Talk:Michael Servetus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spain (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Christianity / Theology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Top-importance).

Leave a stub when archiving please[edit]

You archived discussions only a couple of months old and not very lengthy at that. These are still considered "active."

They were not active. There was no need for a stub (this was done in the same manner as bot archiving, only done manually). --Nouniquenames 00:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Second Archive?[edit]

Some 80,000 characters have recently disappeared from this talk page, said to have been archived. The only archive I can see is labeled March 2005 to June 2012 and actually ends in August 2012. Where is this second archive? J S Ayer (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no second archive yet. Checking the history of the page, it seems that user HammerFilmFan changed manually the text of the archival link to June ([1]), and when his changes were reverted by administrators, the link was not modified accordingly. The whole conversation should be archived now. --Jdemarcos (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The cut in half of the Baby Servetus before Solomon, instigated by DeMarcos[edit]

All in the name of who knows what. A reflection on how editions occured lately. Basically we have here as an editor a Trustee from the Michael Servetus Institute, which refers secondary sources which do not lead to any primary source. So his interest is not truth. Basically, he has to diminish the Hebraism of Michael, so the theory of Tudela might sound more unlikely, and so they can kind of say he learnt it in that small village in the north or Aragon. (Aparently you do not know anything on the Hebrew University of Jerusalem when it comes to study Biblical Hebrew, Sephardi, and all their branches) Yes, he also learnt there astronomy, medicine, pharmacology, geography greek and Latin, and all those "non related to Jewish culture" branches, even before attending schools. It is hillarious. But it is required. No hebraism, it is dangerous it gets closer the " Tudela Hypothesis" as DeMarcos defines it, when it is indeed " New Identity " theory, but well that is what he cares of. Ah, and we have an awful attempt to cut the works in half, or more than in half, in a senseless try not to infer indirect authority on the Idenitity research branch of Gonzalez, for he is the author of borth branches, the 10 new works, and the theory on the De Villanueva name. Readers can assist to a persistent amputation of Michael's skills, and works, in the name of taking a theory away. For those joints, vital ones have been reassembled by Dr Gonzalez. We can see the blood Jaume de Marcos. And we can see who cuts the baby in half. You, the works, the skills, and anything required. As long as you can " keep him " for your insitute. More than a responsible search for truth and meaning, sounds like a responsible calculated attempt to control perception, and retain in your world what you got used it. I will support a COI again, if this goes on. Do you ever stop to think on what Michael would say to you if he would meet you? Or what the UUA would say if they figure out what you have been doing? Amputating- in vain - one of their martyrs? Denying em the righ to know why Michael gets interested in the Trinity when he was just 20 years old?That is solved. Or one of the main reason for him to go to Geneva besides confronting Calvin, for sacrifying himself for his friends the printers of Lyon? That is solved. Andidentifying as a beloved father someone who basically traumatized Michael in who knows what ways for him to send the Inquisition against him 4 times, after 2 decades? What I can do is denounce your COI. Too explicit, too gross. Too bad faith. Too repetitive. Know this readers, the references you guys are seeing are mainly from drummond, a very old reference, not in quality but in ignorance of documents that showed up after. WHen it comes to Baron, he refers to Castro Y calvo , another historian, and this Historian refers to a senseless Act, not possibel to adulterate as any act, with data of events which would occur 40 years after. Michael Doctor, Juan Priest. Explicit. Basically we have an article full with references that go to no document, but letters. Wikipedia needs a stronger policy in references. The strength of a secondary source- study relies on if they have. or NOT, a primary source. One thing is not to let a fringe issue flood the article, and another is not to let a sand castle ever fall down, just cause many people say they like the castle. Just for you guys to reflect, on what we say that happened, and why. Solomon would identify which mather has bad intentions. The mother that discovers the Jewish converso Heritage, 10 works, documents of the brother Juan Serveto, finds the connexion between " I am not Servetus but I take the person of "Servetus" for confronting Calvin, and answer him as "Servetus".... and " Jesus takes the person of the Chirst" or " All this matter is on the concept of "Person", and Calvin does not understand it " or " there are three persons, dispositions, aspects, of the divinity" all sentences by Michael. That is the key for knowing what goes on. And, the world, and even your Unitarian Universalists Fellows, have the right to know about it.The Reason for him to be interested in the trinity, his names, the persons and the Trinity. So basically for all this was found out by the same researcher who defends the birth of Michael somewhere else, it must be amputated from Michael, works, the Persons allegory, the key issue, and some of his skills, in order for all to fit i I know few people with a deep love for Servetus but it is also difficult to find such bad faith, go play with ur castle Demarcos. If beachwatchers do not see what you do, it will not be me who will be wasting my time with people who basically defend nothing but themselves, proyected on historical figures, in an inerte and destructive-patriotic way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Alaster (talkcontribs) 10:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As someone else recently wrote to you, "Alice Alaster, those editors agreed with you on promoting fringe research. The proof is that you only quote from one source, i.e. (Dr. Echeverría's own website), or his book El amor a la verdad (paid and edited by the regional government where Tudela is located), or you refer to congress minutes and unknown publishing houses that have proven impossible to verify..." Good luck in your quest... Azx2 06:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
That someone else was DeMarcos himself, so lets not say biased things.I think you mean I refer to academic Journal Vesalius ( two different scholars, which I cited, after Aug2012), Pliegos de Bibliofilia, Historia 16, Vesalius, Aki Yerusalahim, Sociedad Navarra de Bibliotecarios, Raices Revista juida de Cultura, Principe de Viana Magazine, and many more. Those are accesible from the website I mentioned, yes, profile section 25 pdfs. But they are not " The website" but actuall magazines anyone can check. So your comment is just biased. It was paid by a sixth of the total, 1000 euros as anyone can check, if you refer to the last book of Gonzalez, contrary to DeMarcos, who was paid TOtaly, two books, by the Michael Servetus Institute So I guess DeMarcos needs better luck than I do. . And I guess that according to your reasoning, then the book Gonzalez got paid by the same institute De Marcos is a part now, 1997 Michael Servetus Editor of the Dioscorides,says nothing to you now. Nor it does why they intensely deny what they published, promoted, released to the press, and made special lectures about. Everyone knows what goes on and the proofs are here. Here first thing, you can check how things were in 1995 and how are now All that needs to be amputated by this user, and it will not be allowed. Thanks anyway for your good wishes.--Alice Alaster (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 57[edit]

This is a small matter, but I think accuracy counts, even in small matters. In the list of Servetus' works, the third, the 1525 Geography, mentions the edition of Bilibald Pirkheimer. The footnote calls him Bibibald Pickheimer. I think the first is correct, but only someone with access to the first edition can answer this: How is the name actually spelled in the printed text? J S Ayer (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear J S Ayer. The name Michael wrote down varies, for Latin forms need to be conjugated: ex Bilibaldi Pirckeymheri in the cover of both 1535 and 1541 editions, and Bilibaldo in 25th line of the prologue in the Trechel Bros's edition of 1535 in Lyon, and in the 28th line in the prologue of 1541 De la Porte & Gaspard Trechel's ' edition in Vienne Isère, always right next to Erasmus. Its english propper form and wikipedia inner link would be to Willibald Pirckheimer--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

( if you ment what Willibald wrote down in his own geography in 1525 then it is Bilibaldo Pirckeymhero, but I think you ment the geography of Michael of 1535 right? :))--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant that the third letter of the first name is l in the first case, b in the second, and that the third letter of the second name is r in the first case, c in the second. Inflection has nothing to do with it. J S Ayer (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just gave more information cause I did not understand what you exactly ment, I simply checked two tomes of my private antique collection, I hope it helped to figure out those letters,:).--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

So, will someone please look it up? Is it printed as BiLibald PiRkheimer, or BiBibald PiCkheimer? J S Ayer (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I already answered to your question. As I said, none of them. It is Bilibaldo "Pirckheimer" , B,I,L,I,B...... P,I,R,C,K. Every time that name shows up in Michael's work, and also in Bilibald's own works. I did look it up, in the prologues of both editions of the Geography of Ptolemi of michael and I told u the lines,and I looked up Bilibaldo's own work from 1525. I thought that was already clear.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

On the faith of your answer, I have altered the spelling in the footnote to what you say the original said. J S Ayer (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


The article jumps confusingly between 1553 and 1546 and back again. On which date was Servetus's book (Christianismi Restitutio) written? On which date did Calvin send Servetus a copy of his own book? Was Restitutio written in 46 and published in 53? In which year did the exchange of letters between the two men occur, 46 or 53? DancesWithGrues (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear when Christianismi Restitutio was started, or how long it took for Michael to complete it, sources suggest an inttermitent process through more than 7 years. There is a draft by Servetus of 143 pages of this work which is dated c.1546, called Manuscript of Paris, which matches with the description of Michael sending a draft of his work to Calvin, in 1546, a draft that Calvin never gave back to Michael. This shows up Michael was working in Chirstianismi Restitutio in a serious way at least since 1546. It is certain anyway that it was published in 1553 with Arnoullet, as you said. The exchange of letters occured in 1546--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)