Talk:Flesh/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Flesh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Last sentence
The last sentence must be a bloody joke. "Men become erect(horny)".... 130.240.217.153 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
internal organs?
Considered part of flesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.29.171 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
split article in two
Created Flesh (theology), and moved Christian theological definition there. Clicketyclack 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Biological tissue?
This article seems redundant - couldn't we just redirect this to Biological Tissue? 216.164.59.40 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose; "flesh" is strictly a part of certain animals. The Biological tissue article covers all basic tissue of animals as well as plants. It might be redirectable to Meat, but not to the tissue article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Query: If it redirected to Meat, though, it would exclude plant flesh a little... Perhaps a disambiguation page? Snuggle (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, Snuggle, I don't think it should be redirected to the Meat article. "Meat" is about food. "Flesh" is not just about food. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- What should we do, Flyer22 Reborn? Most of these responses are years and years old. Do you think we should redirect this article or...? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuggle (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguous page
Might it be most helpful to create a page indicating the different categories of Flesh? This could then lead readers to locations for each of the definitions; some aspects could be directed to the tissue article, some to meat, and very clearly some to edible fruits, for example. LLDMart (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, what?
Organs are viscera, and skin is part of the integumentary system. This article is full of self-contradiction, and it's only a single sentence long! 173.164.235.113 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- This source currently used in the article cites a source for the viscera distinction; it's the World English Dictionary (Collins) and it states "the soft part of the body of an animal or human, esp muscular tissue, as distinct from bone and viscera." There's also the Medical Dictionary (American Heritage), which states: "The soft tissue of the body of a vertebrate, covering the bones and consisting mainly of skeletal muscle and fat."
- I did tweak the lead, though,[1][2][3][4][5] removing "integument" while I was at it because, besides the fact that skin is a part of flesh (in the case of humans and other animals, as opposed to what is described as the flesh of a fruit or vegetable by the World English Dictionary), the source does not mention integument (except for its mention of skin) and because there's also the fact that the Integument article currently lists flesh in its Derivative terms and sundry usages section.[6] Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Remove Chinese baby pill stuff
What's the stuff about the Chinese baby pills doing in this article? Move it to Canibalism because I'm going to delete it as unfocused on the referent of the article. Chrisrus (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Seconded! Especially because it most probably isn't true. Sources:
Dead babies? I think not!
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9272/did-pills-from-china-seized-in-south-korea-contain-the-powdered-flesh-of-dead-ba http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-05/08/content_15241260.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.132.1 (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)