Talk:Neck

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anatomy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.

Sounds like this stuff was copy and pasted. Remove? Alex.tan 06:15 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be removed, not without knowing what the source is. It says "from an old encyclopedia", which generally means it's out of coyright but the contributor is too afraid of being sued for trademark infringement to provide a proper academic reference. -- Tim Starling 06:22 10 Jun 2003 (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes you are right evolution is just a theory and nothing else more than that. I am a Christian and I can disprove evolution simply by the fact that there is no evidence. This should be addressed perhaps in the theory sense such as "In the community of science there is a theory...." something like that, I've added this to my watch list so if anyone talks I'll hear about it. Ryankonkolewski (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I have taken care of it! Ryankonkolewski (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]