Talk:Liver/Archive 2

Liver and cuisine

Can we please make separate pages for liver discussed as an internal organ, and liver used in cuisine? Discussing them on the same page is strange, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.53.243 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it sounds a bit weird saying how the liver is a very important organ and then saying; it tastes very nice too! Weird... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.109.233 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up?

The "Basic Info on Structure" and "Anatomy" sections contain basically the same info - does the article really need both? The "Basic Info on Structure" section also never points out that the details are for human livers specifically. 219.89.169.60 (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek spelling

There should be a spiritus asper over the eta in the greek word. Does anyone know how to fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.229.5 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this: ἥπαρ (instead of this: ἡπαρ)? — Chalky (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should actually be a circumflex + rough breathing (spiritus asper) over the Eta (in the nominative singular). I have fixed this. I also added the root ἡπατ-, which should only have the rough breathing as accent is not indicated for roots.

Missing Ketone production :)

In the article about Ketogenesis, it states "Ketone bodies are produced mainly in the mitochondria of liver cells". This fact is missing from the functions of Liver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.54.14 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liver regeneration and the Greeks

On this page and the Prometheus page, someone has added a reference giving a bogus definition for the Greek word for liver, hêpar, claiming that it derives from the verb hêpaomai, meaning to mend or repair. Thus hêpar is supposed to translate as, "repairable." This derivation is fanciful. I'm surprised it lasted as long on Wiki as it has since it wasn't even confirmed by the original source given! I've deleted this bogus definition. I doubt you need references for a deletion, but here are some anyway: J. Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Bern and Munich: Francke, 1959), pp. 325, 504; P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la lange grecque (Paris: Klincksieck, 1990), p. 414; H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Vol. I (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1973), pp. 638-9. These sources make it very doubtful that hêpar was related to hêpaomai.

I've also changed some text in the section on Liver Regeneration which asserted that the myth of Prometheus proves that the ancient Greeks must have known about the liver's remarkable capacity to repair itself. Actually this is a matter of some dispute. I've changed the text to reflect this controversy. I’ve looked at a great deal of literature on the subject and have found only one attempt to actually argue that the Greeks knew about liver regeneration: Chen T and Chen P (1994). "The Myth of Prometheus and the Liver." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 87(12): 754-755. I've added a reference and link to this. I've also referenced and linked to a historically detailed critique of this position: Power C and Rasko J (2008). "Whither Prometheus' Liver? Greek Myth and the Science of Regeneration." Annals of Internal Medicine 149(6): 421-426. This is by far the most comprehensive treatment of this topic.

The addition of the above references made an existing reference redundant (ie Michalopoulos, George K., and DeFrances, Marie C., "Liver regeneration”. Science, 4 April 1997: Vol. 276. no. 5309, pp. 60-66), so I removed it. Like a great many articles on regenerative medicine, the Michalopoulos article simply asserts that the Greeks must have known about liver regeneration, citing the the myth of Prometheus as its only evidence. Chen and Chen go much further than this. Likewise Power and Rasko.Monostitch (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gray's image

While accurate, the Gray's image is of terrible resolution and greatly inferior to other freely available images. While this 19th century image is of historical significance, I believe a modern, perhaps scalable, image would be more appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Opertinicy (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to edit

It is proposed that Liver be part of the trial of a new template; see the green strip at the top of Pain where it has been in place for a couple of months. The purpose of this project is to encourage readers to edit, while equipping them with the basic tools. If you perceive a problem with this, or have any suggestions for improvement, please discuss at the project talk page --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Excuse me, but I think you have got the wrong article; this is a scientific encyclopaedic page, not an art one. duh...

File:Plastination4.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Plastination4.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plastination5.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Plastination5.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lobes of liver.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lobes of liver.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction Between Human and Animal Livers

The structure of the article doesn't distinguish well between information about all livers, information about human livers, and information about non-human livers.

Non-Vertibrate Livers

Are non-vertibrate livers actually "livers" -- or "liver-like" organs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.24.58 (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bile - acid or alkali

This page states that bile is alkaline. It is a source of great confusion to me and I'm sure to others whether bile is acid or alkali. Maybe this should be resolved on the page about bile but if you read that page, it only talks about bile acids? Presumably bile cannot be both, otherwise the acid and alkali would react giving water and some other stuff. Someone really needs to explain this properly so that we who are not chemists have a chance of understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.5.42.64 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article on bile, it is alkaline. However, it has a handful of acids present. That is something that can confuse those unfamiliar with chemistry, where an overall alkaline compound can have acids present, but it is something far from uncommon. The fluid is overall alkaline, but acids are present, just as your blood has an overall neutral ph, but has acids present.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References

I believe the term is "validity", rather than "authenticity" in the paragraph:

In the motion picture The Message, Hind bint Utbah is implied or portrayed eating the liver of Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib during the Battle of Uhud. Although there are narrations that suggest that Hind did "taste", rather than eat, the liver of Hamza, the authenticity of these narrations have to be questioned.

I suspect the person who wrote these lines was less concerned about the claim's author, than about the claim's truth value. Right? Lizard1959 (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]