Talk:Hand/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Untitled sections
I removed this sentence because opossums aren't anywhere near Daubentoniidae taxonomically: Other than opossums (Daubentoniidae), lemurs (Daubentoniidae) and the now extinct dinosaurs, this is a unique feature. -phma 13:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where/when/how does second hand mean anything close to "I know it like the back of my hand"? The only usage I know is like the reference to second-hand goods; meaning indirect: IE second-hand knowledge; "Someone told me you did it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteowlneils (talk • contribs) at 19:08, April 4, 2004 (UTC)
Here is image pof hand in SVG format. It is vector graphics format, optimized for internet (it is subset of XML). Many programs can edit svg images (like SodiPodi or Inkscape). Its much more easy to improve SVG image than JPEG, PNG raster images. Kenny sh at 15:40, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Hand
Yeah, this section on common uses in the english language needs to go. What about "hand" the verb? What about the adjective "handy"? How about just adding a link to the wiktionary article.
And why does the hand in the picture in the upper right of the page have a ring on one of its fingers? People don't naturally have rings. I don't wear a ring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.137.57 (talk) at 23:33, June 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, it has little to do with the subject of hands, is more suited to Wiktionary, is completely unreferenced, is very incomplete, and is somewhat inaccurate. I have removed it, but am copying it to the talk page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Common uses in the English language
I know it like the back of my hand - English phrase used to say that the subject knows the matter perfectly, as if it were part of their body, or that they were born with the knowledge. Related: Second hand.
Second hand - Similar to "I know it like the back of my hand," in that it is definitely known by the subject. Similar to something being described as second nature. Not to be confused with second-hand goods, which have already been used before, and are being resold. In the U.S., at least, second hand means indirect--almost the opposite. "She told me walking everyday is good for the brain" indicates second hand knowledge.
A person may also describe somebody as his right-hand man, which means that he relies heavily on this person; this may derive from the importance of the right hand in right-handed individuals. The commonness of right-handedness may be the source of attitudes of importance and superiority on the right over the left by many cultures. This is exemplified by phrases such as "to be seated at the right hand of the gods when Judgment comes."
Lending a hand is an English phrase that means helping someone. If I ask you to "Lend me a Hand," then I am asking you to come help me.
The hand is also an archaic unit of measurement, and is currently used as the standard unit to measure the height of horses.
The hand in watches is an indicator, usually made of a thin, light piece of metal, very variable in form, which moves over a graduated dial or scale. Watches usually have three hands showing the hours, minutes and seconds.
To be caught red-handed is to be caught in the act of doing something. Most likely derived from finding somebody with blood on their hands, indicating their guilt of a crime.
Big Hands
I think you should add a wiktionary article on the Tyler Gillette and how massavie hands can be a struggle for the youth. Tyler Gillette is an insperation for us all. If you could better understand his giant hands would be very helpful to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Rice (talk • contribs) at 14:30, May 10, 2006 (UTC)
Other primates
In order to emphasize the point that hands aren't exclusively a human phenomenon, it would be nice to see some pictures of hands of other primates, whether they be apes, monkeys, lemurs, etc. --saforrest 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
First person
The first person voice is inappropriate, especially since the article may be read by people without hands. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed
Removed a Citation needed tag for the line that states how many fingers we have on one hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) at 21:24, April 28, 2007 (UTC)
- facts need sources. You can't just claim the human hand has five fingers without something to back you up. You can't just look at peoples' hands yourself, because that would constitute original research. I mean, I can look at my hand and say that humans only have four finger, but I would be wrong. So, you need a source for these types of claims. You wouldn't believe how much "common knowledge is, in fact, false. 139.102.241.40 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I added a source for this, and now someone wants a citation for "people have two hands". I don't want to screw around anymore, so here it is in case someone wants to add it: http://tangible.media.mit.edu/content/papers/pdf/AudioToolkit_CHI98.pdf Illuminatedwax 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that every phrase on this page needs to be citated, for example "The human hand has at least 27 bones" where is the source? These facts could very well be made up, especially as it says at "at least". In any case if some one is born with less than 27 bones in thier hand, does this make them not human? I might also add that this page is open to such scrutiny due to the joke that everything needs citation including the hand has 5 digits (one thumb and four fingers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.83.128 (talk) at 17:49, May 29, 2007 (UTC)
If you say that a typical human has five fingers on each hand, and a typical human has 2 hands shouldn't that work (because typical is not really factual because it is not including all humans)--TANK 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Having a citation for George Washington meeting the King of France is one thing. Having a citation for the number of fingers on the human hand just makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. Lots42 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The only reason there is a "citation" for the number of fingers on the human hand is this Bash.org quote: http://www.bash.org/?757724. I'm going to remove this since there is NO need to have a citation for the number of fingers on the human hand -- unless of course you want to be sheep who are playing right into this little joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.232.104 (talk) at 10:41, June 19, 2007 (UTC)
- This comes a bit late, but I'd like to apologize for being the originator of that quote. I had no earthly idea that just saying something like that in a completely unrelated IRC channel would spiral out of control and cause so much vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.225.230 (talk) at 17:00, September 21, 2007 (UTC)
References
The references section says, among the references, the article needs references. Something isn't right here. And above the warning box is the odd text 'ABC LTD'. What's that? Lots42 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
More info
yeah, its good and all, it says the muscles and stuff, but what do all the muscles actually do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourfrendmadz (talk • contribs) at 21:30, July 17, 2007 (UTC)
Anatomical position
The bones of the wrist section (and maybe other sections as well) on this page is backwards. It puts the scaphoid on the medial side on the wrist when the scaphoid is actually closest to the thumb. First of all, in the anatomical position of the body, the thumb is lateral (see http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wnor/terminologyanatposition.htm and many other pages). Second, a lot of people using Wiki aren't going to know this, so it would be clearer to say that the scaphoid is on the side closest to the thumb. As an aside, arrows on that x-ray would be nice showing the bones. Or what about an overlay? Maybe one copy without the drawn-in overlay and one copy with? The Pisiform is particularly confusing (where'd they go? how'd you get four bones in the proximal row?) in an anterior view X-ray, and the Hook of Hamate would be nice to see as it is functional. A0900 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
