This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Extensor coccygis page were merged into Coccyx on April 9 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I heard that this bone is kinda pointless and is evidence of evolution. Anyone want to put this disputed bit in?
The coccyx provides an attachment for muscles, such as the gluteus maximus. You can´t move if you don´t have it.
You can remove your eyes, your arms, your legs, and your eares. It doesn't mean you don't "need" them. - Justin from Hattiesburg, MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.135.118 ( talk) 06:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes I believe it is fairly well indisputable. The coccyx was once helping us swing through the trees...Just been to the football and I must say that I dont think our behaviour has changed much Limbic111 03:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
if you remove your Coccux you can´t hold your food inside. you have to use diapers for rest of your live.
Contrary to the above comment, coccygectomies (removal of the coccyx) are done to relieve chronic back pain and do NOT affect bowel functions. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16343096 Marcasm ( talk) 06:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
removing coccyx would be removing genetic information, so it´s not better. it´s worse. think what you could do if you had a tale.
There needs to be some mention of the evolutionary/vestigal tail nature of the coccyx, it's very POV and biased not to. It is called the tailbone after all. 74.122.45.169 16:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | This error in anatomy teaching can lead doctors to diagnose a 'fractured coccyx' when they see a coccyx in several segments on an x-ray.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} | ” |
I removed the above sentence. To put it back, find a reference to back it up.
/
Raven in Orbit (
Talk |
contribs)
11:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I've made two attempts to add the information below to the article and I've now been revert twice by User:Judgeking; first because the "citation wasn't real" and then because the "source wasn't reliable" and the references was "a random web link". However, the "Third Interdisciplinary World Congress On Low Back & Pelvic Pain" is a reliable reference/source as is MD Stephen M. Levin.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)I added this coccyx-related information as a quote because it's still not the default interpretation of the coccyx one can expect to find in anatomy literature. It is, however, still interesting information accompanied by a credible reference. As such it should not be removed from the article. -- Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
References
An image used in this article, File:Sacrum and coccyx.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
if citations are found should this be in the article? 🍺 Antiqueight confer 01:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No opposition - shall merge. Iztwoz ( talk) 14:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I remember a while back there was one editor pushing some pseudoscience about coccyx in Islam (something like the coccyx could never be destroyed) apparently related to that people would rise from it on judgement day (sorry for offending somebody if I got part of your religion completely wrong). First of all, I know nothing the subject and for some reason the edit history have been deleted, so I can not check what was added. Would it be an idea to add a Society and culture section like we have for zygomatic bone and ears with such content? Of course not the pseudoscience the fore-mentioned user was pushing and proper referenced. If it is mentioned in the Quran or some other holy text for 1+ billion people it is relevant in my point of view, but again I am not pushing for any pseudoscience. I just like when we tie your dry, Grey´s-copied and over technical anatomy articles with other content. Please give your input. Kind regards JakobSteenberg ( talk) 23:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Its Between The Buns Of Your Butt On the Top. Its Hard To Feel Though. (Your umbilical cord is not a tail.)
Someone put two bad words in here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.115.82 ( talk) 20:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Extensor coccygis page were merged into Coccyx on April 9 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I heard that this bone is kinda pointless and is evidence of evolution. Anyone want to put this disputed bit in?
The coccyx provides an attachment for muscles, such as the gluteus maximus. You can´t move if you don´t have it.
You can remove your eyes, your arms, your legs, and your eares. It doesn't mean you don't "need" them. - Justin from Hattiesburg, MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.135.118 ( talk) 06:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes I believe it is fairly well indisputable. The coccyx was once helping us swing through the trees...Just been to the football and I must say that I dont think our behaviour has changed much Limbic111 03:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
if you remove your Coccux you can´t hold your food inside. you have to use diapers for rest of your live.
Contrary to the above comment, coccygectomies (removal of the coccyx) are done to relieve chronic back pain and do NOT affect bowel functions. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16343096 Marcasm ( talk) 06:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
removing coccyx would be removing genetic information, so it´s not better. it´s worse. think what you could do if you had a tale.
There needs to be some mention of the evolutionary/vestigal tail nature of the coccyx, it's very POV and biased not to. It is called the tailbone after all. 74.122.45.169 16:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | This error in anatomy teaching can lead doctors to diagnose a 'fractured coccyx' when they see a coccyx in several segments on an x-ray.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} | ” |
I removed the above sentence. To put it back, find a reference to back it up.
/
Raven in Orbit (
Talk |
contribs)
11:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I've made two attempts to add the information below to the article and I've now been revert twice by User:Judgeking; first because the "citation wasn't real" and then because the "source wasn't reliable" and the references was "a random web link". However, the "Third Interdisciplinary World Congress On Low Back & Pelvic Pain" is a reliable reference/source as is MD Stephen M. Levin.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)I added this coccyx-related information as a quote because it's still not the default interpretation of the coccyx one can expect to find in anatomy literature. It is, however, still interesting information accompanied by a credible reference. As such it should not be removed from the article. -- Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
References
An image used in this article, File:Sacrum and coccyx.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
if citations are found should this be in the article? 🍺 Antiqueight confer 01:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No opposition - shall merge. Iztwoz ( talk) 14:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I remember a while back there was one editor pushing some pseudoscience about coccyx in Islam (something like the coccyx could never be destroyed) apparently related to that people would rise from it on judgement day (sorry for offending somebody if I got part of your religion completely wrong). First of all, I know nothing the subject and for some reason the edit history have been deleted, so I can not check what was added. Would it be an idea to add a Society and culture section like we have for zygomatic bone and ears with such content? Of course not the pseudoscience the fore-mentioned user was pushing and proper referenced. If it is mentioned in the Quran or some other holy text for 1+ billion people it is relevant in my point of view, but again I am not pushing for any pseudoscience. I just like when we tie your dry, Grey´s-copied and over technical anatomy articles with other content. Please give your input. Kind regards JakobSteenberg ( talk) 23:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Its Between The Buns Of Your Butt On the Top. Its Hard To Feel Though. (Your umbilical cord is not a tail.)
Someone put two bad words in here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.115.82 ( talk) 20:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)