Talk:Body Worlds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality?[edit]

This article quotes an "ethical analysis" by a professor at Baylor, a Baptist university; the article states that this analysis compared the exhibit to pornography. In my opinion, if the article is to reference this analysis at all, it should appear along with the other religious opinions and the university's religious affiliation should be clearly stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.153.9 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after all the firm control universities exercise over the statements of tenured faculty is well-known. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

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)[reply]

added Tigriscuniculus (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative computer simulation[edit]

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 alternative non intrusive methods of anatomy illustration such as digital computer rendered simulation. Computer simulation of the human body would allow 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.

Wow, what a stupid kneejerk response. Bodies are complex and variable, and the differences are informative and interesting. No computer program could demonstrate the differences without requiring massive numbers of dissections, which are usually only useful for months at a time, rather than the years that the plastination exhibits are good for. If you wish to see the variability in the SMA (superior mesenteric artery) from a scientific interest, the plastinized bodies are invaluable; likewise if your knowledge of the body is not sophisticated enough to know that such differences exist, you may find yourself impressed and overawed by seeing them in situ. Either way, your appreciation will be much higher in viewing the exhibit than it would be in seeing a computer program. That's why medical schools still include cadaver labs, despite the many excellent atlases that are currently available.216.98.236.14 18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe this is not the place to have comments like this, after all wikipedia is not about whether you approve of a subject or not. However, I have seen the Body Worlds exhibition in London and thought it was wonderful and fascinating and there was nothing undignified about it at all. I really cannot understand the responses of people such as the first writer above. And is the dead person really that bothered with what happens to their remains after death? It seems to be something that bothers the living more than the dead. Godfinger 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===================================[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

added titles from Official web sites Tigriscuniculus (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This line should probably be removed.[edit]

"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)[reply]


More iformation about this can be found at
http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/exhibitions/original_copycat.html


Actually, this so called speculative statement appeart to be true. An article writen by Von Hagens and served in PDF form from the Body Worlds official site states that they accept corpses that have not given permission. Unclaimed bodies are also accepted from government agencies such as the Social Welfare Office.

Here is the direct link: http://www.koerperwelten.de/Downloads/AnatomyandPlastination.pdf

(If you go to http://www.koerperwelten.de/ you'll see the Body Works site. And, after going to bodyworlds.com and doing a search, koerperwelten.de is the address that comes up in the navigation bar and in the search links. It's the official site.)

Profit[edit]

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)[reply]


I scoured bodyworlds.com and can find nothing that claims they are non-profit or not for profit.

You have to be inhuman to violate corpses this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the discussion here. 121.214.177.225 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BEAUTIFUL AND MOVING[edit]

I just saw this exhibit in Phoenix. It was absolutely amazing. I must respectfully disagree with the idea that a computer program is superior to real plastinated bodies for anatomical education. The way that whole specimens are posed is artful and breathtaking. I was nearly moved to tears by the praying man. Being able to examine the inner parts of the body so closely (most bodies are not enclosed in glass) was invaluable you just can't get that sort of a spatial understanding for function and position in a two dimentional medium. I also found it superior to embalmmed cadavers, at least to the lay person as there is no odor or decay. I would encourage anyone with actual interest in the exhibit, the process, and anatomical education in general to check out their web site. I can see why the donor list has grown so much. What a wonderful way to give back. 72.201.244.17 02:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Joolz[reply]


Not only is plastination superior to embalmed cadaveric dissections in longevity and smell, but it allows non-manual dissection, which provides much higher levels of detail. The level of detail allowed is extraordinary.216.98.236.14 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link[edit]

I have removed the following from the External links:

  • "The Universe Within" caused a disgusted public to see the result of sophomoric understanding of the plastination process, when bodies started oozing fluid during a San Francisco show": San Francisco Chronicle

I have two concerns. First, this link is not directly related to Body Worlds, but rather another unrelated (if inspired) display. Second, the wording used to describe the link violates WP:NPOV in that it casts judgement on Universe Within and those who created it, which could be seen to violate WP:BLP. 23skidoo 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo legality?[edit]

I'm curious as to the legality of the photos contained in this article.

New photos included - these are official pics given with permsission and copyright. The exhibitor prevents photos and film being taken inside the exhibit to discourage inappropriate or disrespectful images being taken & distributed. Body Worlds also limits copyright carefully, to restrain copycats from using BW images to advertise their own work, and to avoid copycat images being used to illustrate articles about BW. Tigriscuniculus (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the images may be taken from Flickr accounts that specify they are free use, the exhibit itself bans photography. That means that the Flickr photos themselves are in violation of Body Worlds' copyright. Should they be removed, since they were taken without the copyright owner's permission? Ehurtley 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (P.S., I just went to the exhibit in Portland, OR, and thought it very enlightening. I am not against the photos being on here, I am just worried about the legal aspects.)[reply]

If the ticket says "no photography" etc., then the image was taken in violation of a civil contract. However, that has nothing to do with copyrights. If, on the other hand, the show's creator claims his works are art, then these photographs constitute a derivative of his art work, and publication would constitute a copyright violation. Indeed, the show's creator has filed suits against a competitor on these grounds (copying the poses). I don't know how the suits have turned out, though. If the courts ruled these were works of art, then we should remove these images and find some fair use publicity photos to use in their place. Rklawton 12:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyworlds 3: Seville[edit]

The exhibition is currrently on display in this spanish city.

http://www.diariodesevilla.es/article/galeria/343235/exposicion/body/worlds/viaje/por/corazon/gunther/von/hagens.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.208.191.221 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This article is a mess, particularly the overview. Is this a consensus? Rabend (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Science Center October 9, 2009[edit]

I agree with Rabend above, needs a makeover! The Ontario Science Center is currently hosting "Body Worlds and the Story of the Heart" http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2009/22/c8620.html http://www.ontariosciencecentre.ca/bodyworlds/default.asp Tim Riches, Brampton, Ontario (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You're welcome to it ... if you want to get hit with a COI notice from Themfromspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pichiciago (talk • contribs) 13:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral sourcing.[edit]

In at least five citations, the link points to bodyworlds.com, which is obviously not a reliable source. I suggest all these citations be replaced or removed, and any claims relying on them be omitted. In particular the claim "All whole body plastinates exhibited in Body Worlds come from donors who gave informed consent via a unique body donation program." relies on bodyworlds.com.

The article (and the bodyworlds.com website that it relies on) seems to contradict itself, when it says:

"The pre-natal and infant specimens in the exhibitions are obtained from morphological collections previously held by universities and medical institutions."

If there are any pre-natal or infant specimens, regardless of their source, they obviously weren't a result of informed consent from adults. Also, Body Worlds (and this article) is careful to use the term "whole body". Does not mean some parts of the human body are on display, despite a lack of informed consent?

Even when we properly source this article, we need to clearly attribute any contentious statement, in the body of the article. We should not give claims by BodyWorlds as facts. --Rob (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. The sourcing is inadequate when key statements are backed by references to an interested party's website. And the wording is convoluted in places and ways in which Wikipedians strive to be clear. Drakkenfyre (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"And the wording is convoluted..." Hilarious! Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific content[edit]

It looks as though someone deleted this section and I think that it would be important to reinstate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.15.92.101 (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consent: Contradictory statements[edit]

Bodies from deceased persons who did not give consent ... have never been used in a Body Worlds exhibition.
von Hagens countered that he did not know the origin of the bodies, and returned seven disputed cadavers to China.

If even he doesn't know the source of all his corpses how can Wikipedia state as fact that no non-consenting people's remains were used?

Also, the first sentence I quote has a citation but that citation is a decade-old PDF written by von Hagens himself. That's probably not a very neutral source. --holizz (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Body Worlds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Body Worlds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Body Worlds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Body Worlds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a "See also" section[edit]

I don't see a "See also" section attached to this article(?) Clearly plastination relates to other topics (such as embalming and mummification) that aren't touched upon in the article. Unless there are objections, I will be adding a "See also" section shortly – Down time (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Body_Worlds&oldid=1200225718"