansestädte, Schleswig-Holstein, Dänemark, Schweden und Norwegen) ernannt" — in other words consecrated by Cardinal Barbarigo but appointed by the pope. Normally, we would prefer the secondary sources over the (tertiary) ADB, but I'm inclined to believe the latter. Kardel is an M.D. and a good source on Steno's anatomical work, but maybe less so on the niceties of the Apostolic Succession, and Garrett Winter doesn't actually use the word "consecrate", only "appoint". The ADB is, as far as I know, considered very reliable, and, hey, it's German and the original is printed in Fraktur ;) The claim of Barbarigo as consecrator is supported by this website, but I don't know how reliable it is.

I suspect most readers will be less than fascinated by this nitpicking, but I invite comments from fellow nitpickers. Favonian (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I reverted the article back to Pope Innocent XI as consecrator, I was to quick in doing so. Cardinal Barbarigo was presiding the ceremony of the episcopal ordination of Steno (consecration is not in use since Council Vatican II). In that sense he was the consecrator of Steno. Not a very useful info IMHO but that it is what the infobox is all about. Here is another source [2] I would suggest to put Barbarigo back. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for implementing it. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latin name[edit]

The article states without a reference that taking Stenonis to be a genitive is a mistake. This despite the fact that his unattributed portrait names him Nicolaus Stenonius and the title page of his magnum opus gives the genitive of his name as Nicolai Stenonis, so the notion that Stenonis is a genitive is obviously not mistaken. Both the adjective Stenonius and the genitive Stenonis can be taken to mean "[son] of Steno". Though I know no Danish, I suppose that Stensen could be taken to mean the same thing. I propose to correct this erroneous note. Rwflammang (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The original meaning of Steensen is "son of Steen". --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First there is a reference. What you suggest is interesting (and I would tend to agree with you) but it is original research until proved proven otherwise. Second, even if the Steensen means the son of Steen, it does not imply that Stenonius was deliberately chosen by Nicolas after latinizing his father's first name Steensen to Steno (and not Stenus, Stensius, Stensionus, ...feel free to fill in the dots) and taking the genitive to become Stenoni(u)s. Third, the English-speaking scholars decided to call him Steno because they follow the same path you just did: thinking it was a genitive. But where they right to put this intension in Nicolaus' mind? Wath about Nicolas? Why Nicolas and not Nilo, Nilso, Nilsius,...???
You are misinterpreting the cited reference, and whether it is original research or not is not relevent, since no-one is proposing to insert a statement that Steno is the Latin name of his father. What is proposed is removing a contra-factual statement that Stenonis is not a genitive. Stenonis is a genitive; that's Latin 101, not original research. It can be clearly seen on the title page of the first edition of his own work which is displayed in the article: Nicolai Stenonis De Solido. The genitive Nicolai Stenonis is ambiguous in Latin; it can be interpreted conventionally as "Nicolas Steno's De Solido," or it can be interpreted per Winter as "Nicolas [son] of Steno's De Solido". Either way it is a genitive. It is either (a) the genitive of his own name, or (b) the genitive of his father's name.
It's pretty obvious that his father's Latin name was Steno (or less likely Stenon) since the genitive he wrote on his title page was Stenonis and not Steni from Stenus, or Stensii from Stensius, or Stensioni from Stensionus. Let me also point out that the genitives Nilonis, Nilsonis, or Nilsii do not appear on his title page, but only Nicolai, the genitive of Nicolaus.
He could have done like Ignacio de Loyola, born Iñigo de Loyola, that choose as latin name "Ignatius" and not "Enecus". It went so deep that, even in Spain today, we don't use Iñigo anymore but Ignacio! What he did was to adopt for France and Italy a (pen) name which he believed was a simple variant of his own, and which was more acceptable among foreigners (per Jesuit scholars, not my POV).
In conclusion, scholars saw in Stenonius the genitive of Steno (as you did) but this does not imply that it is correct. There is a reference that says they were wrong in doing so. That is what the note is all about. Feel free to remove it once you back your POV with references.
Scholars see the genitve of Steno with good reason. You are misinterpreting the reference. From Garret Winter, page 175, we have:
Niels Steensen, the Danish form of the name, in accordance with the learned custom of his day was Latinized by its bearer as Nicolaus Stenonis. The current form, Steno, is due to the mistaken idea that Stenonis was a genitive case... According to custom, Steno took his surname from his father's given name.
Looks like Winter agrees with our original research; Steno was his father's name. You are interpreting Winter's second sentence too literally and out of context. Allow me to explicate: The current form, Steno, is due to the mistaken idea that Stenonis was a genitive case [of his own name, rather than his father's name]. In other word's Winter supported translation (b) above, and not the more conventional translation (a).
But even if a fundamentalist translation of Winter's brief, off-hand not-a-genitive comment turns out to be correct, is it relevant? Do we really need to say that Stenonis is not a genitive? Even if it were true (It isn't.), what does it add to the article? Let's just list his two attested Latin names, Nicolaus Stenonis and Nicolaus Stenonius and be done with it.
This all discussion remembers me the painting of Magritte The Treachery of Images (The painting is not a pipe, but rather an image of a pipe). I tweaked the note.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the page should be moved to Niels Stensen, his only real name, chosen by the Holy See for his beatification, leaving his pen name Steno(nius) as a redirect. Hope this helps.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His Danish name is not his only real name. He himself published under his Latin name, and he also surely had Italian and German names. He is famous enough to also have an English name, and that is the name we should use by default on the English wikipedia. Rwflammang (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macaronic mix-up[edit]

Even if we can't agree to drop the inaccurate not-a-genitive comment, let us at least agree to replace the un-attested name "Nicolas Stenonius" with either his English name or one of his two attested Latin names. "Nicolas" is the English form of his first name, and "Stenonius" is a Latin form of his surname. Rwflammang (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected his name in the caption to match the rest of the article.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing skull part II[edit]

According to L. Kooijmans on p. 345 of his "Gevaarlijke kennis" there is an account of the opening of the grave in 1946 on page 997 of "Nicolai Stenonis epistolae et epistolae ad eum datae quas cum prooemio ac notis germanice scriptis" edidit Gustav Scherz. 2 tom. Kopenhagen und Freiburg, Nordisk Forlag und Herder, 1952.Taksen (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The skull was not missing, but but partly damaged and pulverised.Taksen (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steno's Beliefs[edit]

Can anyone tell me why this article implies that Steno rejected the Bible because of his observations? Steno upheld the Biblical account of a global flood, even if adopters of his theories did not. 69.47.28.209 (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tetralogy of Fallot[edit]

Nicholas Steno in 1673 originally described congenital heart disease which include: ventricular septal defect, overriding aorta, pulmonic stenosis and right ventricular hypertrophy. This condition was subsequently called Tetralogy of Fallot for a physician Etienne Louis Arthur Fallot who was the first who made a precise diagnosis at the bedside in 1888. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kach63 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 September 2013

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicolas Steno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolas_Steno&oldid=1194070211"