![]() | On January 11, 2012, Nicolas Steno was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 11, 2019. |
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
I've restored portions, since bodies of saints are of import. Novangelis ( talk) 06:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
^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)
^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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Welcome Googlers. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nicolas_Steno -- Nbauman ( talk) 13:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
What was he bishop of? Not clear from the article... AnonMoos ( talk) 13:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why is he called "Blessed" Nicolas Steno?-- Duckwing ( talk) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
Does anyone know what miracle he is claimed to have performed in order to be beatified? -- Duckwing ( talk) 12:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The skull was not missing, but but partly damaged and pulverised. Taksen ( talk) 07:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | On January 11, 2012, Nicolas Steno was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 11, 2019. |
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
I've restored portions, since bodies of saints are of import. Novangelis ( talk) 06:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
^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)
^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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Welcome Googlers. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Nicolas_Steno -- Nbauman ( talk) 13:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
What was he bishop of? Not clear from the article... AnonMoos ( talk) 13:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why is he called "Blessed" Nicolas Steno?-- Duckwing ( talk) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
Does anyone know what miracle he is claimed to have performed in order to be beatified? -- Duckwing ( talk) 12:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The skull was not missing, but but partly damaged and pulverised. Taksen ( talk) 07:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)