Talk:Brow ridge

message: A commonly held belief is that males tend to have more prominent supraorbital ridges than females. Is there any evidence in the literature to support this? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is. Though I should tell you that in human osteology, one looks for the differences in sex, not gender. Gender is a cultural construction, the role one identifies with in society as masculine, feminine, or something else. Sex is the anatomically observable condition. In forensic anthropology, determining both sex and gender may be important. But to answer your question, see: Buikstra, Jane E. and Douglas Ubelaker, eds. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains: Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Press, Fayetteville, (1994).Boneyard90 (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Differences? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Europaeid types.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Per Wikipedia's article naming convention, articles should be located at their most common English name. "Brow ridge" is much more commonly used than "Supraorbital ridge", so this article should be moved to "Brow ridge". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any anthropological or anatomical sources that say those two terms refer to two different features? Or two homologous features? Or two variants of the same feature? Are you absolutely sure they are identical and/or synonymous?   Boneyard90 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Not happy with where the pictures point the reader - two pictures of aboriginals and then pictures of gorilla and chimpanzee. It suggests a stronger link than there may be.
:Don't really see the problem. Humans and the other great apes are closely related. "Strong links" among the three species have already been established. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the images of the Australian Aborigines and replaced with a labeled skull, and removed one of the great ape images to make the article less "tasteless" and "racialist" (two opinions I agreed with). Drdemartino (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as "race", therefore one photo of a human is as good as any other photo of a human that demonstrates the featured trait (in this case, the browridges). -Boneyard90 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some photos are more illustrative of the ridge in question then others. Those images of Australians from the early 1900s did not clearly show the pronounced supraorbital ridge, so I uploaded one that does. And just because race is a social, not physiological, construct, it does not mean that an article won't come across as racist by displaying certain images in proximity to one another. Drdemartino (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: There are lots of parenthetical references that are just author/year (and occasionally pagenumber) that do not correspond to any of the "References" (or even "Further reading") entries. Can someone familiar with this topic help find these works and provide full references to them? (posted on behalf of a questioner at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science) DMacks (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague/undefined references 

message: "Caucasoids" (male) are said to have the second largest brow ridges, following "australoids", but from any criteria, particularly bone thickness, it seems that male caucasoids have larger brow ridges than australoids. This paper doesn't address directly that, but it incidentally illustrates it:
"VARIATION IN CRANIAL BASE FLEXION AND CRANIOFACIAL MORPHOLOGY IN MODERN HUMANS" by E. K. Simpson
https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/37790/8/02whole.pdf
Pages 205 and 206, diagrams built from averaging several skulls ([white] "Americans" are caucasoids). The average male caucasoid brow ridge is clearly the thicker, and male australoids may even be third after male Polynesians. Even if protuberance is the parameter, male caucasoids still come first (or second to Polynesians), as the forehead angle itself is somewhat lower (but Polynesians have it even lower). 
Perhaps the impression that australoids come first comes from a combination of eye sockets a little bit deeper below the cranial vault (making the brow ridge seem to protrude more than it really does), darker skin, perhaps even soft tissue on the forehead itself, and finally, a biased attention to exceptionally robust specimens taken almost as "holotypes" (perhaps "specimen", singular; it seems that 99% of the time you'll see exactly the same australoid skull, if you're not actively looking for a larger sample or lucky enough to stumble in a rare instance of a different specimen), often even contrasted with more gracile caucasoids. Not a proper anatomical assessment, but just a rough impression.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.139.2.117 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human variation - hard data on male caucasoids NOT coming first? 

message: Hi there. Can anyone clean up the function subsection on the page? It doesn't list any sources for its content. I would like to learn more about the brow ridge and what purpose it serves, but Google isn't returning many results, and the lack of citations on our function subsection leads me to take it with a grain of salt. Soldier198 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function 

message: Have editors given a good reason for why the very small supraorbital foramen article exists and is not housed here at the brow ridge page instead? I think supraorbital foramen should be merged into this page. GBFEE (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge supraorbital foramen over here