Talk:Prognathism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the project or you can direct questions about the rating system here.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale

That's about the dumbest stuff I've heard in a while. W-aaay outside. deeceevoice 20:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this guy SERIOUS?????

Yeah, this takes a giant stab at wikipedia's credibility.... Damien Vryce 18:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 So Jay Leno's Negroid? 2 Are you on drugs? 3 How on earth did "prognathism" become defined here as pathological? 4 Prognathism is least in Mongoloids, not Caucasoids 5 Outdated racist pseudo-science 6 Obsolete, discredited, and made-up human classifications 7 Layout 8 Terminology 9 Contradiction 10 Blatant Eurocentrist bias countered by new version 11 A dental term 12 Edit warring 13 Some comments on the illustration 14 Infobox and overall approach to article 15 good advice from an exper editor 15.1 No. It is a narrow, professionally/ethnically skewed response 16 Just a thought 17 fact templates 18 Give the article a chance to develop 19 Removed Section 20 Caption fix 21 Notable Individuals

[edit] So Jay Leno's Negroid?

This is bull. --Vehgah 06:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL

Note that prognathism of the type Leno exhibits -- mandibular prognathism -- is not considered a trait common among Africoid populations. Read the text again. Deeceevoice 13:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you on drugs?

What the hell is this? Since when does this kind of bizzare stuff make it into an "encyclopedia". My kids use this website at school. Hardly quality academic reading!

You should warn your children (and their schoolteacher) to use Wikipedia with caution. Each article is merely a consensus of some people who are interested in the topic, no matter how ignorant or ideologically motivated they may be. Usually this reflects scholarly knowledge, but sometimes it does not. The "African American" article, for example, contains two egregious known factual inaccuracies. In that particular case falsification by the article's editors is evidently meant to support ethnic solidarity. In all such cases attempts to correct ideological fraud or ignorance with facts from peer-reviewed academically accepted sources are swiftly reverted. Frank W Sweet 12:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How on earth did "prognathism" become defined here as pathological?

This article started out as something reasonable. It very clearly stated that prognathism is a tell-tale phenotypical trait of Africoid peoples. Now I return to find the flat profiles (of whites) defined as "normal" -- meaning, I suppose, that the majority of humankind (black people in Africa, Australia, New Guinea, the Indian subcontinent -- and a whole lot of Asians -- including a lot of Latinos) are abnormal. So, whites are "normal," and a good chunk of the majority of humankind is implicity "abnormal"? I have to believe this was deliberate, given the information already provided to the contrary. It stinks of racism. I've made the changes. It may not be perfect, but at least it's accurate. deeceevoice 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the point that prognathism is defined as normal in many cases, but may also occur as a result of other conditions in those not born with this facial shape. See "Common Causes" [1]. It would be helpful if edits could be discussed without resorting to suggestions of racism -- its quite possible that misunderstanding or lack of in-depth knowledge could be the cause -- we don't need to jump to conclusions. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The insertion of disinformation about prognathism being pathological and abnormal by inference was a deliberate reversal of factual and sourced information already presented to the contrary. It was there for anyone to read, so, IMO, the changes were not likely the result of ignorance. Deeceevoice 17:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the material repeatedly has been edit-warred back to a eurocentric and, IMO, racist version without any attempt at justification (see below for a further discussion of what is wrong with the eurocentric version[2]). This indicates to me, if not racist intent, certainly bad-faith and deliberate, calculated disruption. deeceevoice 03:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prognathism is least in Mongoloids, not Caucasoids

The article was wrong, prognathism should be least in Mongoloids, not Caucasoids. Caucasoids like in most biometric results lie between Negroids (Africoids) and Mongoloids. I added the classic human skull diagrams of all three races for comparison (appropriate considering the use of prognathism in determining race). Mongoloids are not stereotyped of having a "flat face" for nothing.

Yes, absolutely correct. I'm not sure which language you're referring to, but I realize that I may have referred to prognathism in "Mongoloids," while thinking "Asians" (as in Southeast Asians). Genetically more Asian than African, some blacks in Southeast Asia and, actually, nonblack ("Mongoloid"), but often dark-skinned, Asians of places like Indonesia and Cambodia, for example, do, indeed, have facial prognathisms). But, then, there are acknowledged faciocranial differences between these (sundadont) populations, who are more noticeably mixed with the aboriginal Negritos of the region, and the (sinodont) Asians of the Far East. If that was my error, sorry for my mental glitch.

Someone added that maxillary prognathism was common in Caucasians, when it most assuredly is not. The feature pointed to is not considered prognathism. In the Caucasoid rendering, a virtual plumb line can be drawn from the bridge of the nose through the root of the nose at the top of the upper lip, through to the chin (make an upward extension to the bridge of the nose of line a in the "zygomatics" a-b line). This is the flat Caucasoid aspect that does not evidence maxillary prognathism -- not the point where the upper teeth are. I've removed it from the sentence. Deeceevoice 08:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I just came across something on the web that says otherwise. I don't know if my earlier statement which was challenged was occasioned by something I actually already knew or, as I assumed above, a misspeak of sorts. But phenotypically in this regard, it appears that Mongoloids do have moderate prognathism, being an intermediate between Negroids and Caucasoids in this regard.[3] In retrospect, I recall seeing one of those magazine-format shows on television in which the cranium of a murdered woman was found. I immediately noted a prognathism and, without noting any other characteristics thought, "black." But the talking head said the subject was either black or possibly Latino/Native American -- presumably also based on the alveolar prognathism. Deeceevoice 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated racist pseudo-science

"The modern urge to describe humans on a new, explicitly scientific basis took many, often strange, forms in the nineteenth century. For example, the science of phrenology, whose heyday was between 1820 and 1850, and later racial anthropological physiognomy, attracted many followers. That man's physical and, by extension, moral, intellectual, and social development, could be determined by, and seen in, his physiognomy -- in, say, jaw structure and shape of the head-- were to many respected sciences that enjoyed wide currency. (When the archvillain, Moriarity, meets his adversary Sherlock Holmes for the first time, Moriarity's immediate comment was, "You have less frontal development that I should have expected.") After Darwin popularized the idea that humans are descended from apes, the prognathous (protruding) jaw became a sign of lower development and of a closer relationship to primitive man. It also became the basis of much racial stereotyping of the Irish, and racial anthropologists argued that working class people were more prognathous than their social superiors- who were- self-flatteringly described as also biologically superior.

In his very influential book, The Races of Man (1862), John Beddoe, the future president of the Anthropological Institute, emphasized the vast difference between the prognathous (protruding) and orthognathous (less prominent) jawed people of Britain. These were terms originally The Irish, Welsh, and significantly, the lower class people, were among the prognathous, whereas all men of genius were orthognathous. (Beddoe also developed an Index of Nigressence, from which he argued that the Irish were close to Cro-Magnon man and thus had links with the "Africinoid" races!) These activities were reminiscent of Pieter Camper's theory of a 'facial angle'. One should emphasize, however, that such craniological and anthropometric studies "always represented a minority" of the papers presented at the Anthropological Institute, 1871-1899.

These late nineteenth-century anatomical and anthropological descriptions of 'races' and their characteristics, measurements etc. were later the inspiration for the sort of mid twentieth-century racial anthropology as promulgated in Nazi Germany."

See Lorimer, "Theoretical Racism in Late-Victorian Anthropology, 1870-1900 CoYep 19:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, racial phenotypes are those characteristics that most distinctively differentiate groups of like populations from one another. Prognathism is one of those characteristics. Argue with the anthropologists and the forensic scientists who still use prognathism to determine ethnicity in unidentified human remains. Certainly, the version of this article which defines prognathism as some sort of malformation or result of disease is far more racist than taking note of naturally occurring differences among human phenotypes. Deeceevoice 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any citations of anthropologists doing this in the modern era? Justforasecond 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Outdated, racist pseudo-science?"? Hardly.

• "Modern craniofacial anthropometrists (forensic anthropologists) give more importance to prognathism than to skin tone [in the determination of race]...." - from "The Heredity of 'Racial' Traits: Essays on the Color Line and the One-Drop Rule by Frank W Sweet, December 15, 2004"[4]

The above usage conflates two different meanings of the word "race." The above sentence refers to the appearance-based endogamous groups of U.S. society. A forensic anthropologist can determine from a skull's craniofacial anthropometry whether the person would have been seen as "White" or "Black" by U.S. society. Such a determination is not possible in Puerto Rico, Brazil, Senegal, Chad, Ethiopia, or for that matter most places outside the U.S., because they lack appearance-based endogamous groups. It works in the U.S. because for four centuries U.S. society has succeeded in maintaining two endogamous groups on the basis of physical appearance. This social meaning of "race" should not be used to support the notion of biological "race" in the sense of breed, variety, or subspecies. No one has yet been able to categorize H. sapiens into groups such that inter-group variation (physical differences between groups) is greater than intra-group variation (differences between sub-groups within the groups). For an interesting discussion of this, see the exchange between William (another student of molecular anthropology) and myself starting at http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?t=1337?start=6427#6427. Frank W Sweet 12:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than respond to a single entry (which I merely quickly skimmed for key words), address the central question here: is prognathism used to determine race/ethnicity by modern anthropologists? The answer is a resounding "Yes!" (See below.) :p Deeceevoice 19:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem was in how you defined "race." Since you have now clarified that you mean ethnicity (voluntary group socio-political self-identity), then I agree that the answer is "yes." But the easiest way of measuring this is not by skull measurement, but simply asking the person how they self-identify. That way, you will get correct (and different) answers from Hispanic-Americans, Arab-Americans, and Native Americans despite their having identical measurements. Frank W Sweet 20:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't define race at all. And, no. I'll not play word games with you. The information provided in the links below speaks for itself. And I'll thank you to keep your questions about drug use to yourself. The information provided in the article is accurate. Prognathism is used as a metric to assign racial identity. 20:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you did not want to "play word games" with me, then you should not have quoted me out of context. Regarding "drug use," I have no idea what you are talking about. Your heartfelt belief in the "race" notion coupled with your inability to define it consistently make this conversation pointless. Quote me out of context again, however, and I shall return. Frank W Sweet 22:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

First, my apologies. I was looking at the edit history and when reading your comments posted under someone else's subhead, read the subhead as your edit note to a comment made to me. (I've been at my computer, crunching deadlines seriatim since 4 a.m., and taking wiki breaks to relieve the tedium, so I admit to being a little punchy. My bad.)

"I shall return"? What's with the MacArthur impersonation? Woo-ooh. I'm shakin' in my shoes. :p Seriously, though, I just noticed that you are the guy from the website. (At first, I had no idea what the hell you were talking about.) My sincere apologies if I misquoted you. Again, I did a quick search for "prognathism" along with a combination of words likely to yield results in various disciplines. The reference to that particular website, as with the others below was done quickly and, I admit, not thoroughly. Toss it out. Fine. And JFAS still has a response to his inquiry. Prognathism is a metric used today -- and very effectively -- to determine racial/ethnic identity across a number of disciplines.

Finally, you are hardly sufficiently familiar with my thoughts on the matter to characterize what I believe with regard to the notion of race. Further, I have not attempted to define race herein at all. My purpose has been to define "prognathism" within the context of the article -- and, again, it is a characteristic common to Africoid peoples -- that is, peoples indigenous to the African continent. In short, black people. Prognathism (and the accompanying characteristics) is how Susan Anton, the lead person on the American team in the reconstruction of King Tut's skull, identified the skull as belonging to a "North African" without having a clue to its age or origin (contrary to the French and Egyptian teams). (And, no. Hawass lied. She never characterized the skull as "Caucasoid." :p) Deeceevoice 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• A manual for an online course in forensic anthropology [5] (Note the table about a third of the way down the page.)
• [6]"Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science"
• [7]"Introduction to Biological Anthropology: Human Variation and Biological Classification"

From a quick search on the www. This stuff is common knowledge, widely known and widely used currently in a number of disciplines -- as demonstrated above. Deeceevoice 02:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Racism? This reads like the pot calling the kettle black.

The observation of naturally occurring differences among human populations is merely that. What one does with such perfectly factual information may or may not be racist. But the fact that such differences exist -- and that those differences are routinely and legitimately used in scientific and other disciplines -- is undeniable. I find it amusing -- not to mention curious -- that User: CoYep deliberately rewrote the language I had written which explained that the majority of the incidence of prognathism in human populations is perfectly natural. Coyep deliberately redefined prognathism as abnormal and the result of disease. He also produced inserted a schematic that pronounced the flat, Caucasoid profile "normal" which, by implication, meant that Negroid and Mongoloid profiles are somehow abnormal. I reverted his changes -- and you restored them. Yet you claim to be concerned about racism. Now, far be it for me to jump to conclusions about your motives, but there seems to be an incongruity here. I'd be very interested in hearing an explanation of Coyep and your edits. Would either of you care to address the rationale behind your edits in this regard? Deeceevoice 11:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could share your sense of humor, but unfortunately I can't find anything "amusing" about an editor who - for the sake of POV pushing - declares that adopting the terminlogy [8] and illustration [9]of the National Institutes of Health is "racist" but then insists that an exaggerated and insulting illustration of a skull that looks like an inferior Homo erectus skull [10] or even a Chimpanzee skull [11] "accurately depicts the characteristics of the classic "Negroid" phenotype". And, reviewing the discussion @ Talk:Negroid,[12] it's obvious that my sentiments are shared by many other editors. CoYep 13:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A wholly unsatisfactory response -- and not an explanation at all. I will say this about the discussion at Negroid. It was the result of ignorance on the part of some of the editors, reacting to the old racist propaganda that likened black folks to simeons -- when all hominids are ape-like, some profiles, human and simeon, sharing prognathisms, others sharing a flatter profile. Frankly, it's all the same. And once that was explained to them, the most vociferous of those objecting to the illustration to which you refer conceded that his was a knee-jerk reaction. And the illustration, because it is accurate, remains.

Now, insofar as your unfortunate and, IMO, reprehensible editorial conduct with regard to this particular article: as the article as I've written it clearly states, prognathism, indeed, can be the result of a disease condition or abnormality in some circumstances -- in populations where prognathism is not the norm. However, the article also very clearly states that in certain populations -- blacks and Asians -- prognathism is the norm. That means that whites are a distinct minority in this regard. (Your illustration designating the flattened Caucasoid profile as "normal" is certainly not the case when the whole of humanity is taken into account. If one were to take your approach, one could most certainly, and more accurately, assert that it is the Caucasoid profile which is the abnormal one.) What you have done is tantamount to someone turning to a medical article on progeria and inserting it into an article on the elderly and using it support the ridiculous contention that all old people are abnormal, malformed or diseased. You pointedly reverted the text to blanketly define prognathism as abnormal and a deformity. That, to me, smacks of racism and deliberate provocation -- and, IMO, pretty tacky and extremely ill-considered. I hope that in the future your edits will be more factual and respectful of the documented information already presented. Deeceevoice 18:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

deeceevoice, please remain civil and resist implications of racism ("it stinks of racism"). if you've quoted an individual and he later shows up to say you've taken his quote out of context, treat him with a little graciousness. wiki is short on experts in certain areas, and as far as i know you are untrained in this field. i really appreciate sweet's comments, it clears up a lot. the interminable application of prognathism-science to egyptian mummies can finally come to an end.

the skull images are going away. there is no appropriate copyright information with them, and they are not on the site where they claim to be from. please do not restore them. they will likely be deleted from wiki altogether in a few days. Justforasecond 23:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You asked a question, and I gave you your answer. Too bad about the skull images. They were useful. I can't say the same about CoYep's illustration (which you reinserted) though. :p The information in the article still stands. I have reordered the verbiage to its original position. The normative states should be presented together. The clearly abnormal state of the condition should be last, followed by the subhead dealing w/notable people with the condition. Finally, there has been nothing incivil about my comments to you. I have addressed the nature of your edits to this article in a forthright matter -- nothing more, and my comments stand. Deeceevoice 06:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

deeceevoice, i did not reinsert an image from "coyep". the prognathism science with relation to egyptian mummies can finally come to an end because sweet seems to be saying prognathism only works with UNITED STATES populations to distinguish who is "black" and who is "white" becuase of our history. (thanks for finding the links though) sweet says prognathisms doesn't work in many other countries because their histories are different. as far as i can tell susan anton did not use "prognathism" in her determination and her conclusions come with many caveats. your frequent claims (without proof) that "hawass lied" could amount to libel so please refrain. Justforasecond 19:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And who made Sweet an authority/the last word? Assuming your characterization of his findings is correct, his contentions are ridiculous on their face. If anything, prognathism, since it is fundamentally a distinctly Africoid trait, is used all over the world by forensic experts and anthropologists. Again, Susan Anton used the cluster of: pronounced alveolar and maxillary prognathism, enlarged incisors and a receding chin (a bucktoothed appearance), rounded eye sockets and the pronounced dolichocephalism of the skull to to determine Tut's skull was North African (read "Nilotic"). If you check UK sites, you will also find discussions of prognathism used in such a fashion. I just checked the edit summary, and you are correct about not having reinserted CoYep's ill-considered schematic. Sincere apologies. Deeceevoice 12:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hawass did lie -- according to Anton's own account of her findings. You can e-mail her if you'd like. She never used the word "Caucasian" in her description of the Tut skull. Let me know, and I'll be happy to provide you her e-mail addy. I e-mailed Hawass and -- predicably -- he had no response.

Further, with regard to the use of prognathism and U.S. populations, the reverse should be true, given the degree of miscegenation among U.S. blacks. In a Smithsonian study, only 35 percent of the African-American specimens examined had pronounced alveolar prognathism (hell, we're mongrels). Still, black populations were relatively easily identifiable because of distinctive faciocranial characteristics taken as a whole. A Smithsonian study of African, Caribbean and U.S. skulls (of blacks and whites) confirms this, with prognathism being far more pronounced in Caribbean populations than in U.S. populations (for obvious reasons -- less racial admixture). The study was nonmetric -- that is, the speciments were eyeballed. That's how obvious the differences were/are. Again, the cluster of characteristics examined by Anton are what enabled her to pinpoint the point of origin of Tut's skull. Anton states it was obvious to her the skull was African. But where did the "North African" come from? The clincher was the narrow nasal index. No human population has that precise cluster of faciocranial characteristics -- other than Nilotic blacks, and Tut had them in spades, indicating that Tut was very likely pure Nilotic. No miscegenation. None. And, yes. There are certainly other skulls of Egyptian pharaohs and their queens that have been studied that clearly indicate racial admixture over time, but not that of Tut. Deeceevoice 12:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sweet has said what he said (I hope I didn't misunderstand). Prognathisms are useful in the US, but not in many other countries. An uncited Smithosonian study doesn't change that

I'd take the time to find the website, but I'm in the middle of a couple of deadlines. Besides, you're not inclined to heed the findings, anyway. Further, there are ample examples all over the world of prognathism (as well as other faciocranial characteristics) that are well-established, unchallenged by scientists and currently in use to determine racial/ethnic identity of unidentified human specimens. Deeceevoice 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's alright someone found it for ya. The "study" is a poster by an undergraduate. Justforasecond 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Any study that is "eyeballing" prognathism doesn't sound very scientific.

"Eyeballing" as in using "nonmetric criteria"; they took no measurements, but carefully observed and noted the physical characteristics of the specimen. Calculated observation: scientists do it all the time. Deeceevoice 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• I did email Anton, she does not believe Hawass lied

Then you didn't ask the right question. Hawass explicitly stated that those who participated in the Tut reconstructions found the skull to be that of a "Caucasoid North African" -- his exact words. Did you ask Anton if she said the skull was Caucasoid? If she even thinks it is? No. You couldn't have. Because then you would know that, indeed, Hawass flat-out lied. In fact, she denies most strenuously that she ever used the word "Caucasian" in the classification of Tut's noggin. Deeceevoice 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anton told me she does not believe Hawass lied. What question could possibly elicit a different answer? Justforasecond 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come, now. Have you not heard of collegial courtesy? Fact: Zawass put words into the mouth of Susan Anton she neither spoke nor wrote. He lied. Deeceevoice 12:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nasal indexes, etc: this is the prognathism article, isn't it?

Prognathism, cephalic index, dentation, nasal indices, nasal bridges, nasal guttering, orbital sockets -- these are all used to determine racial/ethnic identity. Prognathism is simply the single most salient aspect in identifying Africoid remains. Deeceevoice 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the prognathism page, not the "africoid remains" page. Justforasecond 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You're just nattering now, JFAS. :p

• Your use of terms like "miscegenataion", "mogrels" and "pure" may be misinformed. They imply that several races were placed on earth indepently long ago ... and later mixed together. That's not the way it happened. Justforasecond 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

They imply no such thing. The single origin thesis, however, posits that different populations (which have been clustered into "racial" groupings) gradually evolved over time from a single cluster which migrated out of Africa. And those populations have, indeed, mixed over time. Deeceevoice 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the single origin thesis does not mention "mongrels", "miscegenation" or "pure" people. They're all outdated racist terms from way back. Time to let them fade. Justforasecond 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If the words adequately convey intent, then they are perfectly serviceable. You get my drift? :p Deeceevoice 12:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the Smithsonian Study Deeceevoice cited [13] The study was the first project done by a student participating in a minority internship program, a program for prospective, graduate or undergraduate students. [14]

"In a Smithsonian study, only 35 percent of the African-American specimens examined had pronounced alveolar prognathism" (Deeceevoice)

Actually, the study states that "For the American Black sample ... Alveolar prognathism was not seen in a high number of the Black population with only 32.5% having pronounced prognathism and 38.6% having only slight prognathism. Total Nasal Form was also not as expected with only 44% of the Black population having a broad nasal form."

The skulls for the american sample were taken from a 20th Century Terry collection, whereas the skulls for the African and Caribbean samples were taken from Colonial material and 18th-19th Century collections - I am not a anthropologist so I can't judge the material used by this student, but I know that collectons as flawed as the famous Blumenbach collection were not uncommon during this era. CoYep 17:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. An undergraduate poster becomes a study by the Smithsonian Institute. Classic. Justforasecond 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, the product of a quick Google -- not a deliberate attempt to deceive. After all, what of the other links I provided? :p The salient point is this: it is abundantly clear that prognathism is used -- effectively and with great success -- today, still, by experts across scientific disciplines to ascertain racial/ethnic identity in human specimens. That much should be quite clear. Unless and until the wording of the article is changed in significant part, I don't much care what comments disgruntled naysayers may have on the discussion page. Fact is fact. Peace. :p Deeceevoice 12:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. One more thing. From the Smithsonian site, here are the results of determining racial identity from cranial material using the nonmetric criteria I noted above, prominent among which is prognathism:

Overall Accuracy in the Terry and Colonial Collection Terry Collection

Males and Females

Blacks – 90% accurate (n=90/100)

Whites – 94.4% accurate (n=101/107)

Females Only

Blacks – 90% accurate (n=45/50)

Whites – 88% accurate (n=44/50)

Males Only

Blacks – 90%accurate (n=45/50)

Whites – 100% accurate (n=50/50)

Colonial Material Governor’s Landing

Males and Females

Whites – 55.6% accurate (n=5/9)

Cliffs Plantation

Males and Females

Blacks – 100% accurate (n=9/9)

Whites – 40% accurate (n=2/5)

Governor’s Landing and Cliffs Plantation

Males and Females

Blacks - 100% accurate (n=9/9)

Whites – 50% accurate (n=7/14)

Note the high degree of accuracy in properly identifying Africoid remains, consistently at 90% or above and, in one case, 100%. Pretty impressive. :p Deeceevoice 13:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete, discredited, and made-up human classifications

I eliminated usage of obsolete (e.g.: "Mongoloid"), discredited (e.g.: "Caucasoid") and made up (e.g.: "Africoid") human classifications in order to reflect the current terminology in physical anthropology. I retained one example of obsolete terminology (Coon's "Caucasoid" and Congoid" sub-species) to reflect the now-discarded early 20th-century usage. -- Frank W Sweet 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in an edit war, and I certainly respect your academic training. However, prognathism is not limited to sub-Saharan blacks and is evident among Nilotics to a highly pronounced degree (that means blacks of the Nile Valley, and that means North Africa) and is present also in Africans of the Horn, though to varying degrees. Further, prognathism is a tool used internationally -- and not just in the U.S. What is the basis of such a seemingly absurd assertion? If that is the case, then you should be able to cite sources, as I have. Thanks. Deeceevoice 20:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources? Okay. Let's take it one obsolete, discredited, and made-up human classification at a time. Start with "Africoid." You use this classification term more than any other. Where did you get this word from? -- Frank W Sweet 20:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not objecting to the definitions of the different kinds of prognathism. And I have no problem with finding that prognathiism (like every other feature of human physiognomy) tends to run in families and in the extended families that we call "popuations." I am objecting first and foremost to your use of obsolete, discredited, and made-up classification. Feel free to describe how prognathism varies around the world. But use current terminology. This may seem trivial, but the clssification schemes of the past have been discredited because they cannot even be defined objectively. What exactly do you mean by "Africoid"? I suggest that if you think it through, it comes down "looks African." But this is meaninglessly subjective. An Australian Aborigine may "look African" to you but he certainly does not "look African" to me. First, because I am looking at different features. But mostly because the triangle bounded by Casblanca, Cape Town, and Cairo contains thousands of cultures, hundreds of mutually unintelligible, languages, and more variation in every human trait than in the entire rest of the planet combined. If you need a refresher on currently accepted terms and population classifications, I recommend Robert Jurmain and others, Introduction to Physical Anthropology, 8th ed. (Belmont CA: Wadsworth, 2000) or, for that matter, any undergraduate physical anthropology text published within the past quarter-cenutry. == Frank W Sweet 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Africoid. Sources/documentation? Deeceevoice 00:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you citing the Wiki article on "Negroid" as your source for the term "Africoid? If so, you are either mistaken or deceptive. The word does not appear there at all. The Wiki article, in turn, cites Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, trans. Sarah Thorne (Princeton: Princeton University, 1994). Is this your source for the term "Africoid? If so, you are either mistaken or deceptive. The word does not appear there at all. Please give your source. Stop reverting the article to put back your obsolete, discredited, and made-up human classifications until you can cite a source. Again, where did you get the word "Africoid"? It is begining to look like it is something that you personally made up. -- Frank W Sweet 04:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, deeceevoice is citing the debunked "negroid" term as proof that "africoid" is a legitmate term. After being sent on irrelevant goose chases like this, many start to wonder whether discussion will continue to be fruitful. I wouldn't be too surprised to see a most sincere apology after this, but an insistence that africoid remain notheless.

Africoid should be removed from this article and most others. It appears to be an agenda-driven neologism made up by afrocentrists unhappy that "negroid" had been thrown out by anyone learned. All citations seem to be afrocentrist sites like "melanet.com" or wikipedia forks, and a couple articles about cocaine binding to hair. We can let this term lie off on his own page or an afrocentrism page but it doesn't belong elsewhere. The association between "africoid" and any other wiki concept is original research.

Justforasecond 05:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting and a little scary, if accurate. Why would anyone inject a political agenda (via the use of a coined meaningless word) into an article on an obscure aspect of craniofacial anthropometry? Are there similar "spins" in articles on gonial inversions, dental arcades, nasal aperture shapes, and the like? -- Frank W Sweet 13:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Omigod! I just read the article on "Negroid" in detail. (I had earlier just searched for the term discussed above). The article preaches classifications that were discarded as useless and misleading by non-forensic physical anthopologists over a quarter-century ago. Worse, the article cites, as source for this bizarre time-warp, Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes. Good lord! The cited book spends an entire chapter debunking those very classification schemes! How can anyone cite a great reference book to claim the direct opposite of what it so eloquently demonstrates? -- Frank W Sweet 13:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it really surprising? After all, your work was taken out of context and used in this article. The idea seems to be to put together a case for bringing back the use of races in order to push an afrocentrist agenda. "Africoid" is a way to link many distantly related populations. Prognathism is used as "proof" that various populations are related. This from the Negroid talk page:

Well, I don't have a dolichocephalic skull, but I definitely have both a maxillary and alveolar prognathism. And, no. Not even all unmiscegenated Africans (many of us here in the States are simply mongrels -- no two ways about it) have dolichocephalic skulls or maxillary prognathisms. But I haven't met or seen one of us yet (unmixed) who doesn't have an alveolar prognathism. I appreciate your comments, though. I've long ago stopped letting the racism of white folks (and others) perturb me; it's their problem -- not mine. I'm not sensitive to it in the least in that sense. I recognize it and fight it when I deem it necessary/productive/important. But we are what we are -- collectively (and, yes, stereotypically/classically): chocolate brown or blue-black with round, "Bantu booties"; full lips; nappy/happy hair with a mind of its own; (sometimes) long heads; broad noses; forward-slanting, sometimes to the point of being downright angular, profiles -- yeah, alluh dat. And I embrace it, appreciate it, truly dig it. IMO, we're the baddest, most beautiful things on God's green. :D I walk in that truth. And I don't much give a damn about those who are so blinded by racism, intolerance, hatred and their own fears and insecurities, that they can't/won't see our Light. I don't care what kind of adjectives they hang on us, or what they try to associate us with. Their constant attempts to dehumanize and denigrate us are a reflection on them and their sickness -- not us. Apes? Without them, we would not be here. They are our ancestors -- and WE are the ancestors of everyone (and everything) else. We stood upright, and OUR eyes saw the Earth when it was new.

As an expert, don't waste any time being bold -- strip out anything you recognize as nonsense. Justforasecond 16:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A response

Despite what some would like to pretend, the terms describing the so-called "races" of humankind are still very much in use today as terms descriptive of human phenotypes. A simple googling of the terms will produce abundant examples to verify this simple -- and obvious -- fact. While the concept of rigid, discrete "races" of humankind has fallen from favor, there is no doubt that these terms ("Negroid", "Caucasoid," "Australoid", "Capoid,", etc., etc.) are still used by forensics experts, forensic anthropologists, etc., worldwide to describe the human species. The most high-profile recent example: the description by Zahi Hawass of the skull of Tut as a "Caucasoid North African."

And you're asking us to believe these terms are somehow suddenly extinct? Hogwash! However much one may protest the notion of "race," one cannot reasonably ignore the fact that every day human remains are examined, classified and identified, and startlingly accurate forensic reconstructions accomplished (including the assignation of characteristics such as skin color, hair color and texture and eye color) based on facio-cranial characteristics -- prominent among them, prognathism. The information is accurate and properly qualified. It is reinserted, with the blatant eurocentrism of the edit-warred version reversed.

I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why other editors of this article continue to seek to represent prognathism, first and foremost, as a pathological or abnormal condition -- when the majority of peoples of the world exhibit prognathism of various types and to varying degrees. The only explanation for such a biased treatment of the subject matter is the perverse mind-set that whites constitute a universal norm and that all others not conforming to the white standard are somehow pathological or deviant. And that is, pure and simple, racist. deeceevoice 08:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

I propose a split in different sections: first a section with general medical/anatomical definitions and then one with the pros and cons concerning the forensic/anthropological/racial theories incl. the informations provided by Frank. CoYep 05:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Hey all you dental deviants seem to be writing this article for each other, I have no idea what half the words mean! "upper maxilla", "dental arches", "alveolar", etc. You might want to tone it down or provide wikilinks as required. Also, the intro section dives into detail right off the bat - it needs a more gradual buildup. --Hooperbloob 07:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

"The word prognathism derives from Greek pro (forward) and ganathos (jaw). If strictly applied, this word refers to conditions where the upper maxilla seems to be protruded with respect to the mandible. In orthodontics this condition is more commonly referred as Skeletal Class III. To this condition corresponds often, but not necessarily, a sagittal discrepancy between the upper and lower dental arches. The word prognathism is often applied also to those conditions with a lack of growth of the mandible, while the upper jaw has normal dimensions. The latter skeletal pattern is by far more common than true prognathism.

If the term prognathism is used with a more extended meaning, it can be applied also to those conditions where the lower jaw is more protruded than the upper jaw. This conditions is better described with the terms Mandibular Prognathism or Progenism. Orthodontists usually refer to this condition with the term Skeletal Class III."

The first two paragraphs are a contradiction. A protrusion of the maxilla relative to the mandible greater than Class I (normal) is Class II, which is a retruding mandible not a prognathic maxilla. The maxilla is a fixed part of the skull and does not move, hence it is not normally referred to as prognathic or retruding. A protrusion of the mandible with respect to the maxilla, prognathism, is characteristic of a Class III occlusion. The first paragraph is mostly incorrect.

• I think the whole introduction is quite incorrect, so I've redone it. Please discuss the changes here, but for the time being, I believe the new introduction is far more correct and far easier to understand. Billyb 07:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is, indeed, such a thing as maxillary prognathism. Google it. It's just not generally present in whites. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Whites are a minority in the world. I have maxillary prognathism. My upper jaw protrudes forward. And I also have alveolar prognathism. I am African-American. Most indigenous African peoples, in fact, have one or both of these types of prognathism.

Actually, the definition as it currently stands is incorrect and highly Eurocentric. It defines prognathism solely by the form in which it manifests as an abnormal condition among whites/Europeans, as mandibular prognathism (underbite): "Prognathism refers to one possible way that the maxillary and mandibular dental arches can relate together. Orthodontists often refer to this type of maxillofacial relationship as Skeletal Class III. It is popularly called an underbite." The text is flat-out wrong -- and is, in fact, contradicted by other information produced in this (incorrect) version of the article and the non-eurocentric, accurate version. It repeatedly has been edit-warred back to this incorrect, eurocentric (racist) definition -- without any real attempt whatsoever at explanation of the serial, blanket reversions by CoYep and the anonymous edit warrior clearly operating from an LAN.deeceevoice 12:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant Eurocentrist bias countered by new version

I raised this issue back in March, above[15], but it's an ongoing problem.

Some days ago (again), I overhauled the article to counter the blatant Eurocentrism evident in the treatment of this subject. An anonymous editor has twice reverted it to the old version, complete with errors, with little more than a cryptic note which refers to an old argument -- which has been taken into account in the present version.

The old article is racist/Eurocentrist in structure and content. It defines prognathism, first and foremost as a pathological condition. It mentions the minority condition (flat profile) first and defines the majority condition as deviant. This is blatantly Eurocentric, given the fact that far more people -- non-whites -- Asians and Blacks -- have prognathism than do not.

The lead paragraph of the eurocentric, continuously edit-warred version is deficient in that it defines prognathism solely with regard to maxillary and mandibular prognathism, which is the way it most commonly manifests (abnormally) in whites -- very Eurocentric, indeed, given that Negroid blacks, Australoids, Capoids and Veddoid and Sudroid peoples (and I use these terms not as racial categories, but as phenotypical ones) -- and we outnumber whites -- have alveolar prognathism. The lead paragraph also clearly misdefines "underbite."

As if that weren't bad enough, the revert reinserts what I contend is a set of blatantly racist illustrations -- of a white, male child, one with a "normal" (for a white person) profile and with with a prognathism. "Normal" according to whom? My objections to this illustration are known; they were registered early on, when it was first introduced to the article several months ago. It was deleted then -- and I have deleted it once again. (Note: That illustration finally has been replaced with one that is acceptable in that it does not characterize flat profiles as "normal." deeceevoice 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

Further, there are numerous syntactical problems with the earlier version. Portions of it simply are not very well written. All of this has been addressed in the newer version.

The information about the use of prognathism in forensic disciplines also has been rewritten/tweaked.

Please do not continue to blanket revert text without discussion here. Wikipedia is an international project, and its content should reflect that. Representing prognathism first as a pathological condition is blatantly Eurocentrist and completely unacceptable. deeceevoice 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

At least the offensive, blatantly eurocentric image is gone. It was proprietary and, upon my calling a complaint by A.D.A.M., the source, to the attendion of admins it has been deleted from the database. At least that is taken care of, so at least the edit warrior(s?) can't continue to insert it. deeceevoice 20:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Still awaiting meaningful discussion of the issues raised herein. deeceevoice 12:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A dental term

Well, I was going through some dental-related articles, and stumbled across this one. To my surprise, there apparently has been somewhat of an edit conflict going on? I will try to read about what exactly is the issue here, and see if there is anything I can contribute. Also, I will notify some other editors for their insight. - Dozenist talk 15:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks -- since the edit warriors don't seem interested in discussing the matter -- only in serial reversion.  :) deeceevoice 16:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said on Dozenist's talk page, if this is a dental article, the anthropology section has to go. Unfortunately, they describe two different approaches to the same phenomenon and therefore must be split, as they are philosophically distinct. Secondly this article needs to be placed in a context and therefore needs a significant rewrite to include skeletal base, retrognathism, cephalometrics, diagnosis, treatment, more on classification. This article is a MAJOR oversimplification, in dental terms. This article has the veneer of a dental article (no pun intended), but reads like an attempt to push a particular agenda (whether that was intended or not). I don't care whose it is, or what it is about, it must go in order to make this article NPOV. Fortunately, most of these problems arise from the anthropology section, which if I have my way, will go anyway. Somebody should write a separate article about this in anthropological terms. A tip if someone does decide to do this after anthropology goes (and it will): put things in CONTEXT. You can't just slam a historical paragraph into the middle of the (supposedly) modern anthropology section and not expect people to react in the way they have done. It reads like someone has this opinion in modern times. Also, please people HAVE THE (proverbial) BALLS TO SIGN YOUR DISCUSSION ENTRIES. At the very least its good manners. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 20:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've never liked prognathism as a term to describe a protroding jaw because prognathic is a relativistic term. Commonly prognathic IS used to describe a prominent jaw, but IMO it is more correct to use it to describe a jaw's (upper OR lower) relationship to the base of the skull. An article written from this starting point and in dental terms would eliminate racial bias (of any form). This article should be scientifically approached and evidence based. It is currently not. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 20:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be bold and edit the article as you sees fit! CoYep 21:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Deeceevoice recently called my attention to this article. From what I can see, her edits are being reverted wholesale, without discussion. Given that they are certainly not vandalism or trolling, this is entirely inappropriate. She has made her case here on the talk page. It has not been answered.

What should happen at this point is a discussion. That is what I would like to see. However, if the people who are arguing with her won't discuss, then I intend to protect her version so that the other side will have some motivation to discuss. I'll give at least 24 hours before I protect, because I would certainly like to see this move forward without the use of such a heavy-handed tool. - Jmabel | Talk 17:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

you cant protect a favorite version, especially one that is NOT consensus. thats abusing your rights. if theres too much edit warring then you should lock in when you just came in here. NOT wait till a troll puts her words here to lock it. dr g answered comments again "the anthropology stuff has to go, or at least has to be placed in a context, so that accusations of racism aren't bandied about." every website on google says prognathism is about a medical condition but deeceevoice says it is NOT and says we are eurocentrists. J jackson

1. Deeceevoice's version [16] states:

"...certain clusters of phenotypical characteristics historically assigned to closely related human populations remain useful today in various archaeological and forensic disciplines. The degree to which prognathism is, or is not, present commonly is used today to help establish the relatedness of human populations, living and dead; their likely geographic origins; and, still, to assign racial classification. It is also one of many commonly utilized metrics in the identification of human remains, including in the field of forensic reconstruction. Broadly speaking, prognathism is most common among virtually all black peoples indigenous to Africa, the Australoid peoples of Australia and New Guinea, various sundadont and usually darker-skinned Southeast Asian populations, and the Sudroid (sometimes called Veddoid) and Australoid peoples of the Indian subcontinent. It also occurs frequently in indigenous peoples of the Americas. Alveolar, maxillary and mandibular prognathism are most common in these populations. Caucasoid peoples, generally considered indigenous to Europe and nearby regions, commonly have an orthognathous, or flat profile. East Asians, generally of the Mongoloid phenotype, are sinodont populations and have no prognathism. There are, however, frequent exceptions to these broad categories, which defy narrow racial and/or ethnic classifications."

This is information is factual incorrect. It was already explained to DCV by anthropologist Frank W. Sweet (who she first misquoted and then insulted when he correct her (see above)) that such determinations are not possible for places outside the U.S. (e.g. Puerto Rico, Brazil, Senegal, Chad, Ethiopia) because they lack appearance-based endogamous groups. It was also brought to DCV's attention several times that the American Anthropological Association states clearly that "physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them" and that "there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them". Furthermore, it was already explained to DCV that it's not possible to determine an individuals skin color based on the skull's craniofacial characteristics. Furthermore, even those anthropologists who differentiated humans based on cranofacial characteristics did not define "virtually all black peoples indigenous to Africa" or "darker-skinned populations" per se as prognathous. For instance, humans indigenous to parts of sub-Saharan Africa like Senegal, Gambia, Chad, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Somalia, were declared to be orthognathous "Caucasoids" with limited or nonexistent prognathism.

2. It is rather interesting that while DCV claims that the original version defines Prognathism to be a "abnormal" condition, it's DCV who repeatedly changes the caption "Notable people with the condition" to "Notable people with abnormal mandibular prognathism".

3. This is an article about a dental term and there is absolutely no justification why it should start with an essay about racial categories

4. This is an article about a dental term and there is absolutely no justification for DCV's repeated removal of the medical "Classifications and external resources" template.

5. Parts of this article are still in need for a polish over, and there is absolutely no justification for DCV's repeated removal of the "in need of attention from an expert" template

6. This article is semiprotected, and DCV's repeated removal of the protection notice is against wiki etiquette

7. DCV started her edit war over her factual incorrect POV more than a year ago [17] , and ever since, several editors explained to her - repeatedly and frequently - why her edits are factual incorrect and that they take a stab at wikipedia's credibility, yet she comes back every couple of weeks to reinsert it. How often are editors expected to engage themselves in futile discussions?

8. You have the power to protect your preferred version, but as far as I know, admins should avoid favouring one version of an article over another. And it could be viewed as a violation of your admin powers if you would favour and protect one version because one of your associate asks you to do so. CoYep 19:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Given that you've come here to talk, I cannot and will not protect a particular version (indeed, I presume that there is no need to protect the article at all). However, when one side refuses to discuss a matter, but keeps reverting, protecting the other side's version is actually pretty common, though not usually in topics related to dentistry.

• Deeceevoice, please don't remove the semi-protection notice if that is the state of the article.

• If someone thinks this is in need of an expert, that's almost always a legitimate request, especially when made by a long-established Wikipedian. Deeceevoice, what expertise exactly are you asking for (A dentist, an anthropologist, etc.)? - Jmabel | Talk 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Several editors already discussed all these issues with her ad nauseam. (Among them Ph.D. anthropologist Frank W. Sweet who dedicated some of his spare time to help us to develop the current "Racial or ethnic anthropology" section, which DCV reverts continuously). If you have time at your hands to dance around in circles, by all means, please do so.

2. Obviously she is not asking for an expert, since she is the one who continuously removes the legitimate request made by a long-established Wikipedian CoYep 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Returning to this article, I'm only just now seeing Jmabel's note. I did not originally affix the "expert" tags, but I have no problem with them -- although the article has been improved considerably since at least one of them originally was affixed. I see that the article block was reverted again, with grammatical/syntactical errors intact -- with only the above commentary, which fails abysmally to address the issues raised. The text has been restored, with some changes. deeceevoice 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some small edits of my own to give the page a more clinical spin. I still think this should be rolled into an article on gnathology. I know it would be a long article but it would give some much needed context to this article. There is currently no point of reference for this relativistic term, no mention of it's opposing analogue retrognathism and very little mention of the so called 'ideal' orthognathism, which is the most important as it gives a point of reference. As it stands this article is a confusing muddle being mired by several agendas none of which are of any importance. The only importance is consensus, reference and clarity. This article continues to have none of these.

Also, wikipedia is in bad need of an article on cephalometrics which would make some sense of this confusing subject. Confusion arises because this terminology is used to describe several different and marginally related subjects. For instance dental relationship description uses these terms, soft tissue relationship uses these terms and skeletal base relationship uses these terms. Which is why the big picture article is needed. An article on prognathism on it's own is too narrow in scope for the reader to make sense of everything. In fact, the way this article is written, it serves to confuse. I will consult my Dentistry Wikiproject colleagues and see what we can come up with. Please edit my contributions as you see fit. It needs work. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 16:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your apparently learned additions to the article. However, I'm interested about the "several agendas" to which you refer. Please explain.

Also, I've never heard of a so-called "'ideal' orthognathism. If the notion is what I suspect, it appears to refer to a eurocentrist notion of craniofacial "normalcy," which, by extension, clearly implies that all variations from such a "norm" are somehow deviant or pathological -- hardly acceptable by today's standards. It appears to me more appropriate to approach the subject of prognathism as simply a protrusion of the facial plane from point A to B, or B to C, without mention of some appallingly outdated, race-based "ideal" -- which is not only wholly inappropriate in an international project such as Wikipedia, but in today's global society as well. This is what the article as it is currently structured has attempted to do: present prognathism for what it is; explain that it is a common, naturally occurring phenomenon in most human populations; and then to treat those manifestations/populations in which it is considered deviant and pathological -- not to treat it from the very beginning as, ipso facto, deviant and pathological and defining it as such (as the continually edit-warred version by CoYep does without justification) simply because it is a norm among many people of color, rather than among whites. deeceevoice 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response. Firstly, of course the idea of orthognathism is euro-centric (whatever that means) as the VAST majority of research published on this matter has come from Europe and North America. The fact that it comes from europe is irrelevant and unrelated in modern medicine and dentistry to any racial 'ideal' despite where it's origins came from. If you read my additions to the beginning of the article, you will find that I pointed out the irrelevance of race. The only relevant factor in treatment is symptomatology (pathology in this case is usually a misnomer). Dysfunction of speech, mastication or in certain cases aesthetic difficulty (this is considered symptomatology if using the psychobiosocial model of healthcare provision) can be and are corrected by surgery. When planning surgery, the surgeon needs an end-point to aim for and uses 'ideals' produced from anatomical, anthropological and radiographic studies and racial 'averages' to produce the so called 'ideal'. I do not wish to get bogged down in semantics here so rest assured that I am not trying to imply anything by my choice of words here, just to convey a particular singular idea. Try not to read too much into it. I am sure (judging by the verbose and logical progression to your thoughts posted here) that you are intelligent enough to understand my message. Maybe you can suggest better language so as not to lose the focus of the concepts here.

When I refer to an 'ideal', there is a different 'ideal' for each of the races (so use of this word is in the Platonic sense). We have very little data for races other than caucasian. In my own experience (bearing in mind this is anecdotal) having treated people of Caucasian, African and Asian descent, each has a different skull structure and so measurements calculated from caucasian studies would not suffice for the other two races. The majority of corrective surgeries that I saw while in Japan were for maxillary retrognathism, followed by mandibular prognathism. In Europe and North America the opposite is true, so mandibular retrognathism and maxillary prognathism are the two most common surgeries. I have no personal experience of surgeries of people of African descent.

You are not wrong to believe that the language used could be interpreted in such a way to suggest that prognathism or retrognathism is related to a racial inferiority. Maybe the article should be written in a medical article style including headings such as Incidence, Age, Sex, Epidemiology, Pathology (or in this case embryology), micro/macro (meaning histopathology and anatomical appearance), Prognosis and Treatment. This I think would clear up any misconceptions. A section could also be included on anthropology. I still believe that this is only a small section of a larger article on gnathology in general. Remember also that gnathological 'abnormalities' taken as a group, AFAIK, are no more prevalant in one racial group or another. Subgroups of gnathological 'abnormalities' are more prevalent in some racial groups.

The agenda that I am referring to here is the assertion that the article is written in such a way as to deliberately suggest one race's superiority over another in terms of skeletal structure. I am an extremely cynical person and I REFUSE to believe that this was the case, even though I did not write the original article. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment is directed at Urthogie and Deecevoice. Urthogie by frequently reverting Deecevoice's edits and including (IMO) a completely unneccessary history of anthropological opinions regarding skull metrics you are wasting everyone's time, including the reader. Deeceevoice by frequently reverting Urthogie and others who wish (for some unknown reason) to include this unneccessary history, you are unintentionally reinforcing the idea that prognathism and retrognathism represent inferiority, which they do not. At least this is how it seems to me reading the edit history and the information that is included. The information you reverted is not racist in content and actually points out the fallacies involved in racial phenotyping based on skull metrics. So to anyone reading and tracking changes (or indeed rading the talk page) it becomes evident that you have only one issue in mind when editing this article. However, yours is the better of the two entries by far. Relevancy and NPOV are important. Race has no place in this article except to mention that various types of prognathism are more common amongst particular groups (statement of fact) with a good reference to back this statement up (I don't have one, nor will I because I could care less about this particular aspect of gnathology). However, it is also true to say that there is greater variation amongst racial groups than between them. BOTH of these statements can be true. Therefore include both, and reference. Then there can be very little debate. And that should be the end of it. I will work with my Wikiproject Dentistry colleagues over the coming weeks to put together an article about gnathology and cephalometrics that will (hopefully) be unbiased and NPOV. In the meantime, please try and meet in the middle.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed your comments above. I've already spent way too much time on this -- and I've got some serious deadlines stacked up this week. I appreciate your comments -- what I've skimmed of them, anyway -- and will get back to them as soon as I can. I'm particularly interested in your assertion that I'm reinforcing racist notions -- certainly not m intent! Bless. deeceevoice 11:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed that an earlier version of an important block of text had been reinserted and the language I actually wrote excised. The language that had been there flat out misleads the reader into thinking that the use of prognathism as a metric to determine ethnic and geographic origins of human specimens was outdated and limited to only the U.S. -- and then only to assign "race". Certainly not so. I reinserted the earlier text, which you may find more acceptable. Let me know your thoughts. deeceevoice 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments on the illustration

In examining the illustration, it occurs to me that the first head doesn't really have a maxillary prognathism; it has an alveolar pronathism. They are not one and the same. The second head has a receding chin line -- which is inappropriate. That should be fixed. Also, the arrow over the jaw in the third head actually obscures the chin -- which does not protrude far enough; it seems to me it is actually in line with where a normal chin would be. The illustration would be more accurate if the chin protruded farther forward and if the arrow appeared below the jaw line, rather than over it. Anyone agree and care to make the changes? deeceevoice 17:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this illustration is not the most accurate but not for the reasons that you state. You cannot determine relative prognathism without a relationship to the base of the skull, which this illustration does not provide. Your critique focuses on the chin as the determinant in mandibular prognathism or retrognathism. This is not the case. This is determined by a point estimated to be at the base of the alveolar process of the mandible NOT the chin. A prominent chin can be present in mandibular retrognathism and is treated separately to mandibular retro- or prognathism. I think this illustration suffices to illustrate the concept and is well matched in quality to general inaccuracies in the article. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 17:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox and overall approach to article

I think this issue is related to the overall problem with the article. The subject of this article is rooted in anatomy and closely related to the health field, and thus the approach for writing this article should be from these views. It will help to keep the article in line with NPOV and RS. For this reason, I will place the infobox at the top of the article, and hopefully we can discuss any future changes. - Dozenist talk 17:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Someone changed it for me. Thanks. - Dozenist talk 17:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The information is related to a number of areas -- and not just health. See my comments below. deeceevoice 14:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good advice from an exper editor

You are not wrong to believe that the language used could be interpreted in such a way to suggest that prognathism or retrognathism is related to a racial inferiority. Maybe the article should be written in a medical article style including headings such as Incidence, Age, Sex, Epidemiology, Pathology (or in this case embryology), micro/macro (meaning histopathology and anatomical appearance), Prognosis and Treatment. This I think would clear up any misconceptions. A section could also be included on anthropology. I still believe that this is only a small section of a larger article on gnathology in general. Remember also that gnathological 'abnormalities' taken as a group, AFAIK, are no more prevalant in one racial group or another. Subgroups of gnathological 'abnormalities' are more prevalent in some racial groups.

Let's implement this advice.--Urthogie 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. That format would be better suited to this topic. - Dozenist talk 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No. It is a narrow, professionally/ethnically skewed response

I completely disagree. See my comments on the article talk page here[18] in March of last year.

The very organization of this article is ethnocentric, with possibly racist implications. Because prognathism is not a common phenomenon among Europeans/whites, the tendency of some -- particularly in certain environments, and particularly in cyberspace -- is, not surprisingly, to define it a clinical context (i.e., as a pathological/abnormal phenomenon) by some whites, rather than as a naturally occurring aspect of certain human phenotypes.

Such an approach, however, speaks volumes about, certainly, a kind of professional myopia and, worse, an exceedingly tiresome ethnocentrism and, possibly, racism -- perhaps not likely in intent on the part of some, but in result.

If I were an anthropologist -- of any ethnicity -- I likely would not take such an approach. Why? Because my field of study commonly understands, encounters and approaches the phenomenon from a multi-ethic perspective. (E.g., if I'm an archaeologist studying human remains at an archaeological dig in, say, the Americas, or in Africa, or the Caribbean, or in Southeast Asia, I wouldn't be thinking, "Jeeze! These people really needed a good orthodontist!") If I were a forensic professional -- of any ethnicity -- I likely would not do so, either.

Such a narrow, clinical approach to the subject of prognathism, I would argue, is equally inappropriate here -- a website that aspires/purports to be global in its breadth and unbiased in its treatment of subject matter. The approach of the article as it currently stands is tantamount to taking on the subject of aging (a common, indeed universal, phenomenon) and treating it first and foremost as a medical abnormality or pathological condition, with text on progeria being the first information presented to the reader.

The common approaches to prognathism are those of academic and clinical specialties. It is, after all, not something people generally deal with every day or that they are even aware of. (In fact, the article here didn't even exist until I raised the issue in another article in an anthropological/archaeological context, prompting someone to begin the piece.) The subject of prognathism generally arises in a forensic, academic context or clinical context: 1) as part of a set of metrics to determine the likely ethnicity/identity/geographic origin of human remains; 2) in archaeology and anthropology, for similar purposes; or 3) in orthodonty/dentistry as a condition requiring corrective therapy. It is only in the last areas of expertise that the topic of prognathism generally is regarded as some sort of abnormal or pathological condition that requires treatment. But the fact is even these specialties do not always regard prognathism as abnormal and/or pathological. For example, I am an African American with pronounced maxillary prognathism and alveolar prognathism, and I go to a dentist regularly. No dentist or orthodontist ever has suggested that my maxillary or alveolar prognathism be treated. Why? Because of my ethnicity, prognathism of both types is not only common and perfectly normal -- but expected!

It seems to me the tags requesting attention by editors with professional/clinical expertise have been misconstrued. Their purpose was to call attention to the need for editors with a particular knowledge base to ensure the accuracy of the information presented -- not as an open invitation to an editor or editors to, first, pigeonhole/shoehorn the subject matter into any particular clinical specialty.

In reorganizing the article as I did, I excised all pronouncements of the phenomenon as strictly pathological and addressed prognathism as it most frequently occurs, as a naturally occurring, normal, human phenotypical variation. Then the treatment of it as a clinical phenomenon followed.

IMO, that is as it should be. The old version of the article as I organized it is not ethnocentric, or racist, and it cannot be construed to be. Nor does it skew toward the narrow approach of any one or two particular academic or clinical specialties. deeceevoice 10:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You are the shortsighted one, as you have failed to even read my discussion posts about this article.

2. I agree with everything you are saying. I am not saying that prognathism is a disease. Occasionally, dentists and doctors study normal variation. It's called anatomy.

3. You have a lack of understanding of the phenomenon of prognathism. Accept this and allow others to fill in knowledge gaps. This is evidenced by your flawed self-assessment. If you would like me to point out the flaws, just ask.

4. You are the only person here concerned with race, and the only one not making an effort to reach concensus. Sway people with well thought out, evidence based articles.

5. There are differences between races that are physical in nature. Get over it. Nobody is inferior.

6. I have only adjusted the inaccurate information provided. As was asked for in the tag. Everything else has been on the discussion page.

7. You are the one who insists that prognathism is least common in whites. Let's see some evidence. And which type of prognathism? Maxillary, mandibular? Severity? Need for treatment? I won't hold my breath.

8. Determining what is and isn't prognathic is relative - I must emphasize this point.

9. Before you shut down the scientifically presented article, read it first and then make up your mind. Eyes open!Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, we will make sure that people understand that it is not necessarily pathological. Just because we may write the article in this matter does not mean that we define prognathism as pathological. In the incidence section we may give figures for prognathism and prognathism requiring treatment (although that is a relatively unscientific determination). Give it a chance. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

Perhaps some of the conflict could be resolved by splitting this into two, separate articles: Prognathism and Prognathism (dentistry) (or some appropriate, clinical subset/specialty). deeceevoice 11:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This might be POV, as it would imply that the anthropology of it is more important/central than the dentistry. I'd suggest Prognathism to be a disambiguation then have Prognathism (dentistry) and Prognathism (anthropology, perhaps.--Urthogie 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I considered that; however, most articles have a main article and then one dealing with subtopics. Depending on the number of subtopics, there's a disambiguation page, or, which likely would work in this case, merely an italicized notation at the beginning of the main article directing the reader to another treatment of the topic. Treating prognathism just as it is -- as a naturally occurring phenomenon requires -- no parenthetical explanation, but I would argue treating it in a clinical or pathological context certainly does. deeceevoice 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Craniofacial anthropometry and Race mention Prognathism sufficiently, there is no need for a separate Prognathism article. There isn't even a need for a "Racial or ethnic anthropology" section in this article since trends in skeletal dimensions cannot be used for ascertaining racial differences between humans. This article should focus on the specific clinical aspects of the dental term. CoYep 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for two separate articles. With an incidence section, there would be enough information about anthropology, and considering the article's CoYep has mentioned is a good supplementation on the subject really this article would be more than sufficient. - Dozenist talk 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

DCV has a point though. How do we make clear that it's not just an "incidence" among people of predominantly sub-saharan african ancestry-- that its not an abnormality in such people.--Urthogie 18:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've suggested -- by dealing with prognathism first as phenotypical characteristic. deeceevoice 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A correctly formed incidence section provides information that is relevant. So if there is a geographical distribution, the geographical figures are given. If there is a racial distribution those figures or wording is given eg, "the incidence of Behcet's Syndrome is highest amongst Mediterranean peoples" or something to that effect. Only facts can be presented. Choose to interpret them as you will. The only thing that will make deeceevoice happy with regard to prognathism is a change in its definition. However he/she does not know the definition, and no satisfactory one is given in the article so he/she choses to become offended for no apparent reason.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do me the courtesy of not presuming to characterize my response to this article in emotional terms; this has nothing to do with whether or not I am "offended." If you cannot rationally debate the structure and organization of the article on the merits, then refrain from commenting at all. deeceevoice 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been rationally debating this article on its merits, I essentially think it is rubbish, but that it is coming along. You refuse to budge from your stance, and argue with people who agree with your sentiments and try and provide solutions. I feel that I am qualified to rationally debate the structure and organization of the artical and furthermore to assess the quality and the veracity of the article, having spent 5 years in a university learning how to research, write and critique scientific articles as part of my course of study, for which I received an additional degree. So I will thank you for refraining from patronizing me. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are qualified rationally to debate the subject on its merits, then, again, kindly do so -- and refrain from utterly inane, irrelevant and erroneous -- and, yes, patronizing -- presumptions about what you think are my reactions. deeceevoice 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You should stop posting if you have nothing to add other than asking other people not to post. Which is what you have now done twice. If you had read my posts, which you seem not to do even though you feel you can reply to me without having done so, you would notice that I have provided evidence of your unwillingness to listen to anyone else's input, followed by your incessant shouting about racism (a slanderous accusation I might add - especially in the absence of any definable proof nor any educated or evidenced argument for an article written in any other way). You are a hindrance to the satisfactory concensus completion of this article. You seem to be close minded to the point of contrariness - you won't even listen to me or others when we suggest ways to write the article in such a way as to negate the issue. You are right and everybody else is wrong. Your predicted response is that I am an idiot. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Prognathism is not always pathological among "non-sub-saharan" people either. It's sufficient if the article points to the different types/levels of Prognathism from "normal" variation to "pathological". Racial labels are unnecessary and superfluous in this context, unless you want to imply that what's "normal" in one group is "pathological" in the other and vice versa.CoYep 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Does the current page differentiate between the two? (I'm not experienced in this field, as you can tell).--Urthogie 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So-called "racial" labels are actually phenotypical labels that may or may not be "race"-specific. Such labels are constantly and still in use today among forensic professionals, archaeologists, etc. While the scientific validity of "race" is commonly debunked, the use of phenotypical labels to characterize human appearance persists, and it serves no purpose whatsoever to write this article as though they have no relevance; they are neither taboo nor imprecise. deeceevoice 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fact templates

I'm removing these statements in 2 weeks if they're still unsourced. Chop chop!--Urthogie 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest giving it a month, especially since I seem to be the only one working on a good deal of the text that requires citation, and that's what my schedule will require. And even that's pushing it. I have a life outside Wikipedia, a more-than-full-time job -- and I'm working on Sudan divestment (among other social justice matters). In the scheme of things, a month isn't a big deal, and "fact" tags commonly remain on articles on the site a good deal longer than two weeks. deeceevoice 13:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Urthogie 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Give the article a chance to develop

I hate to see yet another expert team being bullied away from editing this article. In order to give the article a chance to develop and to end this seemingly endless bickering, I removed the whole section and suggest that we follow Dr-G's recommendation and reinsert informations about geographical distribution after appropriate sections are formed and only if there are geographical figures given. This article is in desperate need of expert attention -- Dr-G and Dozenist need to have the chance to work on it. CoYep 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is more pragamatic.--Urthogie 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A warning: "Bullying"? Such characterizations of good-faith efforts to improve the article -- because those efforts correct your repeated and deliberate efforts to edit-war/skew the artice toward a eurocentrist perspective and reinsert the earlier, clearly incorrect and misleading language with regard to the use of prognathism to identify and characterize human populations -- are against wiki policy and unhelpful to the project. deeceevoice 13:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Further, you will also note, CoYep, that the language I wrote correcting the clearly incorrect information in the previous lead paragraph about overbites/underbites -- which you kept edit-warring to an incorrect version -- has been left as-is by Dr-G and Dozenist. deeceevoice 15:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Section

I removed following section:

Broadly speaking, prognathism is most common among virtually all black peoples indigenous to Africa, the Australoid peoples of Australia and New Guinea, various sundadont, usually darker-skinned Southeast Asian populations, and the Sudroid (sometimes called Veddoid) and Australoid peoples of the Indian subcontinent ^{[citation needed]}. It also occurs frequently in indigenous peoples of the Americas^{[citation needed]}, thought by some to be traceable to a very early Australoid presence in the Americas.^[1]. Alveolar, maxillary and mandibular prognathism are most common in these populations. ^{[citation needed]} Caucasoid peoples, generally considered indigenous to Europe and nearby regions, commonly have an orthognathous, or flat profile^{[citation needed]}. East Asians, generally of the Mongoloid phenotype, are sinodont populations and typically are without prognathism^{[citation needed]}. There are, however, frequent exceptions to these broad categories, which defy narrow racial and/or ethnic classifications. ^{[citation needed]}

Reasons:

1. Contains too many unsourced assertions

2. The only source given [19] doesn't even mention prognathism

Jimmy Wales about "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information":

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.[20]

3. Too many incorrect assertions, see the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" [21] and the article in the journal "Current Anthropology", published by the University of Chicago Press, [22], see excerpt below:

More on Skeletal Analysis and the Race Concept

John H. Robertson, Current Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), pp. 617-619, The University of Chicago Press

[…] His proposed subvarieties are hardly an improvement over the numerous other “racial” classifications that have been proposed since the 18th century. All these traditional “racial” classifications ignore basic concepts, the foremost being that all populations contain a tremendous amount of genetic variability which defies definition. There will always be some populations which do not fit the classification, and hence they will have to be considered as “mixed” – a genetic impossibility. […] It appears that Krzyzaniak is equating prognathism with "Negro", and this is wrong. Prognathism is a morphological trait which exists as part of the normal variations in all human populations. The trait can be computed metrically using gnathic index, basion-alveolar length/basion-nasion length x 100. The gnathic is subdivided into three groups: prognathous, 103 and above; mesognathous, 98 to 102.9; orthognathous, up to 97.9. A bried review of the literature amply illustrated that all human populations have a full range of gnathic index values. […] An inspection of table 1 illustrates that all the populations under consideration have mean indices in the mesognathic range. The North American population has the mean closest to prognathic, and the Japanese means are closest to orthognathic. The gnathic index range for South African and North African skulls shows that the full range of individuals, from strongly orthognathic to strongly prognathic, exist in both populations. If the full range rather than just the mean values were available for the Japanese and Jebel Moya populations, a somewhat similar situation would be found. Table 2 gives the distribution of gnathic index for the South African skulls. … In every case, the majority of individuals are mesognathic, with varying numbers of orthognathic and prognathic individuals. Not all "Negroes" are prognathic. It is incorrect to assume a biological relationship between two populations on the basis of that characteristic. [23]

CoYep 11:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've discussed this extensively above here[24] (and elsewhere). The assertion w/regard to prognathism and use in forensics and other fields is adequately referenced and contradicts outright the misleading and incorrect information authored by Sweet. And it has absolutely nothing to do with assigning racial categories, but with identifying human populations. Again, the text is restored.

Furthermore, the discussion about citations above address that issue. Kindly discuss and seek consensus before deleting wholesale blocks of text. deeceevoice 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I went back and added a "Notes" subhead. (Without it, footnotes/in-line references did not appear in the article even though they had been added.) deeceevoice 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and I hate reverting or removing other peoples work. Admittedly I don't know much about the figures regarding which 'races' display prognathic relationships. I do know however that almost every statement in this paragraph is uncited except for one. That means that it is opinion not fact (as well as going against my own personal anecdotal experience). Why do you insist on assigning prognathism to particular races? You are the one who keeps saying that there is more variation within the races than between them, which is true. I still believe this is an unnecessary paragraph, apart from the fact that it is heavily uncited and not even taking into account the above statement regarding citation tags. I just don't think it is necessary for the understanding of gnathologic relationships. PLEASE try to understand that prognathism is a relativistic term. A person can be one degree prognathic or several, and only one might be pathologic. You are confused. Most diagnoses are made from figures calculated from large scale cephalometric analyses and racial averages. A person of african descent who is assessed using figures retrieved for caucasians will of course be diagnosed as prognathic. And this is usually what happens, because the only cephalometric data available is for caucasians. I would imagine, however that cephalometric studies for people of african descent produce data that aren't too far away from caucasian, possible a degree or two in the difference, which less than a standard deviation. There is an ideal dental relationship, which has been observed around the world amongst all races (but more often in 'native' or I suppose you could say genetically homologous races) - that is orthognathic (dentally, skeletally). Therefore, gnathism or skeletal relationships are only pathological when they produce a large discrepancy between the dental arches, or move further away from the ideal orthognathic relationship. Please get some figures of incidence amongst each population, or the section goes. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who your above comment is directed to, but unfortunately, DCV refuses to acknowledge the basic fact that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. I'm especially interested to see recent sources which evidence her assertions about the alleged correlation between prognathism and skin color (eg. "most common among virtually all black people", "usually darker-skinned populations", etc.) but unfortunately, since March last year [25]her "deadlines" make it impossible for her to provide the requested sources, so I won't hold my breath. Furthermore, I agree with your opinion that this paragraph/section is unnecessary in an article about Prognathism. A "see also" link to Craniofacial anthropometry or Race or Forensics would be sufficient. CoYep 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, directed at DCV. But good ideas.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Before telling me what I refuse to acknowledge, let me call your attention to this sentence: "There are, however, frequent exceptions to these broad categories, which defy narrow racial and/or ethnic classifications." The point is the phenotypical categories are sufficiently useful and sufficiently applicable as to be -- again -- in broad use by forensic professionals, forensic archaeologists, etc., and are found throughout the literature, in professional manuals, college course syllabi, etc. -- despite Sweet and your specious assertions to the contrary. And some of the many, many examples of their current use are cited in the article. deeceevoice 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about loosely used anthropological groupings. This is an article about prognathism. One sentence rounding out a whole paragraph about how certain races have higher prevalence of certain craniofacial relationships is called bias. It is not only biased it is CONTRADICTORY as demonstrated by the evidence provided by CoYep above. It is unscientific to determine race based on craniofacial metrics if there is greater variation amongst races than between them. This means that your error would be greater than your result and in science that means that you have a wrong answer. PLEASE read entire postings before replying, also. Don't just fire off posts uninformed. BTW the evidence you provided is of a poor quality vs. the evidence that CoYep provided. We do weigh articles based on their quality in the science world.

The very fact that there is massive debate and contradiction amongst anthropology experts means that we will not resolve this here and it therefore should not be included in this article. I vote for links to existing anthropological articles that cover this topic in more depth.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then let's do it that way. CoYep 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Like Dr. G said: Greater error than result equals wrong answer, debate will not be resolved and should be left out of the article, links to appropriate articles about debate could be useful and can be included, article is not about anthropology. And, coming from the outside while having no stake in this, my presumably neutral POV on how this debate comes across is that the talk is being sidetracked, into something that is neither the direct topic of the article, nor something that should be difficult to cover NPOV to the extent that it has indirect relevance, preferrably in just a couple of sentences and a source. It appears Dr. G, CoYep et al, are doing a rational effort to improve the quality of the article, while DCV appears to be sidetracking it and acting in a very confrontational and uncooperative manner. Note that I am not saying that any of my assessment needs be taken as a statement of how things are, I'm just trying to offer a mirror here, to show what this looks like from the outside. Hopefully, the various parties can glean something useful from an external reflection of their participation, and adjust their efforts appropriately. If something in this debate is coming across so strongly as this to an external party, it is bound to cause the involved parties to interpret it even more strongly, which is counterproductive. This is Wikipedia, and the process is simple enough: build a consensus on what goes in the article, and leave all else unsaid until a consensus emerges on that as well. No information is better than contested info when consensus and verifiable sources determine the quantity that substitutes for "correctness" on WP... ref the J. Wales quote. Zuiram 05:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption fix

The caption is a extremely misleading, as it suggests that the open bite, which is clearly the most obvious and serious defect in this situation, is a type of prognathism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus I can't find an article on Open Bite. Also, Thumbsucking cannot possibly actually cause this, can it?

[edit] Notable Individuals

What's the point of this section, to devote this much to a trait that happens to be uncommon among europeans? If anyobe really insists on keeping it, I'd suggest adding Dog Chapman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.68.182 (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am against having this section. Having two notable examples elsewhere in the text would be sufficient. Otherwise, we will be seeing the list get longer with no good references (as there is now) and for no good purpose. A couple of examples would suffice. - Dozenist talk 11:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)