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) [Copied text ends here.  Oreo Priest  talk 13:47, 31 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)
 * 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)


 * 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
Substituted at 02:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)