 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 June 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Clarify
editNeeded to be clarified that Throckmorton's sign only serves as a diagnostic aid in the case of unilateral findings.
- No, it needs to be clarified that the sign is clinically worthless. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Deletion
editThis article is a rather elaborate hoax. A similar hoax involving a supposed X-ray image of a knee replacement (with shadow of an enormous penis) also goes around. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Image
editThe image is an obvious fake – probably photoshopped. If the article is kept we can see about getting rid of the image. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- The uploader claims it is a real image. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- The uploader is pulling our leg. All the same, since it appears that the article won't be deleted, the fake picture should be kept, because it's very much in the spirit of the article. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 13:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Which leg? If JT sign points to it, then it is true :-) Jokes aside, I recently added a commonscat of pelvic radioimages, where you may see JT is abound. I don't think all of them are pranks. And this image is just as good as any, even better :-) In any case, what's the evidence it being a fake besides the observation that JT is just too big for a someone suffering a fracture? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at a lot of these, but it seems to me that, in an X-ray, the JT (which is made of soft tissue, after all, turgidity notwithstanding) shouldn't show such a high degree of detail. It should appear as a shadow. In this picture we can virtually see the texture of the skin. Also the angle of attachment looks rather awkward. The enormous size is the whole point. You (if you're male and go in for this kind of humor) show your friends the picture and tell them it's the X-ray of your hip fracture. There's another one with a knee replacement.
J. D. Crutchfield| Talk 22:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at a lot of these, but it seems to me that, in an X-ray, the JT (which is made of soft tissue, after all, turgidity notwithstanding) shouldn't show such a high degree of detail. It should appear as a shadow. In this picture we can virtually see the texture of the skin. Also the angle of attachment looks rather awkward. The enormous size is the whole point. You (if you're male and go in for this kind of humor) show your friends the picture and tell them it's the X-ray of your hip fracture. There's another one with a knee replacement.
Where is the medical condition the JTS points to in the image, which is now included? I don't think this is a good image.--212.114.202.124 (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's the reason why I choose the other image. Because that is an example of a "positive" John thomas sign. I do repeat the image is not a fake. And I (instead of others discussing here) do see a lot of these images every day. --Hellerhoff (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)