Talk:Neck

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)

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)

---

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)

No worries! I have taken care of it! Ryankonkolewski (talk) 20:42, 2 June 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. The fact it is a theory, means it is not truly scientific, regardless of so called evidence which scientists have found with flawed carbon dating. For something to be scientific it has to be indisputable evidence which of course it isn't. It is a bit like the conspiracy theories that the moon landings were faked. This was later proven false as a flag and a made footprint were in an airtight vacuum. The flag took longer to go down and did wave about. The footprint was made and stayed within the moon dirt. Until evidence like this arises this edit of this article should remain the same (at least regarding evolution) as it cannot be proven in scientific environment.

Ryankonkolewski (talk) 22:37, 25 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)