Talk:Cadaver

message: It's odd that a picture of revolutionaries killed in clashes with soldiers during a relatively recent notable historical event (the Paris Commune) is the photo provided on this page, especially given that the other images on this page are more anonymous and scientific, whilst the first one is, again, an image of a group of people who died violent deaths, traces of which are visible on their bodies, posed in open coffins. Although it wouldn't be unreasonable to include (perhaps with more context?) on the relevant Paris Commune page, I believe there is no good reason for it to be here- especially since "cadaver" is not a term that only describes people who were violently killed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilacsoutofthedeadground (talk • contribs) 05:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Paris Communards Photo

message: 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)
thread_title: Editing Needed

message: 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)
thread_title: Cadavers Over the Years

message: 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)
thread_title:  Split [[Corpse]] from [[Cadaver]]? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inflammatory accusations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edited 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A thought 

message: 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)
thread_title:  At that time, Christians believed in the literal raising from the dead 

message: The Image "The Corpses of Paris" is Porn.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killer X4 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the first line of the pornography article and then consider what the purpose of the photograph of the Communards was. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A porn image 

message: Sure, it's general meaning is clear, but it would be nice to highlight the connotations, since it doen't seem to be commonly applied to dead humans, cf. . 88.152.4.45 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Carcass" redirects here, but isn't explained. 

message: Why is this the chosen example for all cadavers? An anonymous individual corpse, or no photo at all would be better. this isnclusion is confusing.98.172.58.7 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Communards photo 

message: In this history section of this article, there should be some reference made to Jeremy Bentham
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham) who was a key philosopher in introducing the concept of 
donating ones body to science, and thus moving anatomy from the rather macabre world of body snatching into an established science.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by W.Harwin (talk • contribs) 10:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeremy Bentham 

message: I am trying to repair the disambiguation link to Body in the article's lead sentence. The most suitable meaning seems to be Human body, but in order to know whether that's a sensible repair, I would like to know to what extent this article is supposed to be specific to humans. Or would it be okay to remove the link in question entirely? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation link repair 

message: A cadaver is a dead body: especially intended for dissection. This page should be specific to that and follow a line of medical history of cadavers and their uses. Overall, some of the subject headings and content is interesting, but there are not many sources to prove that the "interesting" facts presented are reliable. The summary section could be extended to be a brief abstract/ overview of the topics covered throughout the article. Although the definition of a cadaver is short, the information to follow is much more; the first paragraph of the article should show that.
Although decomposition matters, a section on the stages of dissection could be beneficial, these can be extended with more medical terminology to reach technical depth (citations included). The history of cadavers needs to be rewritten with proper citations, how does anyone know that the section is actually true if no one knows where the information came from? Body snatching seems like it can be a smaller part of the "history" section, especially if cadavers were stolen from the grave to be used for dissections early on (maybe be linked to its own page if it has a lot of information on its own). The embalming section also needs to draw from medical journals/ information. There are no sources present here either, which makes the information presented questionable. It can be improved with information that can be supported with technical sources. 
If the overall direction of this page is for it to be defined for medical use/dissection, to make it more reliable the information can draw from primary sources that explain the history and uses of cadavers. Cadavers are used for a lot of different things, especially in medical training. These sections most likely have a lot of sources that explain their content very well. I am interested on improving this article for a Wikiproject, there's a lot more to cadavers then just a dead body!! --Fungrach (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement of content  

message: There is a lot of editing needed on this page. 
First off, the summary at the top of the article is not complete. I think a better job could be done to completely lay out more about what a cadaver is and what the article talks about. The topics in the article could be mentioned in the summary to give a more complete look at the entire article. Another thing I noticed is that the definition used for the word "autolysis" is almost the exact definition used on the article for the word "autolysis". I think this should be switched up a bit to avoid plagiarism. 
The topic on body snatching in this article seems a little premature considering that other more relevant topics to cadaver are not covered. This topic seems like it doesn't fit in the article yet because not much else is covered in the article on the main topic. It also seems weird to me that the narrow topic of "Eloise Cemetery" is under the See Also section yet the Cadaver articles topic is broad. 
The overall focus on this article needs to be reevaluated and broken down into more about a cadaver and the topics actually relating directly to a cadaver. To me, a more in depth history, a section on people that work on cadavers, and traditions with cadavers is needed before a section on embalming and body snatching. 
The last thing that I believe needs work is the citations. In this article there are many facts presented without citations. For instance, there is an entire section on the history of cadavers with not one citation. I think this should be addressed first to make sure the article is not plagiarizing any work from somewhere else. It seems to me that the person that originally wrote this article did not do much research and did not have many sources if any.
Shelbybush (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Needed 

message: Like many previous editors have stated, the first thing that needs to be addressed in this article is that lack of citations.  Before the body and content of the article can be edited, sources need to be mentioned in order to prevent plagiarism. 
From there I would concentrate on the organization of the article. The history section of the article should be the first heading and the first information given after the introduction summary. From there I would move the Stages of Decomposition (if that information is to be kept) right before the topic heading Embalming.
 
The article as a whole offers a very brief definition as to what a cadaver is, but gives nothing more than an outline or “skeleton” to the article’s information. Much of the articles concentration is misplaced into categories that are more appropriate for an article concentrating on deceased bodies, rather than one for cadavers, as the two are different. 
The next editing done should concentrate on content. There is a lot of information missing that should be there and some information that is already provided that is not necessary at this point. The summary should encompass a larger explanation of all the topics in the article and should clearly clarify a definition for the term cadaver.  As the article stands now, the definition of cadaver states that it is a “deceased body” however; the article completely skips the uses for a cadaver and their purpose in medicine. I would add a section stating the importance of cadavers in medicine, surgical procedures, and how it helps in further studies of the anatomy of humans.  After adding these sections to the article I would consider moving the topic Body Snatching after this information. 
After editing of citations, information placement, and content as a whole is worked on. The article should be grammatically edited to improve the cohesiveness of the writing and to aid in the ease of comprehension. Concentrating on word choices and sentence structure. 
Haberme3 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Editing Suggestions

message: Firstly, since the article of “Cadaver” says that a cadaver is also called corpse, which actually both of them have different meanings and connotations. My plan is to revise their definitions, hence, I will list the different definitions of corpse and cadaver:
Corpse: It refers to a dead body which usually is a human being.
Cadaver: It also refers to a dead body, especially a human body to be dissected.
In terms of the contents of “Cadaver”, it just simply explains the human decay, history of the cadaver, body snatching and embalming. To perfect this article, I plan to add more information and details about cadaver. I will explain the situation of cadaver right now, the existing problem and the use of it. The sources are shown as below.
1.	Why there is a shortage of cadavers? 
Dead bodies are in high demand, since the number of medical students is increasing, as is the number of programmes that use cadavers. Researches and pharmaceutical companies use bodies to develop new procedures and treatments. And certified doctors also need bodies for training. Besides, due to the different cultures, China and the Middle East, dead bodies are treated with reverence, making their donation less common.
2.	The gruesome synthetic cadaver that could change medicine
To deal with the shortage of cadavers, one company claims it has come up with a solution which is to utilize the synthetic cadavers instead of dead bodies. It is so realistic that it can breathe, bleed and even move. Besides, those cadavers are reusable.
3.	Cadaver tissue effectively treats burns and ulcers.
This source explain the use of cadavers rather than being researched. University of Manchester researchers found that skin taken from cadavers can acute wounds, such as burns, as well as painful ulcers. Hence, skin taken from the dead could soon be used to treat wounds in the living.
Reference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corpse?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cadaver
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-10 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3083821/The-gruesome-world-synthetic-cadavers-Terrifying-medical-models-breathe-bleed-dilating-pupils.html 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2945873/Could-skin-DEAD-person-heal-wounds-faster-Cadaver-tissue-effectively-treats-burns-ulcers.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honggengqi (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead section 

message: I just wanted to give you a few suggestions. After I read your article, I felt as if there was a lot of information missing. Information such as, in what ways are cadavers used, the steps that follow what happens when you die, and is the process different for homicides then it is for natural deaths? I feel as if the section under body decomposition when you had mentioned about flies laying eggs in cadavers really distracted me from the main point of the article. I say this because not every cadaver decomposes in that way or the same way. As I said before, this article may be out of date because it doesn't talk about the use of cadavers now-a-days. Cadavers are used for testing cars, falls from buildings, police and firefighter equipment, etc. and that was not mentioned in this article. I did like the section on body snatching but I do think that it could be moved or put under the "History" section. Overall I think this article is underrepresented. There is a lot of valuable missing information that I mentioned above. Thank you.Whitea64 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: There are some editing need to be done on this article. The lead section doesn't properly summarize the description about a cadaver. The explanation about the origin of the term is inappropriate to be included in the lead section. The lead section should wrap up all the details about cadavers in a clear and brief paragraph. Furthermore, there are a lot of information missing on the page. The history section about the cadaver should be more included. For example, the history about Andreas Vesalius should be written. He is the founder of modern anatomy who practiced his study on cadavers of criminals. The history section should describe how the usage and perspective of dead bodies have changed over time. Finally, the embalming section contains well description but the information is still insufficient. More information about when did people started to use embalming on corpses and how the culture is related to this procedure. Some cultures don't accept the embalming procedure because preserving the dead body violates our humanity. More description about culture difference on embalming should be included. --Suelee3 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Suggestions

message: This article was interesting to read and had a lot of information. I felt the article was written in a neutral perspective.  I noticed that much of the information provided in this article did not include citations.  It seemed like much of the information was probably paraphrased from another website or a textbook.  For example, the quote, “Greek physician Herophilus (335-280 BC) [and Erasistratus (310-250 BC) performed public dissections], lived in 300 BC in Alexandria Egypt” needs a citation.  Where did these dates come from? These are facts and not having work properly cited is plagiarism and also makes it hard for the reader to know if the information came from a reliable source.  
I also felt that a few parts of the article were distracting and not needed.  The article was very vague.  I think the article would be much more powerful if it focused on the topic of decomposition and preserving of a dead body to be used for dissection.  The article jumped around a lot.  It started out with the definition of a cadaver. Then, the article explained the stages or decomposition and the history behind the start of using human cadavers.  Then, there was a description about body snatchers and specific murder cases involved with the topic of cadavers.  Although this was a big issue in the history of cadavers, it is not a relevant topic in comparison to the other sections.  
A new way to organize this article would be to start out defining a cadaver, explaining the stages of decomposition, describing the history of the cadaver, and then describing the chemicals used to preserve a body for dissection.  I believe that this will give the article a better focus and make it a lot stronger.  
Bedrolau (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk: Cadaver 

message: Overall, I think the article is informative. However, this article is missing a lot of medical history. I think the article is missing a lot of information such as what the cadavers are used for and why. It should add information about who uses cadavers and what kind of information can be discovered. I also think the article discussed too much about the stealing of bodies (body snatching) instead of its purpose. Cadavers are used by mainly by physicians and scientists to study anatomy, analyze the cause of death, and practice surgical procedures. It would be more helpful it the article referenced from more medical sources to back up the information. Choihye2 (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Suggestions 

message: -I don’t believe this article can be considered neutral. The overall approach is negative and doesn’t reference the positive side to cadavers. The usefulness cadavers have on advancing medicine should not be overshadowed by the intimidating nature of a dead body and decomposition. There is a section dedicated to body snatching giving a negative connotation to scientists utilizing cadavers. By no means am I saying that body snatching is right, however when the cadaver is properly issued to scientists the value they uphold should also be highly considered and fairly discussed.
-The viewpoint that is overrepresented is the negative mantra towards cadavers. There is little referenced about cadavers as a useful tool in the scientific aspect of medicinal learning. To shed light on cadavers and give them the proper reputation of being extremely useful there should be a section on the good they do rather than just decomposition, embalming, and body snatching. The body snatching mentions scientists using the cadavers for science in a negative way. However, there isn’t any representation of the positive effect they have had and are still do this day having throughout medicine. 
-The body snatching aspect is important however, it should be referenced as an act of the past. Information should be added to that specific section that states bodies are no longer being snatched from their graves for scientists to use. Rather humans essentially sign up to have their bodies used for science before they are dead. 
-My suggestions are as follows: provide information that values cadavers and explanation behind how they can be utilized in a positive way, give examples of different diseases that have been discovered through the use of a cadaver, and reference that body snatching is an act of the past. John3924 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Critique 

message: There are multiple occurrences throughout this article where information needs to be cited. A lot of information is being pulled from other Wikipedia pages but still needs to be properly cited on this page, for example the whole section on body preservation using formaldehyde. 
In the section where you speak of cadavers being used for medical schools in England and Scotland I think more information could be added. It is not very detailed and there is a huge history behind cadavers and their use in the medical field. I would definitely recommend adding in more content in regards to the history before the 18th century. I would also include information about the Anatomy Act from 1836 which directly addressed cadavers and dissection. 
I would recommend that the history section of this article be update through current day. There is shift in medical schools moving away from the use of cadavers and I think that is something important for a reader to know. Cadavers are still a controversial issue in medical school and is not a straight forward topic, which should be reflected in this article. 
Kinggab3 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: One area where I feel this article can improve is giving more detail about what is done with cadavers when they are given to people in the medical field. The whole point of a cadaver is to be used for educational purposes and this article does a poor job of describing what is done to the cadavers other than talking about them being decomposed and body snatching being a problem. To improve this, I believe a section should be added related to cadavers and how they have been used for educational use and assisting students in practicing medical procedures. With this new section, there can also be more citations and sources included in this article about cadavers. There is only one reference about cadavers in this article and it does not have a link and it is from 1999. The sources can be updated with more information about what a cadaver is and more sources can be added in the history section. The information in the history section had to have been pulled from other Wikipedia pages and therefore, should be cited. The last suggestion I have to improve this article is that it seems very negative in the way the information is presented. The headings about decomposition and body snatching are important but I think they bring negative attention to what cadavers represent in the medical community. The body snatching portion I believe should be added to the history section and the decomposition section could be rewritten into a move positive way.   Kaltent2 (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Suggestions  

message: The stages of decomposition could maybe be in bulleted form or more organized/separated. 
The organization of the headings could be a little better. Since the History is first, I think something that’s a little more older of a problem, should probably follow that instead of being towards the end. It’s sort of distracting how they’re just all over the place. 
In the body snatching section, maybe lead into how people began snatching corpses and why they wanted to, instead of just starting right away with “Anatomy schools began stealing bodies from graves”
Kelsimeghan (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits/suggestions  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cadaver. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/2010/08/how-a-cadaver-made-your-car-safer/
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-10/europe-takes-cue-us-and-decides-use-cadavers-make-cars-safer
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130415050422/http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/151br40.html to http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/151br40.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified