Talk:Hip

Untitled
The pelvis, which is also known as your 'hip' os the joint that attatches to your femur.

Adduction/Abduction vs. Flexion/Extension
The listed planes of motion are inverted. Flexion/extension is in a sagittal plane, while abduction/adduction is a lateral movement, out to one's side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.77.151.10 (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexual
I hate to sound perverted, but shouldn't there be something on the sexual nature of the hips in humans?


 * Yes, there should, along with any other cultural attributes. And that's hardly perverted. Now if you'd brought this up in the dog food or Blender (device) articles. . . – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I added sexual content. /Me
 * /You, I am wondering what exactly this sentance means, or what it's source is:
 * "humans have brains that are very large at birth as compared to other animals, and therefore the hips of female humans must accommodate that."
 * Because it sounds a little unscientific, saying that hips accomodate their large brains. Are you talking about the brains of the babies?  Are other mammaliam babies not proportioned as humans?  Are female hips wider or are male hips smaller?  I think it's a good idea to put in the sexual dimorphism section, but we need a little clarification, or else it's not doing much good as an encyclopedic reference.  Rhetth 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
"American standards of beauty for the last few decades have tended to favor women with more narrow hips."

That's not a NPOV. Some would argue that it's only the fashion industry and media that are obsessed with the waif and that the average guy "doesn't" favour the undernourished woman. In fact, I'm sure there've been studies to prove this. Poweroid

coccyx contention
I am wondering about the statement regarding the coccyx: "It serves little or no purpose." If this is true, could we get a reference? I'm pretty sure if we just removed our coccyx at birth, it would affect other parts of our development, and that the body is built with the coccyx in mind. I mean, in the evolutionary perspective, if we once had tails, and the tails 'fell off', then why didn't the coccyx fall off, too? I think the sentance in question is a little suspect. Rhetth 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The coccyx serves as an insertion point for many pelvic floor muscles such as levator ani and coccygeus and as a weight bearing structure in sitting (in reasonably reclined). Hence it does serve a purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.143.82 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I recommend changing the name of the "ligament of the head of femur" to ligamentum terres. It is less wordy and used in practice at clinical level. It needs to only be defined once. --Patrick Sweet, M.D.

Ligamentum teres femoris... Not just Ligamentum teres... because we have the Ligamentum teres hepatis too... Also @ Rhetth.. If thats your argument.. then just think about the vermiform appendix. It serves no purpose, just causes trouble.. SO why havent human shed it? If evolution was so simple.. them we would have had wings by now. - Shuvayu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.199.86 (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hip and hip joint
Any good reason why Hip and Hip joint aren't separate articles? Hip joint redirects to Hip (anatomy) but the movements in the joint are described in Hip (anatomy) and the involved muscles detailed in Hip (anatomy). This don't make sense to me. Would anyone object splitting the article? Maybe reorganising the present article is enough? Any suggestions?

/ Raven in Orbit (t|c) 09:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hip replacement and remedial massage
After a hip replacement could there be any problems with a good remedial massage and treatment on a Computerised Thermal Treatment Table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.193.69 (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

nice new img, but missing names
I think this picture would fit nicely in the article, but I do not know the correct English names of the bones. Maybe some wikipedian can help?Jasy jatere (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

haunches
The haunch is not the same thing as the hip. It's more of the thigh/butt. It should redirect there? 206.72.25.210 (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. I made a section, made the redirect go there, and put the expand tag on it.  --Una Smith (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just moved the section to haunch, as that is not the "hip" of the horse, that's the buttock. Montanabw (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessment for WikiProject Anatomy
Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Anatomy, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of anatomy. Since your article has fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct templates on this talk page for verification. Upon review of this article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown: I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Assess articles with class and importance factors
 * Since I am a member of WP:MED, I've also updated the Med Wiki assessment


 * I am totally confused by the wording at the start of the article ("The hip region is located lateral and anterior to the gluteal region ..."). Wikitionary text about hip almost understandable ("The outward-projecting parts of the pelvis and top of the femur and the overlying tissue.") How about an image depicting what parts of the skin are part of the hip region? --EarthFurst (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

CCD angle: normal values
I think the value 126° given in the Thieme Atlas is an oversimplification. My textbook (Srakarjeva Ortopedija, 2nd ed., 2006, which is in Slovene, unfortunately) gives the values from 125° till 132° as normal in adults. --Eleassar my talk 07:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_joint is **ALWAYS** re-directed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_joint#Articulation

Not a good idea.

gar.in.sf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gar.in.sf (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad image
IMO, the "Right hip of a female human" image is so (for lack of a better word) indistinct as to be fairly useless.

The cropping makes it hard to recognize esp. on smaller screens, there's only detriments to set it to black & white on an encyclopedia page, esp. with the white sheets then almost matching the (lack of) color.

Sure is artsy, though. -- 2003:EA:F4B:5700:9F44:2D8A:584A:AAF5 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)