Talk:Human leg

Image
A photo of a woman's legs are not appropriate for this article. Looks rather silly. Changed to drawing from 1918 Gray's Anatomy. Why not?

--Is it offensive? I think not. Get a life; stop complaining about such inconsequentialities.


 * Agreed. The legs are human legs, they are appropriate for the article.  If they happend to be attractive legs, then that's incidental.  This argument has no merit. Lengis 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

--I changed the caption to "shaved women's legs," because they are a varient of real legs. I just like obvious articles like this one. ---The leg is a bit too showy... we're talkin' bout legs, not sex appeal... why not find a picture that is much more functional, like a cross country runner? also, there's nothing about the evolution of humans being able to walk great distances at a steady pace. I don't know much about that, but someone must (in support or refusal of)!
 * The picture looks kind of ridiculus. I agree with a more functional picture that shows legs in action. It's not that the one now is offensive or inappropriate, it just looks silly. CerealBabyMilk 00:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

---"offensive"? "They happen to be"? Might want to read over what you guys say before submitting. This is not about being "offensive" (that word again!), or that "they're legs, it's fine." And this didn't "happen" to be attractive legs, *someone* put it there. I know wikipedia is not censored, but this is like a "G" article, so there's no reason to have a "PG-13" picture. The whole article is fine for even young kids, but i'm sure many parents won't agree that the picture is. My opinion, thus, is that it should have a picture that wasn't focused on attractive legs for a sensual picture. This is an article on anatomy, so fine, bare legs is ok, but not like this. Just have something else, like a simple, front-view picture of someone simply standng. Or is it too hard to not make everything sexual? So meh, just posing that thought. WHaT THE F*** ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.184.164 (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would do anything to see this picture of PG-13 legs lmao won't someone PLEASE think of the children LaymansLinguist (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

leg joke
I'm feeling at the moment unaccountably protective of the history of talk pages, so i'm striking this rather than deleting it as vandalism or something:
 * Ben Curtis supposes that legs that go all the way up are those that make one think about the part that is located all the way up.


 * Voice Over: Legs that go all the way up == Legs that are great all the way to the top. Unlike some people who have great calves or thighs. These legs are just all around great.


 * rimshot*

Detailed anatomy
At [an early stage of this article] will be found much detail, probably from 1911 EB, that probably could be parcelled out among the various presently red-linked articles for the bones and muscles (and i imagine ligaments and tendons, which IMO also deserve attention) to good advantage. --Jerzy(t) 17:02, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

Leg vs Upper limb
This article should describe only the leg - as anatomists understand the term, as there is another article "Upper limb". The contents should not be duplicated. --Eleassar777 20:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. For starters, Upper limb was an article that (inadequately) describes the human arm. (It should, BTW, be a redirect (see my next 'graph), probably as i just converted it, to Arm, tho before treating that as final, consideration should be given to whether there is anything in any revision of it that deserves preservation in Arm, and thus preservation of its history by means of merging them (which, note well, requires an admin, since it does not refer to the problematic practice of cutting and pasting). My action of converting it to a redirect is reversible, but it should stop immediately any editing there: that is desirable since the substantial Arm article is the one that should be editted, and moved (renamed) to whatever name is eventually deemed best, since at best it might require avoidable effort to merge it into the article currently called "Arm", and at worst it would duplicate effort alreadly expened on Arm without any benefit to the project.)
 * Even more fundamentally, articles are named according to common usage, not the technical language suitable to specialists. (That technical language should be discussed in the article, but to the extent it is compatible with clarity and precision, discussed using common language.)
 * The Lower limb article is also unsuitable for serving the role that this talk page's article currently does, because they have the same qualities with respect to each other as do Upper limb and Arm; i have also converted Lower limb to a redir to Human leg on the same reasoning and with the same qualifications.
 * And BTW, a Human lower leg or Calf or Calf (anatomy) article, covering what i assume is meant by the cryptic reference above to
 * leg - as anatomists understand the term
 * would need evidence of serving some purpose, bcz the human leg is mainly of interest to non-specialists as an integrated unit, and much of the interest is in structures that cross the knee; it's not clear what there is to say about the calf that wouldn't still need to be duplicated in a (perhaps yet to be improved) article with the present scope of Human leg.
 * --Jerzy (t) 16:30, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

I just wish to apologize for having written "upper limb" when in fact I wanted to write "lower limb". As you have provided good reasoning and also because I don't have much time, I won't argue the change. --Eleassar777 21:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel that lower limb should not be merged with leg. If you are going to distinguish between leg in anatomical terms and in common language terms, you MUST do the same with lower limb. Lower limb is not the leg and should have its separate page. PhatRita 4 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)


 * 
 * I was startled to come across this page and learn that, despite a higher education and many years as a native speaker of the English language, I did not know the meaning of the word "leg". Curious, I consulted an anatomy guide, Atlas of Human Anatomy, from Manchester University Department of Anatomy, 1985, ISBN 0-397-58284-6. The text says:


 * "The lower limb, which supports the body during standing and locomotion, consists of three parts linked by hinge joints at the knee and ankle. The buttock and thigh, with the enclosed femur, articulate with the pelvic girdle at the multiaxial hip joint; the leg, including the tibia and fibula, lies in an intermediate position; and the foot, with its tarsals, metatarsals and phalanges, forms the most distal part."


 * Clear and authoritative — and totally at odds with common usage. For example, the [Merriam-Webster Online] definition begins


 * "1 : a limb of an animal used especially for supporting the body and for walking: as a (1) : one of the paired vertebrate limbs that in bipeds extend from the top of the thigh to the foot (2) : the part of such a limb between the knee and foot b : the back half of a hindquarter of a meat animal c : one of the rather generalized segmental appendages of an arthropod used in walking and crawling"


 * Notice that the anatomical sense is not the first; also, the buttock is excluded from the common sense, but it's not entirely clear if the foot should be included. (Other dictionaries state the ambiguity.) The [Online Etymology Dictionary] says the Old Norse term replaced the Old English "shank". Interesting, but useless for this discussion. In a larger context, notice that most of the visible length of a horse's hind limb is below the knee. Perhaps this common arrangement explains the anatomists' language.


 * Conclusion: A main "leg" page must be about the anatomical lower limb, with a discussion for disambiguation. If necessary, a separate page could describe "leg (human anatomy)".

Rewrite
I'd like to nearly rewrite this article. I started out rewriting the lead section. But I guess I want to talk it over from here.

The article should cover anatomy, obviously, but there are a lot of other aspects. An article on fingernails, for instance, would cover the sociology and psychology of fingernails, their history, uses, mentions in literature, etc. That's hard to do for "leg", though, since the subject is so broad. What do legs represent to humans? How do legs affect humans? What are the common uses? This is so broad as to be nearly impossible. I tried to cover that in the lead section a little bit, but I'm not sure what to do there.

About anatomy, it's easier, but it shouldn't just be lists, as it is now. It ought to be in paragraph form. How should we organize it? Should it be bones, then muscles, then blood flow and other aspects? Or should it be ankles, then calves, the knees, then thighs? I would prefer the latter, I think, with both bones and muscled incorporated into each section.

So sections of ankle, calf, knee, and thigh? Does that sound right?

Note also that there is a separate article for Leg (anatomy). Should these be merged? If not, how should the content be divided? Quadell 19:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

CNEMIS (nee'mis) - The leg from the knee to the ankle.

This article should perhaps lose some of the anotomical information, in favor of a link to the leg anatomy article. I think that the sexual and psycological nature of the leg should be more prominant. The only mention of anything like this is that some women like to shave thier legs, which dosn't adress the huge cultural impact the female leg has had - in North America and Europe, anyway. What about the pin-up girls of the 1950's? What about the tight stalkings of the playboy bunnies? There is so much more this article could cover.--Dark Green 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Nature
Should there be something about the possible sexual nature of female legs?
 * Yes, there should, along with any other cultural qualities. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I absolutly agree. Female legs are far too important and should have their own section. We should add something about cultural impact, as well as leg fetishism.

Sleep
when ur leg falls asleep how do u make it stop hurting —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.218.17.5 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lower limb
Clear duplication of material; needless to have two articles LT910001 (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Crus (lower leg)
'Lower leg' redirects here, and so should this article. The content shouldn't be needlessly hidden because of its obscure title, and would be better displayed in the primary article. LT910001 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human leg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217160528/http://landholt.com/Interactive/Rotation_AV/ to http://www.landholt.com/Interactive/Rotation_AV

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  12:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Various issues
There are a couple of sections that need some work:
 * WP:NOTPROMOTE: All that stuff on those Kinesiology tapes is really bordering on promotion. The link leads to an article titled Elastic therapeutic tape which for one thing, does not mention the term "Kinesiology" even once, and, to judge by the talk page, is also very controversial as to the quality of existing studies.
 * WP:MANUAL: Some parts are written in a guidebook style, the first person plural subject making it sound particularly so:
 * "The chances of damaging our lower extremities will be reduced by having knowledge about some activities associated with lower leg injury and developing a correct form of running..."
 * "The lower leg and ankle are very important body parts to keep moving well and exercise as they are the base of our entire body."
 * The section on exercises also is very close to guidebook style.


 * Unsourced and questionable content:
 * "the absence of grown hair makes nicks, scratches and bruises heal faster because of the reduced microbial population on shaved skin." (Citation requested since March 2017)
 * That, as far as I am aware, is a common belief which has led to millions of patients getting shaved before surgery.
 * There has recently been a study which has revealed that the opposite is in fact true: Shaving produces lots of additional micro-injuries which open the doors wide for all kinds of infections. I can't find the study right now, but I wasn't going to put the information in the article anyway. So the claim currently made in the article should better get some really good sources.


 * Some things simply don't make sense.
 * Like the text under the photo: "Mountaineers have heightened risk for serious leg injuries. This is generally due to the lack of medical help in mountainous areas..."
 * This makes it sound like the lack of medical help etc. is the cause of those injuries, which is obviously nonsense. If mountaineers have a heightened risk for serious injuries, it's because of their mountaineering activities. The lack of medical help may afterwards lead to serious or permanent damage from these injuries, but it's not their cause.

--93.212.232.58 (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Promotion (Kinesio tape), Needs removal
The Kinesio tape section (Preventative Tools) should be removed completely. This is clearly just promotion of a product, not least a product that is widely regarded as the infatuation of complete psuedoscintific nonsense. This page is a vital article on human anatomy, specifically on the leg, and yet amongst other anatomy related sections, the 'preventative tools' paragraph (within clinical significance) gives a ridiculously biased view using one isolated study, that seems like it is probably an undergrad thesis, which has never been cited except by the same authors when they published a refined version later that yet. It fails to mention the wealth of science that reviews the literature as lacking any good evidence for 'KT' being useful for any clinical purpose at all. Thus, I suspect it is placed solely for promotion. Unless the section was already there, I suspect placing it within the scope of 'preventative tools' (an odd title, anyway) and having approx one sentence talking about stretching, and one sentence at the end talking about shoes, and then the bulk of the paragraph talking about a highly controversial, probably useless intervention, was an attempt to hide the blatant promotion. Thus, I believe the whole paragraph adds nothing at all to this article except product placement, promotion of a discredited idea, and dilution of the evidence based and impartial content in the article as a whole. At least, the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_therapeutic_tape does give more than one source to demonstrate the widely held view of KT as pseudoscience, and indeed those sources branch out to many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.185.169 (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Shin
There's nothing else on Wikipedia on it right now other than this article. We include it in the lead but omit it from the Structure section. I added it. Assuming someone removes it insisting on a cite, kindly use the OED or any other English source on human body vocab but don't actually remove it like someone must've previously done. xD — Llywelyn II   08:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Lower limb split proposal.
Lower limb should have its own article, as according to the article "hindlimb" the term "lower limb" also applies to other bipedal animals such as primates, and as such when linking "lower limb" on non human-centric articles it would link to this article which is wrong as those animals do not have human legs.

So, I would suggest making "lower limb" its own article to avoid that problem.

Thanks. 2001:FB1:94:1398:ADA1:1641:A6C1:81B1 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)