Talk:Human skull

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human skull redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 December 2013. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Human skull.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Untitled

hi what is the scientific form of head i can't remeber

(calavera)--Hti143 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this is the English wikipedia, shouldn't the diagram of the bones in the skull be in English, not French?

calavera is latin and it is the scientific name, the same as all other scientific names which are in latin.

middle pic misprint

The middle picture says Lagrimal, this should be Lacrimal.

Unsourced

This article lacks sources and external links. If the information is obtained from other related articles, please consider adding those references to the human skull article. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respiratory epithelium

The upper part of the respiratory tract is described as having "respiratory epithelium". I'm taught, as a medical student, that the epithelium has no respiratory function, and for distinguishment purposes the correct naming is "epithelium of the respiratory tract". I've added a talk coment on the linked page, but I have not the references needed to verify my claim. If someone with a higher grade of competence, and who is updated on the subject could comment or give a reference, the issue could be resolved. I've made no edits. Madskile 20:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional bones in Asian people skulls?

Hi,

A few days ago I overheard on television that Asian and (some?) Native-American peoles have additional bones in the back of their skulls, as compared to whites (and Blacks?).

Fact or fiction?

CielProfond (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dolikesefal and brakisefal skull

I wonder what are dolikesefal or dolikosefal and brakisefal skulls? Who can help me? Are there dolichocephalic and brachycephalic skulls --25px 3210 ^(T) 04:28, 25 August 2009 (UT ...Did you know that the skull protects the brain and sense organs and it also helps from the face Yes there are dolichocephalic and brachycephalic skulls in relation to the cephalic index — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supravibhatsupravi (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strength

Amount of force until breaking threshold should be listed. I happened to hear that it takes 10lbs. of pressure to 'explode' the skull from the inside...confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.181.92 (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pathology Suggestion

The section on pathology of the skull is disarmingly weak. The anyone more familiar with editing the articles please step up. Sheer force trauma of the skull is deadly. Even simple blunt force trauma (e.g. slip and fall) can result in skull fracture that can easily cause death if untreated. NIH informs of this http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000060.htm While this may not be the venue for skull fractures, the article seems to really lack appropriate description of the risk of head trauma; accidents are the biggest killers of young children (certain), auto-accidents teens (needs verification). Head trauma associated with either of these is as likely a culprit as any, if not moreso (pardon the conjecture). nursing student — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.252.119 (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

skull forms

I think typical skulls should be added. Typical differences between male and female or different genetic clusters (the common "mongoloid, negroid, caucasoid" examples)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.12.132 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial skull shaping

'Some populations in the past' used to manipulate the skulls of infants to produce distinctive shapes. Did this affect the structure of the enclosed brain? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craniometry and morphology of human skulls

I would like to flag the following sentence for debate and possible review. "it is now well established that cranium size and brain size does correlate with IQ, at 0.20 and 0.40 respectively. The correlation with psychometric intelligence is even higher at 0.63"

The sentence is supported by a single citation: Rushton, J. Philippe; Ankney, C. Davison (1 January 2009). "Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability: A Review". International Journal of Neuroscience 119 (5): 692–732. doi:10.1080/00207450802325843.

On reading the abstract from this article I found it to be based on a sample size of 28 human skulls. In no other field of science would such paltry data be presented as offering any kind of meaningful statistical correlation. I.Q. and Psychometric testing are in themselves notoriously prone to racial and gender bias, so, in all, I would suggest that nothing has been "established" by Rushton and Ankey's article except for the fact that they are trying to justify racial profiling based on lazy science.

I would request, at the very least, that the active verb of the initial clause above be altered from "well established" to "suggested".

I have not edited the page myself, nor shall I, but I would like to see some discussion on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.97.238 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to Snow Rise. Snow rise, you mentioned here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_46#Request_for_some_extra_opinions that you would be able to help out. I'm a little flummoxed as to how to deal with this content, but we've had another IP editor also comment on it, and I was wondering if you'd still be able to help out by moving the craniometry information to a more appropriate venue? (like Phrenology)? --LT910001 (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LT910001, I would be happy to assist in this regard; this is far too important an article for such blatant fringe material to be appearing in. The IP here is quite right to question the findings referenced above as they are well outside of consensus in the related cognitive sciences. I can't predict as to the exact time-table, but I will make it my next major priority. I may even take a look momentarily for any massively offending comments, but the more subtle work of relocation of material to other articles will have to wait. Snow (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comment specifically referenced above after reviewing the source. There's a lot to say about about the perspectives pronounced therein and eventually I'd like to reintegrate the source in a more balanced fashion to discuss the findings without validating them in they way they previous appeared, which was frankly WP:SYNTH, with the wording employed. More than anything though, the issue comes down to WP:Fringe, WP:Weight, and WP:V (specifically with regard to extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary verification); we have one source (which is primary) making a claim (on rather limited evidence), but, speaking with regard to general scientific literature on the subject, we have voluminous sources which treat the claim as either unsupported or absolutely false. If the party who added the content happens back, they are welcome to present further evidence to this exceptional claim, but as it stands, any use of that source needs to be vastly reworked. Snow (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Neurocranium

A speculative merge (please only do if a few other users respond). Would neurocranium, describing a part of the skull, be better as a subsection in Human skull? That would have the benefit of centralising anatomical, physiological and clinical information, and probably significantly improve readability and information by having it in one place. What do other users think of this? Tom (LT) (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge Neurocranium is about skulls in all species, not just human species. — Lentower (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge and reorg I don't see why this is better than what we have now. — Lentower (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lentower,Tom (LT) I think a merge is okay but in two articles.. skull, a common article with respect to the fact that Neurocranium represents all species and to human skull. Can that be done? AWAITING REPLY Supravibhatsupravi (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though it's a possibility, it's still not clear to me this merge is appropriate, or if a reorg is done, this is the best way to do it. See my first comment below. — Lentower (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and would also suggest that facial skeleton be merged as well. -Lentower's and Supravibhatsupravi's comments about referring to other animals as well does not seem to be the case. On the skull page it states that the terms cranium and mandible are used to describe the parts of the skull and that the neurocranium and facial skeleton are used in ref to the human skull.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the two articles end up being Animal Skulls & Human Skulls, each article need to discuss the components of a skull, including Neurocranium, cranium (they differ), and mandible. Note that animal skulls include both invertebrates & vertebrates. A decision also has to be made about where to discuss the other Homo species, as well as the pre-Homo species, and perhaps all Primates — Lentower (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone in favor of a merge, done a WP search for all of these terms, and others skull anatomical features, to make sure the proposed merge covers all the relevant articles? As well as articles that might be changed if the consensus is to do the merge? — Lentower (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The {{merge to}} template should probably be added to facial skeleton & other candidate articles. — Lentower (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done {{merge to}} added to facial skeleton. — Lentower (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pending add {{merge to}} to other candidate articles. — Lentower (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone might want to do an WP:RFC to get a wider consensus. I would suggest waiting a week after any new {{merge to}} templates are added for further discussion here to settle down. — Lentower (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd have to look at the other existing articles and what they link to and what is linked to from them to get a sense of what structure is best. Thanks for asking. There is no deadline. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]