Talk:Andreas Vesalius

History of Science B‑class High‑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
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.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / 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 arts and entertainment work group.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

This article was reviewed by Nature on December 14, 2005.
Comments: It was found to have 4 errors.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Born twice?

I read here that "Vesalius was born in Brussels, then in the Habsburg Netherlands". I assume that he was born in Brussels, then LIVED in the Netherlands, but of course I am not a biographer of Andreas Vesalius. Could a historian please correct this (and other imprecisions) in this article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callacatacat (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a better way to say that would be "which was at the time a part of the Habsburg Netherlands," but the way it's worded shouldn't give any problems, either. I'm not clear how a robot would be able to recognize figures of speech like that and interpret them correctly, anyway....nor do I see why human prose should have to submit to mechanical editorial comment in any case.96.237.240.126 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Why has no one actually made this page detailed and concise? If William Harvey or Ambroise Pare can have a lengthy acticle, then why does Vesalius have a very small paragraph? anon

Charles V

"After the abdication of Charles he continued at court in great favour with his son Philip II"

does not seem right. Charles V of France succeeded by Charles VI of France

there is no mistake: the reference is to emperor Charles V of Spain (the current Belgian territory then belonged to Spain). His son was Philip II.

I have removed the myth about the Inquisition and replaced it with a reference to the article that debunked it. This article is copied and pasted from a very old source and is basically inaccurate from start to finish.

Andreas Vesalius' De Humani Corporis Fabrica (1543), is a groundbreaking text. You went too far in your critique. --Ancheta Wis 09:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bah

It says that many errors were found in galens work. Any idea what they were?

I have seen an overview of Galens errors (found, in part, by Vesalius) in one of my history of psychology text books. I'll take a look and doe necessary editing. -- Cugel 13:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

I spotted this one a few weeks ago, now I feel guilty for not having taken the time to change it! Vesalius didn't write the first books on human anatomy, he just wrote a very influential one. He was not even the first one to publish a book of his sort, though his was one of the most impressive and, at the time, accurate ones. Anyway, a small quibble, but I am now remorseful. --Fastfission 20:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many minor corrections

The original article included numerous obvious mathematical errors. For instance it stated that he entered school in Paris at the age of fourteen, while simple subtraction showed it was a more reasonable nineteen. Practically every age mentioned in the text had to be corrected.

It also appears the article was written by someone for whom English is a second language. I've tried my best to change tense and grammar to be more readable. I have also removed large rambling sections which were neither clear nor had much to do with Vesalius himself.

Hope it's better now!

Maury 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also corrected improper links and fixed a few typos. Oddly, this article is nearly identical - including the typos - to every other Versalius bio online - which came first, this one or the rest? I've looked but haven't found any good references either on or offline for either "Epistole.." or "Epitome..." in any language, including Latin, and I've searched for *years.*

Fernblatt (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

Reviewer: Neidhard Paweletz, German Cancer Research Centre (retired), Heidelberg, Germany.

Jacques Dubois (or better Jacobus Sylvanus ) did not teach at the university of Leuven (Louvain) but in Paris where Vesal went after the studies at Louvain.
In the summary: Brussels at that time belonged to the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, Belgium was not yet existent.
Vesal did not study at Venice but at Padua which at that time belonged to the Republic of Venice.
It is mere speculation that Vesal belongs to the Italian School of Anatomy rather than to the French.

All of the errors are corrected in the actual text, I'm going to remove the tag from the article. GhePeU 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Translation of Fabrica

JA: I see that some recent translators have chosen the specific metaphor of "fabric", but I have missed any evidence that Vesalius intended anything more than the generic sense of "construction", "structure", or perhaps "architecture", and probably not the more functional than anatomical sense of "workings". Cf. Lewis & Short Do others have additional data on this point? Jon Awbrey 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radicis Chynae

"During these years he also wrote Radicis Chynae, a short text on the properties of a medical plant whose use he defended his anatomical knowledge."

What does this mean? Isoxyl 12:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This passage seems very similar to one in http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/Andreas_Vesalius which itself lists as a reference, the reference at the bottom of this wikipedia article. The Arikah article is at least accompanied by some very nice illustrations, and should be credited since it seems the prose is very clearly lifted from that article, not from it's referenced source at http://www.bronwenwilson.ca/physiognomy/pages/biographies.html which is more clearly phrased, if not as nicely illustrated. Castlan 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court Palatine

"After the abdication of Charles he continued at court in great favour with his son Philip II, who rewarded him with a pension for life and by being made a count palatine."

Can anyone link to the proper definition of Palatine in this context? There are several listed, and I just want to link to the right one. I assume it is number two, Palatinate? Anyway, since this is an unusual word, it seemed linking is in order. Isoxyl 12:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical ventilation

Have added a wee bit on the above, well, one sentence. Plumped right in the middle of a section. Couldn't think of a better place for it as it describes an action, ie mechanical ventilation, as opposed to a discussion of anatomy. Hope it's okay?Mmoneypenny 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vesalius's origin

At the time, Brussels was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Now, Brussels has nothing to do with Flanders. So, what are the arguments in favor of the "Flemish" origin of Vesalius ? --Gadrel 16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, arguments except that he was born in Flanders and its name was Van Wesel? GhePeU 13:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting again. So Brussels was at the time in Flanders? Have you some geographical and historical informations about this surprising fact? And, say, Ludwig van Beethoven is Flemish? Or maybe Gus Van Sant? --Gadrel 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just check every single article that mentions Flanders. We're speaking of a man born in the 16th century, so don't use 19th century categories. GhePeU 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that YOU must maybe check the article over Brussels and tell me if Brussels had EVER been in Flanders, which is a geographical area. If you don't know a thing about geography, it's not my fault. --Gadrel 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the facts, although I would have preferred to call him Flemish myself... : Brussels was at that time part of Brabant and not of the County of Flanders, as you can see on the map. Not all 'flemish' speaking people were flemish sensu strictu. Only recently Flanders (as part of Belgium) incorporates cities as Antwerpen, Leuven and Brussels, althoug technically spoken even nowadays the latter can be debated. Sorry Ghepeu,you will have to revert. You may make him a Brabander though... Lycaon 21:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt. I love nothing more than the truth. --Gadrel 21:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His (original) last name was Witing (or Witinck), Vesalius or van Wesel is the name given to him fro his families origin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.226.247.65 (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jan van Calcar correct?

One of the sources I used threw doubt on whether Stephen Jan van Calcar illustrated the book. The reason given was the one picture known to be his for a book of Vesalius's did not look like the others. The source was a reproduction of Vesalius's Fabrica, with an introduction and side notes. It was published by DK, but that is all I remember. Does anyone have proof that this belief is obsolete (another source was very definite is saying van Calcar illustrated it, but it is about sixty years old)?P.L.A.R. 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

is it pronounced Vesalius, or more french-like like VesIy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toastthemost (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"vuh-ZAY-lee-uss"

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian uproar?

Is it true that when Vesalius discovered that men have the same number of ribs as women, there was an uproar among the Christian community, who insisted that according to Genesis, men must have one rib fewer? [1] - Brian Kendig 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fake, absolutely fake. In modern culture there are so many myths about ancient scientific knowledge which should be dismantled (e.g. Flat Earth). I am an Italian Wikipedia contributor, as regards your question I've written this and this: i hope you can read it or obtain a good translation. --(Hybridslinky on it.wiki) 80.104.203.205 (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De Humani Corporis Fabrica and the consequences

His book De Humani Corporis Fabrica (1543) triggered great public interest in dissections and caused many other European cities to establish anatomical theatres. Fleabox (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashamed

I'm ashamed. A 16k bytes article lost because no one in FOUR MONTHS thought to check the history? GhePeU (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Vesalius’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem

The article discounts the story that his pilgrimage to Jerusalem was due to an amended sentence of the Inquisition, on the basis of Donald O’Malley’s cited 1984 article in Isis. However in his article O’Malley simply discounts the inquisition version out-of-hand, with no substantiating references. A.D. White (A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom, 1993, Prometheus, N.Y. Vol II p. 54) gives the Inquisition version and cites Roth’s “Andreas Vesalius” 1892, Berlin. Roth is also cited favorably in other respects by O’Malley. Either both versions should be included in the main article or more substantial evidence should be provided for abandoning the Inquisition account. Bleistifter (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, White is just a pseudo-historian (see here: Conflict thesis), he cites Roth, but Roth does not take as true the story of condemnation. You can read Roth's work (in german) here [2]. Today no serious historian takes White's Warfare as a valid source. -- (Hybridslinky on it.wiki) 79.4.247.6 (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Hybridslinky on it.wiki[reply]

Dwarfism

I see no mention of V's short stature( mentioned on a BBC documentary recently, and apparent in the article's picture). There is no reference either at List_of_people_with_dwarfism Feroshki (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The anon edit of this article really didn't improve it

The recent (Feb 2009) editing and near-total rewriting by anon editor "86.132.134.194" resulted in a loss of a massive amount of citations and article links, and the editor has not come back to fix up the mess they created:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Vesalius&diff=269114757&oldid=269091525

While we should assume good faith on the part of editors, after leaving it a mess for so long I feel it is quite reasonable for editor Ghepeu to have done a wholesale reversion of all edits by 86.132.134.194 and the following attempted patchup edits. DMahalko (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ERROR OR VANDALISM? I think “sexual” must be an error (vandalism?) for “animal” in the following section: "Galen's research had been based upon sexual anatomy rather than the human; since dissection had been banned in ancient Rome, Galen had dissected Barbary Apes instead." But I'm not an expert, so could someone check it? Campolongo (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]