Talk:Body Worlds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Parts of this read like a press release. "Cirrhosis" is misspelled. I could barely read this thing.
Contents |
[edit] Controversey
Does anyone have any information on the California Science Center's investigation? There should be a link or a source for that. --RedViking 22:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative computer simulation
Proponents for the increased respect and courtesey for the human body point out that the inventors went ahead with the institute without due consideration to alretnative non intrusive methods of anatomy illustration such as digital computer rendered simulation. Computer simulation of the human body would alow much closer and detailed analysis of the human body. Zoom in, see through and body position maneuverability could allow a digitally simulated model much greater detail and content than a physical model ever could. Redistributing the simulations in the form of software over the internet, could further accomplish a broader viewer base and through a much more flexible means without ever requiring the use of bodies. Because of the versatility of software and the development of computer technology today, a virtual model is not only vastly supperior and more available to viewers world wide, but also an opportunity for further scientific development. The lack of a free, open source, world wide available simulation while continuation of plastination, is not only unscientific, but also disrespectfull to the human body.
[edit] ===================================
Hey, just saw this exhibition yesterday... pretty incredible stuff. So anyway, where can we index this in Wikipedia?
(text copied from my talk page)
Hi, thanks for writing up the Body Worlds exhibits. I was wondering why you put some of the titles in parentheses? Maybe that should be explained. Cheers, AxelBoldt 19:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- The titles in parentheses were ones where I had no idea what the real name was, and just wrote a descriptive term. If anyone knows the actual names of the works, they're more than welcome to insert them. --NeuronExMachina 04:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this exhibit will be visiting Vancouver?
Does anyone know if this exhibit is in NY? I thought I say an ad for the exhibition to be in NY in February.
I think something might need to be added to the section about the exhibit of the pregnant woman. I have seen the exhibition (in Munich) and this was one of two exhibits I had a real ethical problem with. If the woman had really died a natural death of a terminal illness (as is apparently claimed by Hagens, though I don't remember seeing any info to that effect at the exhibition), surely the child could have been saved at eight months gestation. Why would the mother agree to the foetus' inclusion when it could have lived? I think it's much more likely that she was killed in a car accident or similar. Does anyone have any other info on this, or on the origin of any of the bodies?--Dub8lad1 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just saw the exhibit today (in St. Paul). They had a sign that said the woman had a terminal illness, and that the baby could not be saved. No further details were given (and that was the most detail given about ANY of the exhibits). --Rehcsif 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This line should probably be removed.
"However, Von Hagens does not make the same claim for all bodies prepared by his plastination institute, only the ones exhibited in Body Worlds."
Unless there is any facts or truth that this claim is based on then it is pointless and implies strongly that the Von Hagens may be involved in such activities.
As such, such loaded speculation has no place in a factual article.
- I disagree. Controversy remains on the legitimacy of the cadavers sourced from China and Kyrgyzstan. The fact that Von Hagens only states that those used in the Body Worlds exhibits were sourced legitimately says nothing about whether the bodies used by his Institute for Plastination are similarly legitimate. Without that line in the article the implication is that there is no longer a controversy, which is not the case. -- Hux 09:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Profit
Does anyone know if this is a for-profit exhibit? I know that the competing exhibits are for-profit (Premier Exhibitions Inc).
-
- It is. (I worked for one of the venues...) LordAmeth 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)