Talk:Cadaver
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Medicine | (Rated Start-Class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Editing Needed
The article appears to need a large amount of editing in order to comply with WP:MOS and especially WP:WTA. The article makes extensive use of weasel words to "support" unsourced statements. 216.229.90.67 09:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. This article exhibits very poor writing style and a lot of unreferenced claims. It is NOT suitable encyclopedia material. It should be entirely re-written or deleted altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.219.138 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cadavers Over the Years
Aside from citing references in the rest of the article, Section 6 needs a major overhaul. There are way too many idioms, slang terms, and the tone just sounds like it is trying to be too funny/cutesy. Meg 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I laughed out loud when I saw "Rumors had it that the anatomists were in cahoots with the zoo keepers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcnient (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Split Corpse from Cadaver?
I agree that this article still needs some heavy work. While we're at it, though, I wonder if a split is called for. "Corpse" and "cadaver" have very different connotations, and are not typically used interchangeably. Is this enough to support splitting the article, though? Any thoughts, anyone? Wilhelm meis (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Inflammatory accusations
I have deleted this line: "In Bosnia, Serbs in hospital dissected alive Muslim victims (some pregnant women)." because there are no references, no year, and no background information given. It also seems to be inserted only to make an inflammatory accusation. 66.74.32.216 (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)KatellaGate
[edit] Edited
Sorry, I felt I had to edit this page because, quite frankly, it was creepy as sin. It sounds like it's written by a child who found a corpse down by a river and watched it with rapt excitement for a few months.
I haven't added anything, but I've cleaned up some of the language to make it sound what I think to be more encyclopedic. I also removed things like 'the organs eventually resemble the color and consistency of chicken soup'.
I haven't much edited before so if you feel it should be reverted please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.234 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. It still needs a lot of work though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.234 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A thought
Mind me for saying, but - this is terrible! Not only does the article not emphasise the importance and use of cadavers, it does not reflect the term itself properly. Can someone competent enough (and, by that I mean decently familiar with the subject) write it, perhaps from the very beginning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.242.250 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] At that time, Christians believed in the literal raising from the dead
I'm pretty sure us Christians still do, specially Eastern Orthodox. For this reason there only opened a crematorium in Greece relatively recently under EC pressure; many Muslims and Jews believe the same....it is important to have a body buried with as many pieces as possible. Clearly things go wrong, and bodies do get totally obliterated, so Christians would say God is able to take all those particles back and put them together again, but crucially it is a literal raising of the dead, with bodily integrity, and a face that recognizably resembles that person in this world, beatified. Metropolitan Kallistos says this in his book The Orthodox WayEugene-elgato (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
