Talk:Philip Verheyen

Philip Verheyen hoax

[Copied from User talk:Brigade Piron. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)]

Howdy. Something's not right about attribution for the painting of Philip Verheyen here, and I was hoping you could help me puzzle it out. Sreshta Premnath has claimed that it's his own work including at Commons. On his webpage, he claims "The painting “Philip Verheyn Dissecting His Own Amputated Leg” does not actually exist. It is a composite image I have created in order to explore this fragility of truth and authenticity.". Additionally, the original uploader, Pieter Dehijde gave this after a Google search. I sure get the feeling he's also in the business of creating hoaxes for fun, though his other contributions don't look specious. At any rate, my admittedly clumsy search was not able to find any other evidence of this painting existing, but I'm not sure if it does or doesn't.

So is it really an old image that he's trying to appropriate? Or is it a new image that is a) a hoax, b) not freely licensed, but still c) a good illustration of the subject! I'm not too sure on what to make of this or how to proceed, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 08:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, I hate this kind of thing. I've had a look, and it seems clear that the book "Amputaties en Bewaringen" does, indeed, not exist. Considering the claim that "it is a composite image I have created in order to explore this fragility of truth and authenticity", I definitely think it should be deleted. If it is also true that much of the content is questionable, I think we have a real problem. In the meantime I've put a "hoax" tag on the page to warn unwary users... Can anyone from WP:Medicine provide expertise on this? Unfortunately it's really not my area... Well spotted! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[Copied text ends here. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)]

• Does this book look reliable? It seems to contain some of the same statements about Verheyen's life as those that are in the article now. Everymorning talk 03:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't reliable! but this one is. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What's really concerning is that people have questioned the accuracy of this article since 2007. This source says "It is highly improbable, as stated in the Wikipedia text, that Philip, a poor student at the Faculty of Theology, went to Leyden to have his leg amputated." Everymorning talk 13:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I myself even made a very embarrassing revert. But no, the first one isn't reliable, and citogenesis can't be ruled out. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've also reported the hoax image at Commons. Removing it from the article is nice, but it was in use elsewhere. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp (detail)

It isn't a hoax itself, but a modern artwork. I think the head is from this famous Rembrandt. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good spot! But it was indeed a hoax in that the creator and ostensible owner asserted it was a historical work rather than what it really is. Oreo Priest ^talk 16:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, on wiki it's a hoax Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Philip Verheyen/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I've tried to identify these sources--I could not find them in print or online. Much is made of the ambiguities in the history of this minor figure, something that wikipedia has noted as a community is common in fraudulent historical figures. At any rate, the picture featured has some inconsistencies that suggest that it is photo-shopped: the healthy foot below the table lacks the shadow that the table truss would have cast across it--something that seems curious given the use of shadow in the upper right hand corner (how could the portraitist make such a basic compositional error?). Brush strokes are inconsistent among different elements of the painting. Also, the purple shaded regions on the two limbs (at the wrist of the left arm, and at the shin of the right tib-fib) are suspicious. Furthermore, the hand featured in the portrait seems strikingly similar--if not identical--to the hand of the from Rembrandt van Rijn's "Anatomy Lesson". I am convinced that this image was fabricated. Hojasmuertas (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)