Talk:Nicolas Steno: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:24, 11 January 2012

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Saints B‑class

	Saints portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars 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.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Geology B‑class High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Nicolas Steno is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Science and Academia B‑class

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Denmark B‑class High‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference

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

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

Missing Skull

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]

Neighbor

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”

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"

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]

(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]

Lede

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]

Page view statistics

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

Bishop

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]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ^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. [[Special:Contributions/70.56.49.158|70.56.49.158]] ([[User talk:70.56.49.158|talk]]) 15:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 == Neighbor ==