Talk:Dissection

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Slatere4, MirrorLake23023. Peer reviewers: Slatere4, MirrorLake23023.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Image request note: Need images of non-mammalian dissections. A plant image would be a good contrast, as well as one with a bit more context, e.g. a students doing a dissection. Richard001 09:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Erasistratus and Herophilus were conducting human dissections in Alexandria long before this Ibn Zuhr character. The page should probably be updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.241.226 (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture of dissected rat

I know the picture is informative, but I don't think it's entirely necessary. Lemmy12 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree, maybe it should be a less disturbing picture or at least a warning sign 69.236.179.204 06:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That should be got rid of, infact I'll do it now and if anyone is that bothered they'll do it again. 86.150.190.9 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're a bunch of pansies - It's anatomically correct and should remain there. It's a small image, nothing large or clearly distinctive without clicking on it, in which case you are responsible.

It's still unpleasant to look at. If I wish to see anatomically correct pictures of dissected rats, I will seek them out. 71.171.203.223 02:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, if you want this picture removed, look at "what wikipedia is not". There you will see that things are not removed just because they are found objectionable or offensive. A warning sign is unnecessary, wikipeda already has a content disclaimer. If you want to change something on wikipedia it should not be because you feel like it, it should be in accordance to wikipedia policy. Johnnyeagleisrocker 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I personal believe that the picture of the rat it just fine. If you are looking up dissection on Wikipedia or google or whatever then you must know that you are going to come across a picture of some DISSECTION!!!. Therefore if you would like to see less pictures of dissected rats i would suggest you stop looking up dissection. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.241.89 (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What if you don't know what dissection is? Seems like that would be a common reason to look it up. -kotra (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are a science major,these pictures should not bother you at all.--Taulant23 (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not catered to science majors. -kotra (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I do not find offense to this picture- but I do understand the fear and disgust more squeamish types may feel when they look at it- it's kind of jolts you at first! Can we make a compromise here? How about the photo is located further down the page, towards the middle or end of the article, and you can say, further above it "Picture Below" (Or you could replace the rat picture up top with text reading "Picture Below", and one would scroll down to see it). This would give warning to those who'd rather not look at it. I understand the "What Wikipedia is Not" piece, but I think it's time to draw the line when people are not offended, but afraid or nauseous. 72.160.174.65 (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though Wikipedia is not censored, there's no sense in using a more objectionable (to typical readers, not "science majors") image when a less objectionable image gets the same information across. According to Wikipedia:Profanity: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." (emphasis added). So I've gone ahead and replaced it with an illustration of a human cheek dissection (from Gray's Anatomy), which should be less offensive but still get the information across. Alternatively, a photo of a plant dissection (as suggested above) would be good, but the only one I found was Image:Ginkgo embryo and gametophyte.jpg, which I don't think is quite as informative. -kotra (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. In addition, the image of the rat dissection is a bit misleading for this article, since rat dissections (along with frog dissections) are mostly the province of American high-school science classes, which are a bit of a footnote in the history of dissections. --Delirium (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep the rat. There are far worse things in the world, in our hospitals, on our streets daily, and far worse things described on wikipedia. If anatomical dissection is shocking to people, perhaps it will prompt them to consider the moral calculus that leads to the sacrifice of animal lives in the name of the advancement of human knowledge, the calculus which makes dissection (the topic of this article) morally acceptable. Bakerstmd (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Holey moley "Muh censorship, muh offensive, muh fear", and most ridiculous of all "Abloo abloo muh animal 'rights.'" The objection to the image is its GRATUITY, it adds NOTHING to the article other than "Ew, gross! Oh, an exploded blob of gore" compared to a less goetse.cx-looking pic of the same subject. If you really want to make WP more UHDOLT & MUHTEUR, maybe go post some dick pics to sex articles, maybe put a teddybear in frame, I hear they always need more of those. 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:C4F5:2D02:B036:D1DF (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Restored. The eye dissection does not show anything. Just someone poking at an eye with a tool. I would think many might relate more to having a human-looking eye having a sharp object poking at it then rat guts. Probably won't find anything that everybody finds acceptable. Any other photos of dissections that show more? Adakiko (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"Just someone poking at an eye with a tool" is, of course, the actual subject of the article. What more is there to "show anything" of relevance? What encyclopedic value is there for the reader to (hurr hurr) viscerally "relate more to having a human-looking eye having a sharp object poking at it"? The highschooler photo clearly shows what the article is about, the rat photo is no more obviously relevant than a trussed turkey, except it happens to look super gross. Are you here to write an encyclopedia, or a clickscare shocksite? 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:C4F5:2D02:B036:D1DF (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and remember we're not talking about just any image anywhere on the page, not in a section, nor a header, nor a gallery. We're talking about an image that you think it's IMPERATIVE be positioned at the top of the article, that will popup on mouseover from wikilinks elsewhere on WP or other wikis implementing hover popup with WP if you have JS on, or appear in autoscraped search engine results alongside the lede paragraph in numerous search engines that plop WP summaries in the first page of results. Out of EVERY OTHER IMAGE in the article, you and the other edgelord chucklefucks in this discussion think easily the grossest one simply HAS TO be that image locked into the infobox. 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:C4F5:2D02:B036:D1DF (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

High school

Hey, is dissection allowed in US high schools? Here in India, where I live, dissection is only allowed in college and university. It was banned about 7 years ago. 220.227.156.156 12:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is common place for the higher grades to dissect animals. The dissection of frogs can be found in middle school and high school, while the dissection of "more evolved" animals such as rats and pigs can be found in high schools.MirrorLake23023 (talk)

awww, poor rat, why dont you use frog or something? its less disturbing as frogs are universally used as a dissectee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.130.242.203 (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In Estonia we bought a fis from market and dissected it. - 84.50.18.147 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Animals Used

I was wondering if there was a list anywhere of animals which are dissected in high school/college. I know some of them already (fetal pig, frog, rat, starfish), but I was wondering if someone in the know could post a list. Fionaver 06:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)fionaver

any list portraying itself as comprehensive would have to be sourced. WLU (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Too wide a range in any case. While there are some standards (rats) a lot will depend on the suplier the school is useing so while dissecting a fish might be common the species will vary. Throw in dissection of insects and plants as well and any reasonably common species could end up on the list.Geni 01:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a short list based on a source (which I was using mainly for other parts of the article anyway). It cited frogs (of the Rana genus), fetal pigs, perch, and cats as the most common high-school vertebrate dissectees as of 1988, in that order, along with earthworms, grasshoppers, crayfish, and starfish as the common invertebrate dissectees. --Delirium (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding a picture!

[1] --Taulant23 (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for further development

Hello. Came to find some information on the 'performative' aspects of the history of disection--as with dramas, taking place in 'theatres' with an audience; something which in Haagen's (is it?) fairly recent tours was controversial in the UK. There's nothing here on that aspect. It would be interesting to have something on the modes/manner of presentation during the history of teaching. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the theater aspect would be an excellent improvement for the history of this topic, and possibly give a branch into the autopsy sector of discussion. MirrorLake23023 (talk)

citations

Pope Paul VI (1897-1978) clearly could not have changed any decrees in the 16th century, please clarify. The story about Vesalius working covertly is ridiculous, and his 'fleeing' because of the inquisition is a myth referred to in the wikipedia article about Vesalius. The Church did not somehow 'ban' all dissections, please clarify for a fair treatment of the subject. Thank youAhelmers (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I double-checked the source (you can get a few pages preview on Google Books) and it does say "Paul VI" oddly, but this is presumably a typo for "Paul IV", who was actually Pope in 1556. The rest is also in that source, but I'll see if I can find a better source to replace it with and edit this paragraph accordingly. --Delirium (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed and edited this entire section extensively, citing and quoting from appropriate reliable sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The section on the US need more references, particularly for the specific dates provided.MirrorLake23023 (talk)

File:Dissection of spinal cord.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dissection of spinal cord.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What happened to this image? Bakerstmd (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan History Section-Nomination for Deletion

While interesting, the Tibet section under history is without any references.MirrorLake23023 (talk)

Article Suggestions

I liked the fact that the article started straight off with an informative definition, but later in the biology section, if the focus is to stay on dissection specifically in biology, I feel like the other meanings of dissection ("the term is also used in relation to mechanisms, computer programs, written materials, etc. as a term for such as reverse engineering or literary deconstruction") is not really needed. It's kind of distracting from the main topic of dissection in biology and anatomy.

Also, the history topics about dissection in different places and where and how they do it was really interesting, but I feel like a few of those smaller areas can be elaborated on. I also agree that the area on Tibet does not seem very reliable without any sources, so verifying that there were references for that information would make it better to trust.

As for the gory pictures and videos on the page, I think they should definitely stay. Dissection is all about observing the body inside and out, no matter how gory or gruesome. I agree that if people don't want to see these kinds of pictures then they shouldn't search dissection. There shouldn't be a reason to take the truth out of the topic.

For additional information to be added, I might suggest some accomplishments or stories through using dissection. I'm sure there are some huge accomplishments that were only done through the use of animal, plant, or human dissection. Those historical components might be a good addition to the article.--Slatere4 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think adding more information to the alternatives section about virtual materials (like the Microsoft Hololens) would help establish a more complete picture of the alternatives available to medical students.

Another suggestion I have is adding images showing off these alternative methods of teaching human anatomy would enhance understanding of these types of technologies.

Finally another suggestion would be to expand on the section about Tibetan medicine. I think it would need more information and citations about Tibetan medicine to accurately show some of the history of medicine in Tibet. Vishaladu (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Further Research

• This will be useful for adding insight into the current state of dissection in upper education. It also will give insight to the history of dissection in upper education.MirrorLake23023 (talk)

• This would be a great article to expand on the history of human cadaver dissection, particularly touching on the fascinating aspect of dissection theater.MirrorLake23023 (talk)

• The history of dissection in non-Christian European cultures is lacking in comparison. This article will allow expansion into that area.MirrorLake23023 (talk)

• This would be another article that could be used to give insight into the history that is outside of the Christian-European aspect.MirrorLake23023 (talk)

• This article gives a detailed account of the history of human dissection.MirrorLake23023 (talk)

References

Annotated Bibliography of Sources

The following is a list of some of the possible reliable sources that could be used to add to this article:

1.

This source has a lot of information on dissection, from the history of dissection to the possible future of dissection. It could be used in several aspects of this article.

2.

This article could be used to expand more on the alternatives to dissection and how they could be advantageous at times.

3.

4.

These previous two sources focus on how schools are starting to provide a virtual dissection alternative instead, which could help create a section that emphasizes on the future of dissection and where it is going.

5.

Unlike the others, this focuses more on the details of dissection of animals, facts on approximately how many animals are used in schools, what is done to them beforehand, and even if they are dead or alive. It also expands on alternatives and laws related to this dissection, which might be a good addition.--Slatere4 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Article Lead Suggestion

Dissection, in terms of biology, can be defined as the separating or dismembering of a body (whether it be an animal, plant, or human) in order to study its internal anatomical structure or function. It can be found as extremely important in areas of pathology and forensic medicine in the processes done during autopsy to determine the cause of death in humans. It is, more commonly, a process usually demonstrated by biology or anatomy students, either in intermediate level courses (e.g. high school) or advanced courses (e.g. college or medical school). The less advanced courses typically focus on smaller subjects, such as small formaldehyde-preserved animals, while the more advanced courses normally use cadavers as a training tool to reinforce the information. Dissection has been a process that began hundreds of years ago and has advanced greatly throughout various places and religions. However, due to emotion towards this tool, new understanding, and new technology, there has shown to be advances in the training tools used to demonstrate dissection, which overall opens alternatives to using dead, preserved bodies as a tool. From clay methods, to computer software methods and a table virtual dissection alternative, to even the use of modern day IPads as a 3-dimensional tool, the process of dissection can viewed as constantly evolving, and will continue to evolve in future generations.

There have been debates on advantages and disadvantages of using dissection as a way of teaching anatomy and biology. The advantageous sides taken are mostly due to knowledge, skill, and attitudes, and the disadvantageous sides taken are due to practicality, cost, and health and safety the process. There have also been some issues with unknown vivisection of animals during the process of dissection, which has caused major opposition to the use of this method in schools courses and research. --Slatere4 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

For the additions in the article that I plan on trying to expand on are the current advancements in the evolution of dissection alternatives and the major controversy in the advantages versus the disadvantages in using dissection as opposed to other methods.--Slatere4 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Additional Article Lead Section

I plan to add to the history section of the article, particularly the non-Christian/ European sections. There is a lot of room for improvement in the history section, I am particularly excited about the prospect of the history in India. Expanding the Indian history would give an opportunity to add cultural diversity to the article. The large differences in religion and cultural taboos have had a substantial impact on the progression of dissection. I am also interested in adding a section on the exploration of anatomy in Persia, for the same reasons as before. I hope to offer a new perspective on the subject. As of yet, I have had trouble finding a reputable source, but I am endeavoring to find history of dissection from each continent. I hope to compile a knowledge roots tree, to trace the root of significant findings and developments. I also plan on expanding the Christian European history of dissection, given the large impact that it has had on the medical world as a whole. I will pay particular attention to significant findings throughout the years, both those that stuck and those that were disproved. A particularly dark portion of dissection history in Europe has been largely ignored as of now, the Dissection Theater and the important role it played in medical advancement and exploration. I couldn’t There is also room to expand on the state of dissection in upper education in modern society and what challenges it faces, particularly the facet of where the taboo of human dissection stands in todays society. I hope to be able to add on to the perception of dissection, both human and animal, in the modern culture. I will expand on the alternative to dissection section, not only covering the possibilities but also the areas where they are lacking. There is also the possibility of covering why these alternatives have or have not gained speed in the medical training field.MirrorLake23023 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lab rat dissection image

I have removed the image ((File:Cut_Rat.jpg|right|thumb|A lab rat dissection)) from laboratory rat. I believe it is more appropriate for dissection as per an old debate on Talk:laboratory rat. As this is not something I personally care to examine too closely, I'll leave appropriate placement to another editor. --John Moser (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The dissection image is still on laboratory rat. I don't see any consensus on its removal. Adakiko (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dissection. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060127005004/http://www.anatomy.wisc.edu:80/courses/gross/ to http://www.anatomy.wisc.edu/courses/gross/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dissection. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040828213913/http://www.dissectionalternatives.org/ to http://www.dissectionalternatives.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anatomy.wisc.edu/courses/gross/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dissection. 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:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20150513074408/http%3A//www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p%3D97 to http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=97

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Formal request has been received to merge from Down time to merge Androtomy into Dissection#History. Please discuss the proposal below.

Rationale given by proposer The Androtomy article simply consists of a dictionary definition of the word and a paragraph of information that is basically already covered on the dissection page. The Androtomy page even states it is simply a word for human dissection. Felix QW (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)