Talk:Human anatomy/Archive 1

older comments
wats up with this page? wats up with this page?this page? Vandalism anyone. I hope its reversible or there are going to be some angry people out there that have spent hours in trying to form or better this article for it to come down to what I see now at this point in time. Coolguy1368 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

mr cool guy. look at the revision history (the history tab) it has all revisions - not a problem - reguards, sven_nestle

Tissues
Perhaps the main wiki page: "Human Anatomy" is in need of a tissues section, or at least a link to the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_tissue The link could be placed under "See also." I volunteer to place it there, but would like other opinions before doing so, having never before made a wiki submission.

The "List of distinct cell types in the adult human body" link under "See also" almost satisfies this need, imho, but not quite.

Proposed addition to the wiki page "Human Anatomy":

under see also, add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_tissue (Four basic tissue types: Epithelium, Connective, Muscle and Nervous.)

very best regards, sgsmith, New Orleans Sgsmith, nola 01:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone add diagrams to these pages ? Anatomy is much more comprehensible that way. --Taw


 * I'm a bit of an artist, what kind of diagrams?
 * - Zanimum Nicholas Moreau howdoyoudotheremate@yahoo.com


 * You could add images about the anatomy parts ( in PNG and SVG preferly, because they are open standards ).We need something similar -but simplier in the beginning- to Gray´s Anathomy).


 * (Above comment is unsigned).
 * If you are interested in helping, you might want to check out the Anatomy project. As far as diagrams go, what is needed is schematics...that is, not necessarily a life-like representation of an anatomical feature, but rather a diagram that illustrates certain (idealized) aspects of that structure.  --Mauvila 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Section/-s changed
The section "External Organs" has been changed to "External Features". Wonder which of the items listed there are organs and which are not. Jay 18:40, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see:
 * Skin -- organ
 * Head -- not
 * Forehead -- not
 * Eye -- organ
 * Ear -- questionable, probably not
 * Nose -- questionable, probably not
 * Mouth -- not
 * Tongue -- muscle (not external, either)
 * Teeth -- questionable, not external
 * Mandible -- bone, not external
 * Face -- not
 * Cheek -- not
 * Chin -- not
 * Neck -- not
 * Throat -- not
 * Adam's apple -- not
 * Shoulders -- not
 * Arm -- not
 * Elbow -- not
 * Wrist -- not
 * Hand -- not
 * Fingers -- not
 * Thumb -- not
 * Spine -- set of bones, not external
 * Chest -- not
 * Breast -- not
 * Ribcage -- set of bones, not external
 * Abdomen -- not
 * Sex organs (Penis/Scrotum or Vagina) -- organs
 * Rectum -- part of colon, not external
 * Anus -- not
 * Hip -- not
 * Buttocks -- not
 * Leg -- not
 * Thigh -- not
 * Calf -- not
 * Knee -- not
 * Heel -- not
 * Ankle -- not
 * Foot -- not
 * Toes -- not


 * --dcf 21:35, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)


 * Interesting! Thanks for the analysis. By the way ear article claims it is an organ. Jay 12:23, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as this list goes, the ear and nose are in the same situation - they are both definitely sense organs, but little of the specialized tissues that allow them to do their jobs are externally located. Only the pinna of the ear is external - and really, none of what's externally visible of the nose has anything to do with the sense of smell. Or maybe it's just my inner pedant emerging yet again. --dcf 12:40, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

Definition of "organ"
I found it interesting that the OED lists the following citation in its definition of "organ": ''1578 Banister Hist. Man viii. 108 The hand, beyng..the organ of organes, and an organ before all other organs.'' I think the definition of organ, like most English anatomical terms, is fairly vague. Better to avoid it when possible. These questions are often analogs to the whole "is the thumb a finger" debate. --Mauvila 07:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

==Endocannabinoid System??!" What joker has introduced these pages? clobbanClobban (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Major Systems
Should the links under "Major Systems of the Human Body" be changed? For example, the link for "Skeletal System" leads to a general article about skeletal systems in animals, when IMHO it might be better to link to the Human_skeleton article instead. All the other links appear to be the same way. -- Miss Puffskein 20:44, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

shouldnt there be subsections which resemble most anatomy textbooks like Head&Neck, Upper Limb, Lowe Limb, Abdomen, Thorax etc? PhatRita 29 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

PhatRita, There are several approaches to anatomy. The approach that you mention is called regional anatomy. It is commonly taught in gross anatomy classes. Another approach is a body systems approach - and that is the approach currently used here. If you want to argue for a specific approach you may want to state why that approach is more useful, as both approaches are commonly used in textbooks.--Dbrouse (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to see an "activity system." I haven't ever heard of that system before. Can anyone argue why that system should be retained rather than using the more common "muscular" system? --Dbrouse (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Immune system?
I'm not anatomist or physician, but I've learned there are 11 organ systems. From my memorised list, I cannot recall immune system. I thought it was more a generic term used to include many parts of different systems and used when we refer to our body defense.

From my point of view, the immune system is a bit part of the skeletal and cardiovascular systems but mostly the lymphatic system(secondary lymphoid organs with lymphocytes).

Is it possible that it is not "officially" part of the human organ systems? Any comments or feedback would be much appreciated. --Enigma 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've not ever seen any discussion over this point, but would argue that it would be considered a system. I'm also not sure of the precise difinition of an organ system in the body, but I'm sure it will have something to do with carrying out a specific function.  As the immune system has a well defined and contiguous function it could therefore be considered a system.  If I was to name the components of the system they would include several organs or tissues associated with other systems also (such as the primary and secondary lymph organs, bone marrow), but I don't see this as a barrier to calling it a system.


 * At the very least, if not a system in the strict sense, it is a very useful way of grouping together the components and functions associated with it.


 * It is also probable that different book authors and editors disagree on this matter, leading to a degree of comfusion and disagreement between sources. |→ Spaully°τ 11:41, 2 March 2006


 * It is true that many authors and editors disagree on what is a system and what is not, but I have never heard of the immune system being its individual organ system. I think it's actually more of a misnomer for it has the word "system" attached to it. Even Wikipedia articles contradict each other (e.g., Human anatomy & Major systems of the human body, a link on the Immune system). The template at the bottom of the immune system even has it listed as a part of the lymphatic system. I really doubt the immune system is its own organ system of the human body. --I Are Scientists 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. It's a bit like talking about the excretory system. It does exist, it is critical and it is part of many systems. Thanks for your prompt answer Spaully! --Enigma 07:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Excretion
Shouldn't excretion be a system, and the urinary system a part of this? I am sure there are different ways to do this subdivision, though. // Habj 15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been included now. Snowman 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

human anatomy image
Shouldn't the woman's genetalia be labeled in this image as well? Or, shouldn't both genetialia be labeled with a more generic term, such as "pubic"?

The difficulty here is that the vagina, which most people think of as the female sex organ, is not externally visible, or in the image, for that matter. I agree that a more general term should be used to indicate the placement of the sex organs on both genders. Perhaps "pubic region" or "groin" would be appropriate. Music&Medicine Most people might think of the vagina as the female sex organ, but it's not-it's the clitoris. The clitoris is on the outside, as well as the vulva, so there should be an arrow pointing to the clitoris and/or the vulva. If it's labeled like this, you don't even need to use a generic term. The difficulty here is not that the vagina is on the inside, it is that the person who made the diagram doesn't know that the clitor

Size of human body
What is the size of the human body? (More specifically, how many cubic meters is the average adult (male and female), what is the surface area of the skin, etc.)
 * It is more usual to measure height and weight. Snowman 16:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Human Organ System
Which "Human Organ System" does the liver belong? I didn't see it listed in any of the Human Organ Systems links.
 * Liver is usually considered along with the digestive system. Snowman 16:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you have anything on the pipes in your body
You should have things about the inside of your body like your orgons and you should also have things to help people if they need it.Like if some one cant find out what something is for example if some one cant find out what they need like what pipe carries air deep into your body.
 * More detail is on linked pages. Snowman 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

temprature
shouldn't this article have something about average tempriture? Fwed66 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Body temperature is a physiology topic. Snowman 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

merge?
could this page be merged with Human body? Fwed66 16:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend against it -- while today there is a lot of overlap, an ideal article on the body would provide an overview of anatomy, physiology, pathology, cultural aspects, etc., while leaving the details to the more specific pages. --Arcadian 22:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No merge: "human body" has a much wider meaning than "human anatomy".Snowman 10:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No merge: After reviewing the material in the section, I too have come to the conclusion that "human body" entails a wide range of topics - anatomy one of them. Perhaps Human body can include a minor section (with link) about "human anatomy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by FoodPuma (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with cg image
In the licensing information for the cg image: "Attribution must appear super-imposed on the image itself, fully legible when at the full published resolution." Since that isn't being done, doesn't that make it a copyvio? 139.57.100.104 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Template overload
At present, the template code exceeds the wiki's capabilities for transclusion. I am moving the entire template section here for revision:

JFW | T@lk  10:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Adults only?
The lead sentence says, "Human anatomy is primarily the scientific study of the morphology of the adult human body." While the adult human body is doubtless the "default setting", surely the scientific study of the morphology of a child's body is also included in the field of human anatomy. —Angr 12:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The source (Gray's) says the fully formed Human Body. Now, I think this is to exclude embryology rather than childhood anatomy, and I personally think we should just leave out "adult". Anyone say nay? Fribbler (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
As Human body is being actively worked on by a project WikiProject AP Biology 2008, and there is much overlap between the two, I propose that Human anatomy be merged into Human body as a sub-heading. Both articles are start class. At a future date when the Human anatomy article is develped well enough, it can always be split off. But at the moment, two start class articles that overlap are not worth much to Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm the student who has currently adopted the human body article, and I'm not sure if the topic, human anatomy, really bears anything more than mention in human body article. Anatomy is defined as the study of the body, whereas the human body article pertains to the body and body structures.  I feel as though a well-written sentence present in the introduction of the human body article would be more than adequate in not only differentiating betwixt the two, but also in eliminating much confusion. --Strombollii (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should be merged. If you merge the content from human anatomy into human body, why not also the whole of human physiology? And there are doubtless other equally good candidates. I think human body can develop as a more general (and perhaps more basic, introductory) article containing pointers to different aspects of the body, and to different viewpoints/disciplines (including anatomy and physiology, but perhaps also some less technical aspects) from which it is studied. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Strombollii; I lifted this line from the anatomy entry: "Human anatomy, including gross human anatomy and histology, is primarily the scientific study of the morphology of the adult human body." I'm thinking the operative term is the "study of". Information on such a topic might include the early history, maybe the tools both ancient and modern that are used to discover the workings of the body or perhaps some of the anatomist who contributed. The way Human anatomy exist now ... it looks like a table of contents... (perhaps explaining the template overload). Merging Human Anatomy with anatomy might make more sense. Frankly, all three (Anatomy, Human Anatomy, and Human body need a clear focus and seem to tread all over each other. I'm leaning toward the Human body as focusing on the actual body parts and their functions; thus a separate entity. Not to cloud the issue further, but "The Introduction to the Human Body" would be the perfect assignment here. A gateway to the multitude of detailed entry's out there. A detailed article on the Human Body is not an encyclopedia entry... it is an encyclopedia. I would really want to see an outline to see where you plan to take it. --JimmyButler (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that a merger was proposed in 2007, and was also shot down. See above. --Strombollii (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

the human body is very complicated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.152.143 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy Reassessment
I've reassess this article for the Anatomy WikiProject, and brought it up to a C. I removed the Medicine Project due to the fact that they do not deal with anatomy. Renaissancee (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC) ALSO NEEDS A HISTORY LINK. Who was the breakthrough Anatomist.?.?.?

Pictures
Improved the images, however not sure how to size them so they have an equally large size. Anyone ? KVDP (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've modified the images but I'm not sure this is working out well because the four images used here are very different proportions. Feel free to rework the layout, there are more parameters to choose from at Multiple image. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having the thumb nails act has hyperlinks is extraordinarily annoying since they can't be easily read as thumb nails.--OMCV (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge
I am purposing an merge of Body systems on this article. Mainly on the Human anatomy which says about the same thing. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless I get an different answer I think I will just leave this be. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No thanks on this one. I like that one is medical and the other is more general. I think there is a difference. 220.239.204.185 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Objections to Unrealistic Image
I object that the pictures do not include pubic-hairs. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bring back pubes.

Replace with more specific image
I propose replacing the image in the superficial anatomy section with the following image, as it more specifically deals with describing the human anatomy from the aspect of superficial reference points. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Re the current image: I think most Internet users do not really need another naked body shot (face, neck, chest, breasts, arms, and so on: it's too obvious to be helpful). Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually think we should retain them both - while it's easy to say "everyone knows that", some folks probably won't, and an image helps clarify things. Plus, there's plenty of space on the page to keep them both, and IMHO the more illustrations an anatomy page has, the better. Mokele (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Who (mis)labeled that?
According to the picture only women have breasts. Where exactly (on the body) are men getting breast cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.127 (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_breast_cancer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.249.206 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Nervous System lead picture.
The Thumbnail for this image is not the image it links to.

Replacement of superficial anatomy image
I suggest that the anatomy image shown in the Superficial anatomy-section should be replaced with a new one. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that a change was made, however, in the relevant discussion you created (which has since been archived), there was actually no consensus for a change. I reverted it back to the prior image. BearMan998 (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems the main discussion for this issue is now located at Talk:Human_body. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)