Talk:Sacrum

Untitled

Can someone comment on the origin of the name sacrum? --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Several related possibilities from a Google search for sacrum etymology:

• http://www.medfriendly.com/sacral.html
• http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sacrum
• http://sprojects.mmi.mcgill.ca/gynecology/etymology/etyutsaclig.htm

You want to incorporate this? -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:42, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

---

This post really needs to be cleaned up so a general audience (e.g., me, not medically trained) can read it. Any volunteers? --67.170.23.71 22:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Anatomy on Wikipedia is in a poor state. I've been away from gross anatomy for too many years to care enough for it. You can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine JFW | T@lk 12:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope latest small revision helps a little Lxs602 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Simply cutting and pasting Grays (especially the free 1917 edition) seems stupid to me, and not really in the ilk of Wikipedia - this shold not be an encyclopedic entry as it contains anatomical description from the outset instead of starting "base-up"

Main problem is that it is Gray's - medical-based students use Gray's as a reference manual and not as a learning tool, mainly it's hard to read and digest : Moore and Daley's Clinically orientated anatomy is a popular choice.

Simply cutting and pasting Grays because it was free and in the public domain (especially the free 1917 edition) seems stupid to me, and not really in the ilk of Wikipedia.

Surely there must be enough anatomists around to tart it up to make it more Encyclopedic rather than shrouded in medical terminology to alienate a non-plussed up reader?

The anatomy pages here are one of the best things about Wikipedia! Instead of wading through pages of Moore and Dalley, for a quick answer you can search wikipedia, and Voila! ...there is a page with concise description and a picture.

---

Why "The sacrum (or sacrum) is..."? Is that a typo or is there something being indicated by the formatting?

This information is not necssarily true.

Variations

clicking the citations in this section brings you to a geocities page that no longer exists. --SCooley138 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Too human-centric

The article starts off saying how the Sacrum is a part of vertebrate anatomy. But the entire article appears to be relevant only to human anatomy, for example it never once mentions a tail. Can someone with knowledge please expand the article beyond just human anatomy, and cover more of VERTEBRATE anatomy? Roidroid (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Anterior surface of sacrum.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anterior surface of sacrum.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Posterior surface of sacrum.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Posterior surface of sacrum.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sacral promontory

• Needlessly fragments information
• Would improve information on both articles to have it in a single place, where greater context, quantity and quality can be derived
• Can be re-expanded at a later date (if necessary) LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Merged - April

Proposed merge with Sacral angle

Small stub can be readily merged into parent article. Will also assist readers by having content all in one place Tom (LT) (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Name origin

The etymology section was kind of comically over-referenced, repeating the same dictionary footnotes at every turn, but at the same time failing to give references for the actual points under discussion. You don't need to give a dozen references confirming that the thing is called os sacrum, and that os means "bone". What you do need are references stating clearly who has been stating which hypothesis as to the name's origin, in what year. What we know is that Galen (2nd century) called it ἱερόν ὀστέον, and this was naturally rendered as os sacrum. Now there is the hypothesis that this is a "mistranslation", i.e. that it should have been translated os magnum or os forte or similar. What we want is a reference as to whose idea this was, and just who came up with explanations pertaining to animal sacrifice, or the idea that it was the "seat of the soul".

note, Hyrtl (1880) apparently claims that the German Kreuzbein ("cross bone", here interpreted as similar to "holy bone", I can only suppose due to the notion of the "holy cross"?) is unrelated to such religious meanings of "cross" and simply describes the sacrum as the most elevated point of the croup --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ala of sacrum

As above Tom (LT) (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Am always generally in favour of putting all relevant stubs together, and I note that you seem to have singled out the two larger stubs for merging and not mentioned the other one-liners...should these just be included and merged anyway?--Iztwoz (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Support of course and suggest continuing the discussion we were having about this on the Wikiproject ;). --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Torsion

Is the torsion referred to, a spiral fracture ? --Iztwoz (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sacral canal

The canal should be explained. Currently there is a link to a sacral canal page, which is a just forward back to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Rafe.Miller (talk • contribs) 17:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jason.Rafe.Miller, have removed the redundant link. The page was merged here in 2016 and is bolded in the Surfaces section - the remaining link was an oversight. That is all the information that was on the merged page. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Osteopathy medicine?

I'm not sure that osteopathy can reasonably be described as medicine. As far as I can tell there are no metareviews that show any significant therapeutic effect and several that show none, for example ,,. Seems more like snake oil to me. Mcfantic (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)mcfantic

References

Women’s sacrum image first and larger

Women outnumber men on earth and birth babies. Sacrum a huge part of that. Put woman’s sacrum first and choose larger image. I was on the page for actual info- not looking to complain. Thank you 2600:1700:B270:3740:BCFD:3429:10EC:AD78 (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)