Talk:Joseph Justus Scaliger

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Time High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment[edit]

Just a bit above Start class.

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives Just a bit above Start class-- And if anyone needs a good infobox, it's this guy.

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉ 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely well written piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.82.152 (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False history creator[edit]

The Russian scientist Anatoly Fomenko has claimed Scaliger, Dionysius Petavius and others of having created a false world history.[1] Perhaps some mention of this is warranted in this article? __meco (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. Julius and Josephus Scaliger, created western (semitic) "chronology" - according to Jews and their Torah (1. torah was written in 11th century AD - Leningrad Codex btw). They have created also pope Gregory and Gregorian and Julian calendar (by Julius Scaliger) in 16th century ...AD.

Fomenko is correct about many things; he knows that 1. jewish semitic christian "cross symbols" started to "appear" in 13th century AD and that "jesus" was crossed in 11th century AD (and he is 100% correct). Jews stole Slavic "pagan" tradition in Tsarigrad (Konstantinople) - including Vedic Kolia-Dar ("byzantium calendar"), Hrstna (became egyptian Krst or Kristos- christ), the holy trinity; which was compiled to Egyptian (Osirian) trinity of Asura (Indian demon of the underworld)- Osiris - "New Yehowa", Isis (Mary) and Horus (Jesus - Krst). But Krst Horus ("incarnated god Horus) was always slavic "pagan" god Hors or Horo or Svetovid "The all seeing one"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.196.96.116 (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying these things were claimed by Salinger or are you claiming all of these things? Most of the previous comment is nonsensical and I can't understand what you're trying to say. I'm not trying to be rude, it just lacks clarity. Rs180216 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The opening edit is clear, although the user has been site banned. The unsigned edit below it seems to follow in a zigzag manner. One of the problems of current archaeology is in the interpretation of "facts". It was A. Fomenko's contention that something was wrong with the timeline proposed by J. J. Scaliger. Looking at his illustrious career and accomplishments in mathematics, some skepticism should be applied to those who would discredit him out of hand. As with cosmology, there are some historical anomalies that remain unexplained in a logical way. For example, there was an obvious transition from hunter-gatherers to building highly precise and megalithic architectural structures (Great Pyramid of Giza, extensive tunnel network in the Near East, Middle East, Europe and all the way to China, megalithic structures in the mountains of South America, etc.). In Egypt, granite boxes have been found that defy an explanation as to how they were constructed. According to archaeologists, the boxes were made with stone pounders and copper chisels, drills, and saws. The unfinished box in the Cairo Museum has a deviated cut that indicates tolls of advanced design were used. The precision of the interiors of these boxes begs to differ with the historical account of archaeologists, which begs the question whether archaeologists are covering up something for convenience sake. The precision of parallel cuts in the granite boxes are of the order of 0.002" across their length of approximately 9 feet. These cuts terminate in 90 degree corners that reflect the same level of precision. This is something (making a single piece granite box such as those in the Serapeum at Saqarra) that can only be achieved today using laser technology. The polish found on the inner surfaces of these boxes can't possibly be done using stone pounders, and the copper chisel joke is an insult to the intelligence of your fellow man. Archaeologists have used copper chisels on limestone with no joy. They give up on every attempt for the very reason we have the science of physics. Copper (Mohs hardness of 3) is much too soft to use even on limestone (Mohs hardness of 2 to 4). Granite has a Mohs hardness of 6 to 8. Copper tools were not used to fabricate the granite boxes, statues or other artifacts. Calling this to the world's attention should be unnecessary because archaeologists already have evidence that some form of advanced technology was used worldwide. One doesn't go from running after rabbits with a stick to wielding millions of 2 - 60 ton (4,000 to 120,000 pound) stones, cutting them with precision joints and assembling them with modern engineering craftsmanship unless they have modern methods. Scaliger examined historical texts in order to come to his conclusions. If current archaeologists are creatures of convenience, why would historians be considered above the best of scientists we have at our disposal? Historians are as human as archaeologists, and just as suspect to follow the lemming in front of them. I move that the "False History" section be included by default. Any objections? BRealAlways (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I take that the edit above is for comedic effect? In case it is not, oppose. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that BRealAlways believes that Chariots of the Gods? is a factual documentary. Ignore per WP: verifiability. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia presents topics from an accepted knowledge perspective (WP:ABIAS, WP:FRINGE) and is not to push conspiracy theories of supposed evidence suppression, etc. It's also not to promote individual opinions and the above offers no reliable source to work with (original research, WP:OR). —Paleo Neonate – 03:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soul of honour?[edit]

The text at the moment reads "Himself the soul of honour and truthfulness", and there is a note against this saying that a citation is needed. More likely it needs deleting. Housman in his preface to Manilius describes Scaliger's claim that neither he nor his father had written anything that they knew to have been written or said by anyone else as "arrant gasconading". There are other references to Scaliger in Housman's selected prose (ed. John Carter) which might usefully be included in the piece. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a few interesting word choices like this, such as the descriptions of Cujas as the greatest living jurist. The author of this article used very colorful language, but a lot of it seems very subjective and not very neutral. It also is constantly making statements that need citation, or that speak to the subject's state of mind and are totally unfounded without a source to back them up.

Was this article an original writing or was it just lifted from a different source? The style just seems to contrast with what is generally seen on Wikipedia, but to try to correct it rather than rewrite it entirely from a neutral objective position would be very time consuming. Rs180216 (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language classification[edit]

Something should be said about his early attempt to classify European languages. His main criterion was the word for "God", so there were Gott languages (Germanic), Deus languages (Latin and Romance), Bog languages (Slavic), Theos languages (Greek), and several other minor groupings ("Epirotic", Tartar, Hungarian etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, you have just volunteered to do the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

I changed Scaliger's supposed 'Dutch' nationality into 'French', adding a note that he spent the last part of his life in the Netherlands. Compare the French and Dutch page, where he is called 'French' in both instances. 146.175.202.162 (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Protestantism?[edit]

I found the following in the Encyclopædia Britannica:

"The son of an Italian physician and philosopher, Julius Caesar Scaliger, who immigrated to Agen in 1525, the young Joseph entered school at Bordeaux and quickly proved himself an extraordinarily precocious student. In 1559 he went to Paris to study Greek and Latin and then began to teach himself Hebrew, Arabic, Syrian, Persian, and the principal modern languages. He converted to Protestantism in 1562 and set out on travels to French and German universities and to Italy to study its antiquities. After the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day (August 1572) and the persecution of French Protestants, he went to Geneva, where he taught at an academy, returning to France in 1574. He was called to the University of Leiden (1593), where he became known as the most erudite scholar of his time. He remained there until his death."

Where does this go into the article?--Goose friend (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Justus Scaliger. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222141527/http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/research/projects/scaliger/scaligers-correspondents/ to http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/research/projects/scaliger/scaligers-correspondents/

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) 15:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1911 source[edit]

Considering recent events I looked at this article. Some of the text is a verbatim copy of (now public domain) 1911 source also found at w:en:Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Scaliger although some sentences have recently been modified. I suggest that if these are kept, that explicit block quotes be used perhaps. Or more copy-editing so that it's more a summary... There probably also are more recent sources. —Paleo Neonate – 16:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think copying from public domain sources (with attribution) is explicitly allowed, but I agree we should summarize and rewrite. I wouldn't support lengthy block-quoting. For anyone else looking to get into this, here's the ToolForge copyvio report showing overlap between the current version and the Britannica source. Firefangledfeathers 16:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes not a copyright issue and not necessarily urgent, —Paleo Neonate – 21:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]