Talk:Prognathism

message: 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!
::Wikipedia should NEVER be used as an academic reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.118.189 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Are you on drugs? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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" . 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)
thread_title: How on earth did "prognathism" become defined here as pathological?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. 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)
thread_title:  Prognathism is least in Mongoloids, not Caucasoids 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Layout  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I raised this issue back in March, above, 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)
thread_title: Blatant Eurocentrist bias countered by new version

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A dental term 

message: 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)
thread_title: Some comments on the illustration

message: 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)
replies: text: Nevermind. Someone changed it for me. Thanks. - Dozenist talk 17:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox and overall approach to article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Just a thought

message: I'm removing these statements in 2 weeks if they're still unsourced.  Chop chop!--Urthogie 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough.--Urthogie 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact templates 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Give the article a chance to develop 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notable individuals 

message: I think that Maria Teresa and Maria Antonietta should not be included in this list. They simply have the lower lip but have not the diverted mandible (as Charles II and Charles V). If you put those two princesses, are included virtually all the Habsburgs!--Kaho Mitsuki (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maria Theresa and Marie Antoinette? 

message: It occurs to me that the illustration is inaccurate.  The first illustration, which purports to show maxillary prognathism, actually shows alveolar prognathism.  In order to be accurate, there shouldn't be a straight line from the bridge of the nose to the point directly under the nose; the line actually should slant forward.  deeceevoice (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy of the illustration

message: "Prognathism is a term used to describe the positional relationship of the mandible and/or maxilla to the skeletal base where either of the jaws protrudes beyond a predetermined imaginary line in the sagital plane of the skull."
Something passing the sagital plane would be going left/right, not front/back. Changed it to coronal plane. 71.84.126.174 (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are wrong and I reverted you.  See Sagittal plane for further information. --Gongoozler123 (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see how you could make that mistake, but alas it is still a mistake so I have reverted you. 71.84.126.174 (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sagital vs Coronal 

message: Why is this article entirely about human prognathism, when his is a general concept which is also used to describe animal jaw protrusion (NOT just the mandible)?. This article doesn't even discern much between the medical condition and the "ethnic" phenomenon among humans. It is two unrelated concepts, except they both describe some kind of protrusion. Very bad article.
: Articles on human paleontology also reference this concept quite often, and the material found here is of no use in that regard.  Kortoso (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are both absolutely right!  Step in and help change this!  A loose noose (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans? 

message: It is an unwarranted induction that because the trait can be traced in historical portraits, the trait must be of genetic origin. If the portrait is historic and well known and traceable and such people actually famous, they are exposed to systematic social conditionants, even throughout generations, like ritual poisoning. djb  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.75.49 (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So then tell us what this should mean?  The condition sometimes clearly has a genetic origin-- if there are other sources of the condition, please relate them and provide some citations-- editors will be glad to include these if provided.  A loose noose (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic origins 

message: Lantern jaw redirects here, but the page doesn't explain what lantern jaw means or mention it at all.  If it's simply a mandibular prognathism, a short squib in the lede paragraph would be adequate. —Mark Dominus (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a mention under mandibular prognathism.  There are non-wiki references to "lantern jaw" being a colloquial expression for that condition, especially if the jaw is wide, as well as protruding. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 22:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lantern jaw 

message: It appears that the content is brought here from Wikidocs, word for word:
:https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Prognathism
: Editors are  C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D., Berna Zorkun DMD, so it's obvious the source of this article's orientation towards dental pathology.
:Kortoso  (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source