Talk:Elbow-joint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For gods sake in english!!!!

I think what this person is trying to say is the same thing I want to: I can't understand a word of it. Can someone simplify it? Archer7 21:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be simplified because this is how the anatomy and function of the joints are explained. This IS the English terminology, but it contains many Latin words. I understand that it might be hard to understand without knowing basic anatomical concepts. But it is really not that hard, the basic concepts can be understood in less than a day. Very unlike many other subjects in medicine. My second point is that I haven't heard of anterior and posterior ligaments of the knee joint. They aren't indicated in my Netter (Atlas of Human Anatomy, 3. edition). I guess this article is more accurate on that part, but I dont think even a MD needs to know about the course of these ligaments. I study medicine by the way. hungry hippo 7. july 2006

Wikipedia should not be only reserved for professionals, or people with good dictionary (a lot of words listed in the article could not be found in my dictionary, perhaps it's my bad.) Look at the ankle article, it's clear, understandable by most people, contains only few jargons. That's what an accessible article should look like, imo. Tache 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got an Honours degree in anatomy and even I struggle to decipher Gray's stodgy Victorian prose! Precise and thorough he certainly is, but readability is a huge problem. I've added an introduction to this article which should make it a lot clearer to non-medics, and tidied up some of the text. The problem is that it is difficult to simplify the text without sacrificing the precision of the original. I hope that a clear introduction will prove adequate for people who want the basics, and those who want the minutiae can read the rest. Preacherdoc 11:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Preacherdoc.

Click-o-link!--Dreaded Walrus 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the external elbow picture really necessary?

I don't think it is because everyone knows what an elbow looks like from the outside, and the article focuses on the muscular and skeletal aspect of the elbow. The picture doesn't add anything to the article (an elbow image with a caption that says "elbow", whee!). And, I don't see that many other anatomy articles with unnecessary pictures like this (see knee joint and shoulder joint, for example. But Wrist joint needs to be fixed too, I guess).

128.163.224.198 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about licking it?

This page mentions nothing about the procedures involved in trying to lick one's own elbow.