Talk:Gray's Anatomy

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Meta High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to The field of anatomy.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Archives

1

Anyone know the date of 41st edition?

I can't seem to find information on the net: anyone have an idea when the 41st edition is expected?

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 06:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the publishers have announced anything, but if history is any guide, one might expect the next edition anytime between now and 2018 – two and ten years being, respectively, the shortest and longest intervals between two editions, if we concentrate on the British editions only. Here's the relevant data, which I collected myself:

 1ed.  750 pages 1858 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL20483177M/Anatomy--_descriptive_and_surgical
                      http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24780759M/Anatomy_descriptive_and_surgical
 2ed.    ? pages 1860 http://www.amazon.com/dp/1841939587/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/1848375425/
 3ed.  788 pages 1864 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL20598423M/Anatomy_descriptive_and_surgical
 4ed.  788 pages 1866 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL22612613M/Anatomy_descriptive_and_surgical
 5ed.    ? pages 1869
 6ed.    ? pages 1872
 7ed.  788 pages 1875 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL22137949M/Anatomy_descriptive_and_surgical.
 8ed.  800 pages 1877 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24628210M/Anatomy_descriptive_and_surgical
 9ed.  960 pages 1880
10ed.    ? pages 1883
11ed.    ? pages 1887
12ed.    ? pages 1890
13ed.    ? pages 1893
14ed. 1184 pages 1897 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24628029M/Anatomy_descriptive_and_surgical
15ed. 1244 pages 1901
16ed.    ? pages 1905
17ed. 1296 pages 1909
18ed.    ? pages 1913
19ed.    ? pages 1916
20ed.    ? pages 1918
21ed.    ? pages 1920
22ed.    ? pages 1923
23ed.    ? pages 1926
24ed.    ? pages 1930
25ed.    ? pages 1932
26ed.    ? pages 1935
27ed.    ? pages 1938 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13825920M/Gray%27s_anatomy
28ed. 1558 pages 1942 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL16701772M/Gray%27s_anatomy
29ed.    ? pages 1946 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL14869991M/Gray%27s_anatomy
30ed.    ? pages 1949 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13895783M/Gray%27s_anatomy
31ed. 1565 pages 1954 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL15145159M/%28Gray%27s%29_Anatomy
32ed. 1604 pages 1958 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL19597957M/Gray%27s_anatomy
33ed. 1632 pages 1962 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL20363318M/Gray%27s_anatomy
34ed. 1669 pages 1967 ISBN-10: 0443010110 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL5588530M/Gray%27s_anatomy
35ed. 1471 pages 1973 ISBN-10: 0721691277 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL14754382M/Gray%27s_anatomy.
36ed. 1578 pages 1980 ISBN-10: 0443015058 http://openlibrary.org/books/OL16509237M/Gray%27s_anatomy.
37ed. 1616 pages 1989 ISBN-10: 0443025886 ISBN-13: 978-0443025884 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0443025886/
38ed. 2092 pages 1995 ISBN-10: 0443045607 ISBN-13: 978-0443045608 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0443045607/
39ed. 1600 pages 2005 ISBN-10: 0443071683 ISBN-13: 978-0443071683 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0443071683/
40ed. 1576 pages 2008 ISBN-10: 0443066841 ISBN-13: 978-0443066849 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0443066841/

The earlier page counts here may be less reliable, as some publishers of reprints of those older editions have rearranged and repaginated things. All of this is for the British editions only, but then, that's what the new and recent editions all stem from. Feel free to wantonly edit the above list, if you have more or better data. Oh, and should some of this info go into the article? You tell me.

31.16.124.131 (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It now says here: "Invited as Contributor (chapter writer) to Gray’s Anatomy 41st Edition (printing 2014)" 31.18.248.254 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about including a list like this for the Wiki. I would have put it as a separate page "List of Gray's Anatomy editions". Snowman (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audience

The article states that medical students have become a "secondary audience" for publishers of Gray's Anatomy, but it fails to specify what type of reader has supplanted them as the book's primary audience. The inference seems to be that Gray's has become a general public favorite, but perhaps this should be stated more clearly. Orthotox (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone opposed to removing the word "originally" from certain places in the article?

I've done some research and the word originally seems to appear here more than in other articles in wikipedia. If you say "follow the yellow brick road was written by Sir Elton John" and "Follow the yellow brick road was originally written by Sir Elton John" the "Originally" is redundant. this article covers all the revisions and even tells who the editors were. No one has written the book besides Gray, everyone else has just edited or revised it. so "Originally Written" isn't needed. just like we don't need to say "Originally Born"

"written" can't change. ownership can.

Black Mage originally owned the sword, now it belongs to Fighter. = makes sense to use the word.

Black mage was originally born in mexico. = makes no sense. he can't be born somewhere else. just like someone else can't write the book you write. or write the song you write.

Originally is being overused in this article. if there aren't any objections I'll clean them out and leave only the needed ones. ( IE the use of the word Original is useful. Originally is not ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC) whoops forgot to signBryce Carmony (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the word "originally" may be awkward in some places here, but how is this such a big deal to summon an edit war? Never disrupt the encyclopedia to illustrate a point. Come on people, it's just a word. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. The guy added the word all over the place and then sought consensus to remove it! There's a discussion here about his edits. andy (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this section was added as part of an edit war. The warring user has now been blocked (twice). andy (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so I've given about a week, Andy doesn't oppose to removing the "originally" neither do I, and neither does Tilifa.

So 100 %of the discussion agrees, but consensus isn't about a "vote" it's about what does wikipedia do.

I looked at featured literature articles on works that have been written and than rewritten by others. None of them showed the use of Originally as being needed. because of this I'm going to go ahead and remove the unneeded adverb. If Anyone objects just post your reasoning here and we can talk it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note FWIW user Bryce Carmony has now been blocked for a third time for edit warring on this article. andy (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is that Gray's Anatomy has been so heavily edited that it's no longer appropriate to say the current editions have been written by Gray. This method of referring to Gray is also used by some of our sources: "For, while its original author, Henry Gray..." Thus keeping the "originally" in the lead seems appropriate. Huon (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an issue until that guy came along and I doubt if it's really an issue now. andy (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Support' Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose changing single word in introduction

Currently we have written "Gray's Anatomy is an English-language textbook of human anatomy originally written by Henry Gray " I propose changing this to say "Gray's Anatomy is an English-language textbook of human anatomy written by Henry Gray." since he is the sole author ( as shown in the info box ) later editions have editors ( we even say who they are in the article ) but editors edit books they don't write them. Originally implies it was later re-written, which is not the case, the book has been updated, and revised, but never re-written by another author. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, "originally" is used by our sources, too. The book has been so heavily edited that it's no longer appropriate to call Gray the sole author of the current editions (in fact, the publisher doesn't do so, either). I would expect little of the original text and imagery remains. Huon (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - this is just a wind-up. He's already been blocked four times, including for edit warring over this very word on this article, so he's not going to risk it again. The next block would be a doozy. Andyjsmith (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why do we list in the infobox Henry Gray as the sole author. either the info box is wrong or the article is wrong.Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gray's Anatomy

User:andyjsmith posted this on my user talk page to try and circumvent concensus. I have moved the content here. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The word "authored" does not appear in the ref., which does however refer to Gray as "writing" the book. I'd steer very well clear if I were you. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)"

Let's take a look at the reference in question. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1583282/Grays-Anatomy-celebrates-150th-anniversary.html
Let's see where it says that henry gray authored the book
"For, while its original author, Henry Gray, has been immortalised by his creation's success, the name of its illustrator, Henry Vandyke Carter, has been all but forgotten."
Number of times the reference says written - 0, wrote - 0, write - 0. Write is more ambiguos so author is a better word. and the source says author not written. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone, it's fine. "Written" is good vernacular English, "authored" is an arcane and clumsy construction. Since at least one editor (me) disagrees you should seek consensus by discussing it here. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the source said written not author, was that a lie or just original research? If you want to change your argument you're more then welcome to I just want to know which windmill you're tilting at. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get a third opinion, if you disagree, or wait here a few days to see who comes along and comments. But stop attacking me. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a personal attack. you said ( on my user page ) "which does however refer to Gray as "writing" the book" I'm not attacking you I'm simple asking you where in the source it says the Gray Originally Wrote gray's anatomy. Can you provide that in the ref as you claim yes or no. If you can't I vote we go with authored, since the source says that he is the original author but is 100% silent on him originally writing the work. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Your edit has been strongly disputed so let's try for consensus shall we? Andyjsmith (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, That's why I deleted this from my talk page and moved it to the article page. See how that works? I am here to gain consensus, I don't like to write about articles in talk pages because that's not fair to other editors, I don't like to refuse to discuss an edit and then try and claim it as vandalism and get shot down, I just like to discuss the articles here in talk page. reach a consensus and move forward. I'm glad you're starting to understand what consensus is about. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source says: "They performed the required dissections jointly over 18 months, with Gray writing the text [...]" I don't see much of a difference in meaning here; if anything, "written" is less ambiguous because "authored" might imply that the illustrations were Gray's work, too. Huon (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should say Written, not Originally written, since the writer is henry gray. I'm glad you agree with me Huon. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting muddled, and there's a risk that you might think that you have consensus when in fact you don't. You don't agree that the word "written" should be used. Your position is that the article should say "authored" (per your edits here and here), the position of other editors (@Huon: and myself) is to retain the current "written". And also to retain "originally". Andyjsmith (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So who wrote Gray's anatomy after henry gray? I can't find a subsequent source claiming someone else wrote the book gray's anatomy. but I have a reference saying that he wrote it. That's why I think saying originally is misguiding to the reader. do you have a source saying someone else wrote gray's anatomy by chance?Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should say "Written" instead of "originally written" since saying someone else wrote gray's anatomy is a fringe theory. see Wikipedia:Fringe theories why we should avoid those. There just isn't reliable information saying someone else wrote the book. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to drop the stick. We've been going around this multiple times now. I gave you sources explicitly supporting the word "original" (and sources calling someone other than Gray the author of the newest edition are easy to find) and sources explicitly supporting "written". Higher up on this talk page is a list of editions and their page numbers. Note that the more current editions have more than doubled in size compared to the original one written by Gray. Where do you think all that additional content came from? Were the editors possessed by Gray's ghost who sent them inspirations from beyond the grave? As an aside, I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth and fashioning an agreement about "originally" out of a message that doesn't address that topic. No, I don't agree with you on that topic. Should my opinion change, I'll announce that myself, thank you very much. Huon (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional content came from people who edited gray's antomy, and people who revised it, not people who wrote it. I would assume that is fairly obvious from a reading of the references. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced opinion

I removed "Although older editions may serve historic and artistic uses because their companion illustrations and anatomical cross sections are renowned for their rustic and often haunting presentation, they may no longer represent an up-to-date understanding of human anatomy." and its supposed reference "Depending on the version at hand, even the suitability of reprints and online versions for artistic purposes may be compromised due to limitations in resolution and reproduction quality." This reads like it was written by a marketing person for Elsevier. Not NPOV, not cited, and full of weasel words. The above paragraph being a feature list of the current Elsevier edition is pretty bad too but this line was indefensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F921:280:A00E:FC7D:AB4B:6249 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]