Talk:Arm/Archive 1

Untitled

This "article" is inaccessible to the layperson. It's not just that the language is medical, or is written by some kind of specialist; speculating that this would be 1% of the population. My arm extends from my shoulder to my fingertips. So rotator cuff is fine. Go re-read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and see if you're writing about individual parts, or functions. Thanks. 75.210.56.137 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Arm" in Anatomy is defined as shoulder to elbow. Forearm is elbow to wrist. --inks 04:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

major things: 1. rotator cuff tendons and muscles need a mention, considering their importance. 2. axillary space needs a proper definition. (anterior/posterior/medial lateral). 3. general inaccuracies - there needs to be more mention of other muscles moving the arm. lat. dorsi motion is improperly defined. hard to know how much detail to give...

Yeah, this article was all over the place from the get go. I rewrote a bunch of it without shattering the original format, which proved quite a stricture. The rotator cuff stuff properly belongs with the "shoulder" article, while "arm" should be much more brief than it now is. "Axilla"? Who knows? The "latissimus" sentence looks O.K. to me. Sfahey 16:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removal of significant amount of content

PhatRita, you seem to have removed a large amount of writeup on this article. Why did you did so? Alex.tan 20:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Copy of PhatRita's reply to me on my talk page to this page:

Hi there, I removed the text from the arm so that I could redistribute on separate pages. To be strict, the arm should only contain information from the shoulder to the elbow. The hand, forearm and such should be placed on forearm and separate pages. If there should be general information, it should be moved to upper limb as that is anatomically correct. This is all part a new drive to sort out administration problems (there are serious issues with redirect that are just incorrect, eg upper limb to arm, anatomically incorrect.) Have a look here

PhatRita, you removed relevant information. The stuff you removed, as far as I can tell from the history, included more details on the shoulder to elbow definition of arm than what you left in its place. I don't think the information you removed was irrelevant. Also, please leave all further discussion on this topic on this page and sign your comments on talk pages (use four tildes - ~~~~) Alex.tan 18:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I do apologise, I always sign things, must have forgotten your page. The relevant information is all stored in a note file on my computer. I have not actually finished the edits yet. If you check out the editing times, it was quite late at night, round midnightish and I've been very busy today. I'll finish the rest of the stuff sometime tomorrow. Rest assured, the finished page will have more detail. PhatRita 00:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, you can clearly see that the cubital fossa section has no text whatsoever in. PhatRita 00:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In future, if you have not "finished the edits", please do not leave the article in a state where you have removed relevant material and have plans to add back to it later. It is alright for you to say that you'll come and finish it later, but there is no guarantee that you're going to do so - in fact, no guarantee that you won't be run over by a bus or something. It's preferable to make smaller edits rather than save halfway through a major edit. The wiki grows by organic edits and is not your own personal project. The net effect of your previous edit is that you removed relevant content - which will be construed as vandalism by anyone who does not know your personal plans. If you really have to rewrite the entire article (I know this happens sometimes) and it's impossible to do this in small edits, perhaps you should work offline and only save the page when you have your finished work. Alex.tan 15:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Alex.tan. ;) --Taraborn 22:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Although there's a tag that says that it includes all these terms for informational accuracy, for a lay person, this article is very much inaccessible. My head hurts reading it. Enochlau 11:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arm : OED versus Anatomy

The way 'arm' fits with anatomy on wikipedia could be complex. The word 'arm' properly (ie historically, and commonly, but not anatomically) means from the shoulder to the hand (see OED). The OED specifies the part from the elbow to the wrist as the 'forearm', a subsection of the arm. Anatomists, however, use the English word 'arm' to represent the Latin word 'brachium', which in modern anatomy refers to the part between shoulder and elbow. (Even though 'brachium' in Latin properly refers to the forearm, but that's a different topic all together.) Why the anatomist arbitrarily designated 'arm' as the part between elbow and shoulder, I don't know. I do know that the word 'leg' historically AND anatomically refers to the part between the knee and ankle, and perhaps they were following this model. But what we are left with is a conflict between English and anatomical terminology. Perhaps this might be a time in which the anatomical (i.e. the somewhat inaccessible) information be put under the standard anatomical Latin equivalent of 'brachium'. --Mauvila 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on octopus specifically states that octopii do not have tentacles, they have arms. The article on tentacles states the same. However, in this article it is stated in the first paragraph that arm may also refer to the tentacle of an octopus. Obviously this is a contradiction, but it also represents a lack of useful information on the difference between the two. I discovered all of this after reading the article on octopus and wanting to know the difference between an arm and a tentacle, and I was left quite confused. Either the articles on octopus and tentacle need to be corrected or this one does. Danke.

Well, I'm not a marine bio person but whoever says that octopuses don't have tentacles would probably need to cite some source or definition of tentacles, because that doesn't sound like common knowledge but rather an arbitrary definition of tentacle. OED says tentacles are organs of feeling, so maybe the arms aren't that. But really, 'octopus' means 'eight footed', so I'm guessing 'legs' would be a better term. --Mauvila 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that it would be quite helpful that way refering to the standardised latin system, but having a standalone stub does aid people that only want a quick reference. Articles with immense amount of data can be helpful, but sometimes doesn't allow succinct answers a user may want. --[Randle Knight] 01:40, 12 September 2006.

Regarding the correct use of arm (shoulder to elbow and shoulder to wrist), is there a correct term for shoulder to wrist? For example, if I wanted to refer to my upper-limb, forearm and hand as a single entity I would just say "arm" which of course is fine in common usage but anatomically incorrect. Forgive if I've missed an obvious clarification on any of the relevant articles, but although many cite the correct definition of "arm", I don't think I've found an alternate term for the incorrect usage of arm to mean the whole limb? Is there one, or is it a case where we can only refer to the individual parts? -- Haravikk (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

River arm

There seems to be missing some information about "river arm". --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what!

Why has someone put that thee are 30 bones within the arm? Even if you're including the forearm it should only be 3. The arm has 1 bone - the humerus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.130.77 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not biologist, and yahoo answers isn't the best source, but this agree with the 30 bones bit

The statement does not say that there are 30 bones It says that there are 30 bones, muscles, nerves, and blood vessles. This means that these thins total 30. You have to consider the sentence as a whole not in pieces.

bony arms

is their such a disorder in men in wich a man has a normal physique(i.e. not too skinny and not too fat.) but has arms that are bony\girly\small in size? if so, please write a sescription about the disorder and treatment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.102.171 (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fracture

I removed this unreferenced section from the article since it is not about the (upper) arm:

A fracture of the arm can be classified regarding whether the only upper arm is involved (humerus fracture) or only the forearm is involved (forearm fracture). A forearm fracture, in turn, can be classified as to whether it involves only the ulna (ulnar fracture), only the radius (radius fracture) or both (radioulnar fracture).

I left a link to humerus fracture just in case someone would find it useful. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arm section.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Arm section.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Upper limb

Confusing and unnecessary separation of content. benefits readers by having everything in one place, reduces needless fragmentation, and articles are about the same subject matter Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as explained in Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Anatomy#Request for edits -- Arm --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. However, I would propose that it be merged into upper limb, instead of the other way round. Sky 6t 10:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - un support***the arm is just oe part of the upper limb, which is divided into arm, forearm and hand.

Support merge of upper limb into arm. It's clear that common usage incorporates both the upper arm and forearm. Powers ^T 19:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, This article is quite short and uninformative for a vital article.groig (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the arm is an independently notable of the upper limb. It seems unbalanced for us to have, for example, a separate page for the Lesser sciatic notch, a part of the Ischium, but not have arm as part of the upper limb. The upper limb already has a summary section for Arm, with a helpful main hatnote to arm, so which is a sensible summary/main structure that doesn't need changing. If there is concern over the ambiguous meaning of the word (accepting that the common use is different from that in anatomy), then that could be managed by moving the current "arm" article to Arm (anatomy). Klbrain (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given no consensus. Klbrain (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why only humans?

The article is rather odd in its treatment of arms, starting with human anatomy, and then saying "In other animals, the term arm can also be used for analogous structures, (such as one of the paired forelimbs of a four-legged animal or the arms of cephalopods)"

But other animals do have arms which are clearly arms, not just analogous to arms: for example, monkeys, apes, perhaps kangaroos, bears, T Rex, etc. The implied claim that an arm is only really an arm if it is a human arm appears to be wrong and makes the article jarring to read.