Talk:History of anatomy

message: Why nothing on medieval anatomy published in the Arabic language?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.132.76 (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I can't edit this page - I think it may be too long? I'd like to fix the Olaus Rudbeckius link, it should be either the Swedish or the Latin name, not a mix. -- OlofE 10:18 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
:yeh, this one needs help but it's a great start! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisDaniels (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 October 2002
Why does this comuter have more links than the history of Anatomy?
Shouldn't this page contain a brief summary of the history of anatomy, rather than just a collection of links? // Habj 00:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I

message: I just edited out some subjective matter from the conclusion and fixed some grammar. 27 Nov 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.68.54 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I spent a while looking for Mr. Berenger as well, and we don't have an article on him yet; his actual name was Giacomo Berengario] da Carpi, and you can find some info on him by Googling that.  I'm afraid I won' be able to help out much more with the reexpansion; I know almost nothing about the topic, and the stuff I wrote is mostly a cleaned up summary of the stuff it replaced.  As far as deleting names, you can find the whole original mess here in the history, so no information's been lost.  I removed some from the article in its current edition, mostly because I was having trouble determining who was and wasn't important enough for inclusion.  Anything I left out that should go back in is fine by me to readd. --RobthTalkCleanup? 13:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Work on this page and topic

message: Everything up to 17th and 18th century anatomy is well written, and then the article gets bad. Can whoever wrote or refined these sections bring what follows to an equal standard? I should greatly appreciate it. 211.28.237.149 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality

message: About Tarikh llm Tashrih (An extensive Book in Urdu on History of anatomy). The author Hakim Syed Zillur Rahman first published it in 1967 from Tibbi Academy, Delhi; he then published the second revised edition in 2009 (ISBN 978-81-906070-) from Ibn Sina Academy of Medieval Medicine and Sciences, Aligarh, India.
-------------
Review of the first edition (1967): The book contains a preface by the famous Indian Historian of Medicine, Mohammad Zubair Siddiqui of Calcutta (Mohammad Zubair Siddiqui was both nationally and internationally known for his Arabic text edition of  Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari’s Firdaws al- Hikma, published from Berlin. Another of his publication is Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature, Calcutta, 1959) and an introduction by Hakîm ‘Abdul Latîf (Aligarh). The author collected for his book a wealth of information, which he arranged in seven chapters. He traced in it the history of anatomy of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese, Iranian, Jews, Greeks (13th–3rd c. B.C.), Romans] ( 2nd c. B.C.–7th c. A.D.), Graeco-Arab (8th–15th c. A.D.), Unani medicine in Europe and in Medieval India. The span of the time period dealt with in his book is roughly of 3000 years! Interesting is the bibliography at the end of the book, which comprises a total of 62 standard sources, with the following break-up:  19 Arabic, 1 Persian, 33 English and 9 Urdu publications.  His best chapters are those in which he dealt with the Greek medicine in Roman and Arabic-Islamic ages.  In the latter he deals with 32 Islamic physician of Unani medicine. The last chapter is on Medieval Indian Unani physicians, who wrote on anatomy. It is based on original research. In so far as the historicity of certain events is concerned, the author did his best to draw upon the most up-to-date sources. For instance, about the allegation of the destruction of Alexandrian Library by the Arabs, the author has presented evidence on the falsehood of that accusation based on the works of European historians, and also on the Indian publications of Shibli Nomani and Syed Sulaiman Nadvi. The production of the book must be quite a difficult task indeed. He has employed Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic and Roman scripts for proper names and terms in the text.  He has given comprehensive information about the publications of various physicians, discussing even various editions of their original texts, wherever possible. Apart from some minor typographical or other errors, for instance of German/French words and references, this book is an excellent history for the graduates of Unani medicine. It is in fact the first compilation of its kind in Urdu and /or Tibbî literature. According to Oskar Cameron Gruner: “…It is a valuable book and a notable evidence that the western historians should realise that they are not the sole contributors in this field.” (O. C. Gruner, Letter to Zillurrahman, dated 12.1.68, published in the Newsletter of Ibn Sina Academy of Medieval Medicine and Sciences (Aligarh), Ed. S.M.R. Ansari, Vo.4, No. 1 (2004) pp.11-12.)
Hashemi1971 (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tarikh llm Tashrih

message: Why are there so many references to one university? It reads like a school childs essay  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.69.92 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birmingham 

message: The scope of this article is way too limited, as if "anatomy" only concerns the human body. --Crusio (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then add them with suitable sources, but Vesalius is definitely present in text and image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps; and Sir John Struthers too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too limited 

message: I found this article  very interesting, also I do have some minor corrections that I feel might make it even better.
In the first paragraph, could you specify what methods you were talking about, when you wrote "Methods have also improved dramatically."
This treatise shows that the heart, its vessels, liver, spleen, kidneys, hypothalamus, uterus and bladder were recognized, and that the blood vessels were known to emanate from the heart. Could you rephrase this to "this treaties shows that the heart and its vessels  were recognized, and the blood vessels were known to emanate from the heart. The liver, spleen, kidneys, hypothalamus, uterus and bladder were also recognized", I think that it sound better that way.
The Ebers Papyrus (c. 1550 BCE) features a treatise on the heart. It notes that the heart is the center of the blood supply, with vessels attached for every member of the body. Also if you can rephrase this to read like this "The Ebers Papyrus (c. 1550 BCE) features a treatise on the heart. It notes that the heart is the center of blood supply, and attached to it  are vessels for every member of the body", that would great.
In 1489, Leonardo da Vinci, known mostly for his work in art and technology, began a series of anatomical drawings depicting the ideal human form. Here, you could insert "producing" after  the word "began".
His work led to anatomy marked a new era in the study of anatomy and its relation to medicine. It is possible to rephrase this sentence?, I did not quite understand it.
God  job Mbar3466 (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edits

message: This article previously claimed "Human dissection became restricted after Boniface VIII passed a papal bull that forbade the dismemberment and boiling of corpses for funerary purposes."  This is a myth that was propagated by the nineteenth century polemicist Andrew Dickson White and which has long since been debunked by modern historians of science.  See Katherine Park, "Myth 5 - That the Medieval Church Prohibited Dissection" in Ronald L. Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 2010) pp. 43-49.  I have removed this claim from the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimONeill (talk • contribs) 02:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth about a Medieval Ban on Dissection Removed

message: I enjoyed reading this article, but there are a few suggestions.  Even though it explains and includes many information of various species such as animal tissues, vertebrate, and invertebrate.  I, as a reader, think it needs to be more relevant to human anatomy even though it includes human anatomy illustrations.  This article is well organized with appropriate categories, so it makes more clear to find what reader wants to know or read.  But, I suggest to make more clear on history category by period.  Also, it seems limited because it tries to include and treats various species.  When I checked a few citations and links, everything seems to work without plagiarism.  However, references are coming from one university and it can give confusion and biased information to readers.  If there are more explanation of images and even more images that can show the change of anatomy, it would help readers to follow the article by giving for understand. 
Leeahli1 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Some suggestions

message: I would like to work on the introduction because it seems to be to be rather vague and it seems like it could help the reader if it was more clear. I will take a stab at it, any suggestions are welcome. Mgood13 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking forward to it. Will follow. Make sure to have a look at the advice for lead sections if you haven't already come across it. Hope you stick around when your course is done. PriceDL (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I realize that my lead is probably not...great. I'm a little unsure how to characterize the development over the course of a few millennia without inserting some sort of opinion on in about it "becoming better" or "more scientific" or things that are super vague and that I'm definitely not qualified to speak upon. Mgood13 (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's fairly unsubstantial so for now I'd suggest you Be Bold. If you're going to be making lots of edits in a short space of time then add the In Use Template to the page to stop someone causing you problems; just don't forget to move it when you're done for the day. I'll have a look back in a few hours to tidy it up a bit if I think it needs it. Not quite sure what to suggest yet in terms of information for the lead as I haven't studied the history of medicine for about 8 years PriceDL (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  Have made a few small changes with edit comments for you to have a look at. I think the third sentence needs clarification or rewording, but I've left it as is for now to allow you to clear it up. Probably brief summaries (unlikely to be a paragraph each I think), or alternatively just briefly going through major developments (autopsy, functional studies, textbooks etc.) might be the way to go. PriceDL (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I will clean up this section and add some more information. This section does not read well and it seems like there are too many unconnected ideas. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Achow3 (talk), 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The reference to Michelangelo in this section belongs in an earlier section, preferably with that referring to Leonardo; both artists (and others) engaged in dissection (see, for example: http://www.kidney-international.org/article/S0085-2538(15)46851-6/pdf) in the 15th c., not only Leonardo. 67.134.206.17 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  17th and 18th Centuries 

message: Good edits Achow3! You especially did a great job of connecting different ideas together through the use of transitions. I did notice that there are some minor grammatical/punctuation errors that need fixing. There are also a couple longer sentences which could be edited, since they make the content harder for readers to understand, and would help with the flow of the article. One place you could fix this is in the Early Modern Anatomy section: "Vesalius's success was due in large part to him exercising the skills of mindful dissections for the sake of understanding anatomy, much to the tune of Galen's "anatomy project" instead of focusing on the work of other scholars of the time in recovering the ancient texts of Hippocrates, Galen and others (which much of the medical community was focused around at the time)."Acewind88 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Summary of development of biology science during the roman and greek period btween 8 and 11 centuries 197.252.202.32 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology