Talk:Elbow-joint

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)

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)

What about licking it?

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

It must be done, I don't wanna do it, because I can't write stuff. I seen my friend do it. Come on someone out there work this in. BritishHero 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Female elbow differences

I was looking in this article for some confirmation that women's elbows tend much more often to be able to bend backward, i.e., the arm opens up from the elbow over 180 degrees. I think maybe the sentence about carrying angles addresses this, but it's too technical, if someone could put it in plainer English it would be helpful. --Iritscen 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The carrying angle referred to does not relate to the angle through which the elbow bends, it's the angle between the upper arm (humerus) and lower arm (forearm) when the elbow is straight. If you hold your arm straight, with the humerus directly in front of you and perpendicular to the coronal plane of the body, the forearm of a woman, statistically, is more likely to deviate to the left (if it's the left arm) or right (if the right). S'not related to the bending of the elbow, sorry! In my experience, which is personal and therefore useless, men and women both can straighten past 180. I'll have a go at the carrying angle to see if I can make it clearer. WLU 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is clearer. And it's nice to see that I wasn't imagining things re the difference in women. --Iritscen 17:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)