Talk:Neck

This page needs a picture of a giraffe

Instead of talking about all this picture and everything, it woud have been good if we put some information about HUMAN NECK THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION, so it can help students with their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadek alam (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The giraffe has a 10 meter long neck so even kids can see that the reptile kingdom evolved into a giraffe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.245.88 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

how easy is it to...

O.k. not that I'm going to try this or do it but would it be possible to break someones spine from the guillitine choke hold position like in the show prison break I only wanted to know if it is possible?

How easy is it to break a neck?

Well would it be asy or would you have a hard time doing so I mean not on purpose but you know like an accident.

Picture discussion

Would it be possible to replace the article's existing picture with a picture of a person who isn't in the middle of exhaling cigarette smoke, as evidenced by the extreme "cloudiness" of the upper left hand corner and mouth of the photo?

76.118.107.105 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure its even cigarette smoke? I question whether it may be... something else. Regardless of what it is or is not, I too vote for a more agree-able picture on the grounds that on inspection of the present picture, it has content which is not relative to anatomy. Zeotronic (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done: Smoking gent out. --Bobjgalindo (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is . . .

Where is the criticisms section? Surely we aren't pretending like there are no prevalant criticisms of the neck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.192.132.130 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Evolution?

Evolution is just a theroy right? Why is wiki making it seem like a fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.163.66 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

---

My problem is completely different: that section reads like the musings of a highschool kid, not that of an expert. It doesn't contain any useful information. --Zslevi (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You guys make it sound like a theory is something meaningless. You should look up what "theory" means. Basically everything scientific is "just" a theory, including gravity and electricity. It doesn't mean Wikipedia should put a disclaimer in every article mentioning that future theories might be better than what is currently known. That is common knowledge. Science isn't a "community", science is everyday life. Even religious people use medicine, computers, etc., all created using scientific theories, even if those theories show that things like the myth of Adam and Eva make no scientific sense. Be careful not to make Wikipedia suit only a small subsection of readers (creationists, followers of a specific religion); it should strive to be a proper encyclopedia. Also, look up "evolution", there is actually a LOT of evidence for it. Even if there wasn't, that doesn't mean you can disprove it. That's like me saying you're not a Christian because you can't prove you are. 193.173.38.232 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A theory does not make a fact, it only offers an explanation for how something works. Something being factual makes it a fact, and unless you believe creationism or have an alternative non-scientific point of view, you cannot deny the existence of evolution, which is very much a fact according to science. Of course everyone is free to believe whatever (s)he wants, but Wikipedia follows the scientific method. I'm sure for those interested there are wikis offering alternative explanations to evolution, or whatever is believed to be in place of evolution (for instance creationism). The problem with things outside of science (gods, myths, magic, etc.) is that they tend to be incompatible, not legal tender in scientific discussions so to speak.

When you say a theory isn't scientific, you are wrong. Theories are created using the scientific method, so by definition they are scientific. You could say science is based on theories. Like I said, look up what the word means exactly. "So called evidence" as you put it makes it sound like it's really not, but it is. I'm sure scientists screwed up carbon dating in some cases, because scientists are only human, but the method of carbon dating is basically sound, and only one of the tool in the scientific toolset used for dating things. Everything is disputable, but as long as a something stands up to scientific scrutiny, there is no scientific reason to question it. In short, evolution can be scientifically proven, and has been over and over again. If scientists ever find something that is incompatible with the theory of evolution, it will have to be adapter, or in an extreme case dropped. If you question something, the burden of proof lies with you, you need to come up with evidence. Don't just say something cannot be proven when it already has been, but prove that those earlier results were incorrect.

I don't have a problem with the way that section of the article is currently written, although it doesn't really say a whole lot. I don't know anything about the evolution of necks, don't recall ever reading anything about it either, so I won't be adding anything about that. If someone else does though, that is allowed by Wikipedia's rules. 193.173.38.232 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture of woman "stretching her neck"

Since Wiki moderators are apparently humorless and extremely dense, I'll be blunt: The picture of the woman stretching her neck is ridiculous and does not belong on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.69.215 (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Improvement

I have edited this article substantially in trying to make it easier to read and factually on point (i.e. added verifiable citations). However, I don't want to remove the multiple issues template before the article gets reviewed by a senior editor. I also believe that the content still needs expansion. The purpose of my edits was to fix the confusing and disorganized layout of the article, and therefore to create a solid background from which this page can be further developed.--Hydron ion (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Kneck" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kneck has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 2 § Kneck until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)