Talk:Bodies: The Exhibition

Rubber bodies?

They looked like rubber bodies.

Maybe thats just what dead people look like, but i didn't subconciously associate the bodies with real people. Only one body had skin though, and it was the most disturbing.

Folks, first off, don't forget to sign your talk page entries. As for the specimens looking like rubber - how about plastic? Which, effectively, is true. If I recall correctly, the main process used in the exhibit basically takes the water out of the specimen and replaces it with a polymer not unlike plastic. --Reverend Loki 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Legal

Exhibit referenced in Boston Legal as of this post.Screenmaster16 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

I've removed two sentences from the Controversies section, which I'll include below. Both of these are incendiary claims using weasel words, and before being included should cite references at least, and possibly be reworded to boot. And for what it's worth, I also cleaned up this talk page a wee bit, putting everything under a category heading. --Reverend Loki 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Allegations of illegal or suspect procurement may come from either the main competitor or ideological groups who oppose such exhibitions for moral reasons.[reply]

Many people claim that the bodies are Chinese prisoners whose bodies were used without their consent while they were living. If this is the case, it may be a violation of human rights.

I rewrote this and added a citation. I paraphrased the latter paragraph but not the former, since I don't think the prisoners' rights campaigners quoted in the reference have a competing cadaver exhibition. Shom02 20:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use the claim about executed prisoners, then you ought to include the BODIES exhibit's response as well:

http://seattlepi.com/lifestyle/286689_bodies28.html "[Dr. Roy Glover, chief medical director for the exhibit] insists that all the people died from natural causes (including disease). He also said Premier has spent "considerable time" investigating the university. And Zaller said Premier has contracts with the university certifying that the bodies are not those of former prisoners or people from mental institutions." 66.57.224.120 16:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the method of acquiring the full bodies is being discussed and verified. Is there any proof of the way that the fetuses were obtained? Are they also of Chinese origin? Mkhager (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Body Worlds

If you are interested in this process you may want to look up Body Worlds. Body Worlds are exhibitions put on by IfP (Institute for Plastination). The process was invented and patented by Gunther von Hagens the purpose of his exhibitions is education about and the demystification of the human body. I don't know about Bodies the Exhibition but BodyWorlds was amazing check out bodyworlds.com it gives a detailed description of the preservation process and a number of close up pictures —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.201.244.17 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2007

You might notice that there is already an article in Wikipedia for Body Worlds. It is even linked to in this article. You might want to consider contributing to that article. Also, don't forget to sign your talk page posts! --Reverend Loki 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clearly the case that 'BODIES ...' is a knock-off of Body Worlds, and that people easily confuse one for the other. Now, of course, I don't know when the first BODIES exhibition was because it's not listed on this page ... so perhaps this should be done. It should also be mentioned on the page that the first such production was Body Worlds, since Body Worlds was the one that was actually innovative, ground-breaking, and worked hard to overcome the various social, political, and legal barriers. LeoTrottier 18:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after doing some research I made the needed edits. It's hard to find out when BODIES... originally opened, but I think I've got the right date (when I emailed them asking for a history of the exhibition they were much less than forthcoming). Note that I am in no way associated with the Body Worlds exhibition or any of its organizers.LeoTrottier 19:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the first press release to mention BODIES on the Premier Exhibitions website. The World Debut was in Tampa, Florida on August 20, 2005. I started in 2004 and worked forward. Singlegirl71 04:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio of Male to Female Bodies

When I attended the Exhibition I was concerned about how the bodies were obtained by the Chinese state for this purpose. I had no idea until I asked the staff that the bodies were from China, although the more complete cadavers do appear to be occidental peoples. There's no way to be certain who the people were who were used for the purpose, although one thing that did concern me was that there was a very high ratio of male cadavers as opposed to female cadavers. It's no smoking gun that the Chinese state used prisoners, but it is odd that there were many more male specimens.

And for the record I found the exhibition very educational. It simply makes me a bit uneasy that the bodies came from a country with such a long and documented (although, perhaps not nearly well enough) history of human rights abuses.--PaulDMessiah 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible reasoning for the uneven ratio could be due to the nature of Chinese childbirth statistics. I believe it is more desirable for Chinese parents to have a son to carry on their family lineage. Recent statistics show there are an average of 1.16 males born for every 1 female (116 to 100). While this may not seem like much of a difference, consider that over 13 million Chinese babies are born each year. This means there are about 1.5 million more males born each year (6 million females vs. 7.5 million males). After 10 years, there would be over 10 million more males than females. This trend has been going on for several decades already. Punkcrib (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The suggested quote from the production company representative has been added. Is this the source of the NPOV? No notes were made to the discussion or talk pages for detail about the NPOV objection. Please advise. Mom de guerre 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an Observer

'''As an Observer''' The complete bodies displayed seem to in excellent physical condition, not the musculature of older subjects. The bodies seem devoid of wasting illness or any defect, except in the case of bodies meant to display illness in adults or fetal cadavers Many of the bodies were originally from China, now more are appearing from other ethnicities. An article in the Seattle Times offers differing points of view http://seattlepi.com/lifestyle/286689_bodies28.html The competing corporations, Premier and Body Worlds have refused to provide provenance for the bodies. Premier Exhibitions refers all inquiries to Dalian Medical School in China. The school leases the bodies to the Corporation. The corporation says that it investigated the school thoroughly to find any irregularities. There is in my opinion a legal and ethical line that should be adhered to in any article. If there is no provenance, or no paper trail, then a cadaver is illegitimate.

International Legal standards should be used in this case. There is much to gain for the Medical School and the companies responsible for the exhibitions to hide, obscure, origin. Until acceptable provenance is provided the article should state this situation unequivocally, which it does not. Fshifreen 21:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to have seen more bodies with fat or obese aliments. Being that America has an extremely high rate of obese people, a display of the damaging affects of obecity could have been highly beneficial. Mkhager (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Added a much pared down Criticism section in Response to --Aarktica's editorial assessment that it may have been taken out for undue weight issues. However, there is no way to know as - mysteriously - there is no record of the edit. If there are other issues, I request that whomever is editing this article would please add these concerns to the discussion. Mom de guerre (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite and reorg to the Criticism section. Many references were outdated and removed because of lack of ability to cite, not for any POV reason. I believe [hope] my edits clean up the content but I make no representation to the neutrality of the content. (In fact, I would say we need more on the positive side for balance...if it can be found.) Several of the citations already in place have been moved around; I tried to put the criticism section in date order for organization purposes. I also went through and read a number of the citations and changed the wording in the article to reflect what I hope are more accurate and contextual quotes. Isaacsf (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I would say we need more on the positive side for balance...if it can be found." -- Agreed! Having visited the exhibition in Las Vegas, I am very much impressed with how the bodies (or "specimens" as they were called) were presented. It is not a freak show, but rather a very educative tour through different aspects of the human physiology. Although the controversy around how the bodies were obtained is certainly an issue, let alone the ethical discussion regarding it all, the Criticism section surely should not make up 2/3 of the article as it does now. Ma.rkus.nl (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to comment about the "balance" issue.... unlike the original Body Worlds Exhibition originating out of Germany which likewise originally faced quite some resistance and subsequently showed records for all donated bodies, Bodies The Exhibition cannot provide provenance. Bioethicists, Professional Scientists, Professors of Anatomy, Medical Schools and many others worldwide tend to criticize Bodies The Exhibition where they may not be critical of the original BodyWorlds exhibition (although many may still be). Therefore this article, as opposed to the Wiki entry on Body Worlds, ought to include a higher proprotion of criticism than may be normal since this reflects not a biased POV but a factually-based reporting of the greater legal and ethical issues with this particular exhibit (entry). Pharmachick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmachick (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Display

Something else could be said about the display. At least in Madrid, the full bodies were left in the open with a sign "Do not touch" while organs and organ assemblies were in glass cases (the blood system pieces shown as corrosion casts were submerged in water). There were also two organs available for visitor to hold on their hands. --Error (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit Organization

I just edited the end of this section to change the wording that ALL the fetuses had descriptions of their disorders which lead to their miscarriage were noted on displays. It now reads that MOST fetuses had display notes. It was my experience at the Las Vegas display that many of the fetuses, especially the preserved one's floating in water, did not say why their being ended early in a miscarriage. It would have been interesting to know if there was a genetic defect, or why the mothers body rejected the pregnancy. This may seem like a small issue, but I would like to see the exhibitors elaborate more on the medical conditions causing the miscarrriages to allow for more educational value of the exhibit. I wanted to make sure that the wikipedia article also details and describes the exhibit experience as honestly as possible. Thank you. Mkhager (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Is the neutrality of this article still in dispute? What is needed to resolve it? Also, where's the poster??

This article reads like an advertisement for BODIES. At least the first few sections. Laudatory quotes from random people don't really have a place in the Reception section. Also, the second paragraph in the introduction to the article is blatant promotion for Premier Exhibitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoffes (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems extremely promotional to me – Down time (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Locations

I think disproportionate space is given to ethic issues. Could we have a list of cities where the exhibit has been shown? --Error (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Based on MOS:TM and WP:Article_titles, I believe that we should move (rename) this article to "Bodies The Exhibition", or at least "Bodies... The Exhibition". If standard title case is good enough for REALTOR®, and TIME, then it fits here, too. Comments? --Rich Janis (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

In Ethical Concerns: "especially for children and Catholics"

No comment. Just LOL. :) This sentence needs to have its English straightened out. 213.163.40.100 (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bodies: The Exhibition. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208231942/http://www2.canada.com:80/theprovince/news/story.html?id=f89ece3d-f0e0-4d55-aa2e-746a9fcd9079&k=63910 to http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=f89ece3d-f0e0-4d55-aa2e-746a9fcd9079&k=63910

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bodies: The Exhibition. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]