Talk:Paleopathology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The added content to the article is nice but the editor took out all mention of soft-cell paleopathology. I find this especially odd since they use Aufderheide (aka "the mummy doctor") as a source.
In truth, it wasn't so much that it was taken out, as it wasn't in to start with. The original stub was merely the small amount at the top of the page. I did not wish to put in facts without checking them first though so to date have only entered those pieces of information I've been able to check. Hopefully I will be able to add more in the future, unless others are able to do so first.
[edit] Recent Theories Section
This is an interesting addition, but I am concerned about a couple of things. Firstly, it feels a little less than neutral. This sentence in particular bothers me:
...uninformed modernist perceptions skewed by human urban populations' rough times in the dark ages, and more towards an informed and enlightened comprehension of the relative luxury, abundance, and ease of life in pre-agricultural times.
It feels a little too strongly worded for true neutrality. Would it be possible to edit slightly?
The other point is to ask whether we can support the argument about how influential those particular papers are? Do we have references for other works who have been heavily influenced by those original authors? Silverthorn 12:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
