Talk:Gray's Anatomy

message: The article states that medical students have become a "secondary audience" for publishers of Gray's Anatomy, but it fails to specify what type of reader has supplanted them as the book's primary audience. The inference seems to be that Gray's has become a general public favorite, but perhaps this should be stated more clearly. Orthotox (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience 

message: I've done some research and the word originally seems to appear here more than in other articles in wikipedia. If you say "follow the yellow brick road was written by Sir Elton John" and "Follow the yellow brick road was originally written by Sir Elton John" the "Originally" is redundant. this article covers all the revisions and even tells who the editors were. No one has written the book besides Gray, everyone else has just edited or revised it. so "Originally Written" isn't needed. just like we don't need to say "Originally Born" 
"written" can't change. ownership can.
Black Mage originally owned the sword, now it belongs to Fighter. = makes sense to use the word.
Black mage was originally born in mexico. = makes no sense. he can't be born somewhere else. just like someone else can't write the book you write. or write the song you write. 
Originally is being overused in this article. if there aren't any objections I'll clean them out and leave only the needed ones. ( IE the use of the word Original is useful. Originally is not )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the word "originally" may be awkward in some places here, but how is this such a big deal to summon an edit war? Never disrupt the encyclopedia to illustrate a point. Come on people, it's just a word. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point here is that Gray's Anatomy has been so heavily edited that it's no longer appropriate to say the current editions have been written by Gray. This method of referring to Gray is also used by some of our sources: "For, while its original author, Henry Gray..." Thus keeping the "originally" in the lead seems appropriate. Huon (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't an issue until that guy came along and I doubt if it's really an issue now. andy (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Support' Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone opposed to removing the word "originally" from certain places in the article? 

message: Currently we have written "Gray's Anatomy is an English-language textbook of human anatomy originally written by Henry Gray " I propose changing this to say "Gray's Anatomy is an English-language textbook of human anatomy written by Henry Gray." since he is the sole author ( as shown in the info box ) later editions have editors ( we even say who they are in the article ) but editors edit books they don't write them. Originally implies it was later re-written, which is not the case, the book has been updated, and revised, but never re-written by another author. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned above, "originally" is used by our sources, too. The book has been so heavily edited that it's no longer appropriate to call Gray the sole author of the current editions (in fact, the publisher doesn't do so, either). I would expect little of the original text and imagery remains. Huon (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it - this is just a wind-up. He's already been blocked four times, including for edit warring over this very word on this article, so he's not going to risk it again. The next block would be a doozy. Andyjsmith (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So why do we list in the infobox Henry Gray as the sole author. either the info box is wrong or the article is wrong.Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose changing single word in introduction 

message: I removed "Although older editions may serve historic and artistic uses because their companion illustrations and anatomical cross sections are renowned for their rustic and often haunting presentation, they may no longer represent an up-to-date understanding of human anatomy." and its supposed reference "Depending on the version at hand, even the suitability of reprints and online versions for artistic purposes may be compromised due to limitations in resolution and reproduction quality." This reads like it was written by a marketing person for Elsevier.  Not NPOV, not cited, and full of weasel words.  The above paragraph being a feature list of the current Elsevier edition is pretty bad too but this line was indefensible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F921:280:A00E:FC7D:AB4B:6249 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced opinion