Talk:Forehead

Untitled
I moved the following pronunciation note to Wiktionary, where I believe it is more appropriate:
 * Pronunciation note
 * Despite the fact that the word forehead looks as if it were composed by fore and head, its traditional pronunciation is (FORrid, rhymes with horrid), even if the more logical pronunciation  is becoming more common.

I severely doubt 'forrid' was ever anything but cockney pronunciation.

Cockney Pronunciation?!?
Cockney pronunciation? You obviously know absolutely nothing about the English Langauge. Perhaps you ought to consider investing in an English Dictionary before you come online to edit other peoples' serious work on subjects they are proficient in. Speaking of proficiency, 'severely doubt' is incorrect English - the adverb you are looking for is 'seriously'; 'seriously doubt' is more sound. Look up severe in a dictionary - it doesn't make sense as you've used it.

Dude, chill out, he was just making a simple joke on the Cockney tendency to exclude the 'h' at the beginning of a syllable. How making such a comment-which at least shows some familiarity with a Cockney accent, and therefore a variety of English accents-indicates he knows nothing of English seems nothing more than the overreaction of a self-righteous and pompous know-it-all who, in fact, doesn't. Also, 'severly doubt' is correct. It might be a bit of the ol' slang, but it still makes sense. Are you not a native English speaker, per chance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.33.173 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It might not be Cockney, but it's still later
The evidence does suggest that the pronunciation rhyming with "horrid" is in fact later (not to mention less logical) than "fore-head." Early spellings of forehead include "for~heafod" from Ælfic (ca. 1000). We also have "for-hed" (late 14th c.), "forr-head" (17th c.), not to mention from the early 14th century: "In mie foreheuede iwrite mi name {th}u schalt iseo." Etc. (Check OED for these and more.)

I don't see any attestation of a spelling that would give a rhyme with horrid before the 15th c. and nothing clearly indicating that before the 16th. If you have a clear example, please cite it.

I think the pronunciation note should be changed.

By the way: When lambasting others for a lack of knowledge of the English language, it is best to avoid misspellings (e.g., "English Langauge"). 130.54.104.138 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Profane material removed
There has been a vandal writing racial remarks with poor rules of English. It's a pity, and I've immediately removed the sensitive material that is non-relevant to this topic. If vandalized again, it would be advisable for this topic be locked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.72.170 (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * The user User talk:64.73.51.98 was kind enough to put the text "His Forehead look likes Trevon." into the "Anantomy" section. I have reverted the article to the previous version. --Xetrov 20:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart image
So, uh... why Patrick Stewart? Can't we get an image of some unidentified average person's forehead? It just seems odd to have a picture of Patrick Stewart to illustrate a forehead. -kotra (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, no. The Patrick Stewart image is quite sound. Don't dare change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.111.30 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any particular reasons? -kotra (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It made me laugh, and that's what Wikipedia is all about! 86.144.102.106 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we use the picture on the page for acne?   De at hN om ad    22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Patrick Stewart image? Legally, yes (it's in the public domain), but why? I see no acne in that picture. -kotra (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a kill-joy, but Wikipedia is not about humor and making people laugh. The image is not the proper image for this article. period. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 00:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. After failing to find a better picture on Commons, I've requested one here. -kotra (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to express my joy at seeing this image when i got to the page. it would be a right shame to change it. Jhoveson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Hahaha, this is a wonderful image for this page! Pretty Green (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * leave it, it made my day! it was unexpected so that's great Markthemac (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Flat Forehead
I'm looking for anything on wikipedia referencing or talking about a practice called "flat-foreheading". I've heard that it's been done all over the world, but I know it's was done with the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Any help would be great, thanks! OldManRivers (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ya here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_flattening :) 75.45.216.121 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sinciput
Articles appear to be about the same subject matter; article 'forehead' even lists sinciput as the latin translation LT910001 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Supraorbital Ridges
Supraorbital Ridges? Really? This belongs to the page about the NewMan! 67.206.183.126 (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Picture of forehead
Recent addition of the image is not an improvement, in my opinion. It is not of a human forehead, so it is much less identifiable as what it is. The unnatural appearance of the hairline and eyebrows, as well as the partial eyeball make it hard to identify it immediately as a forehead. Humans are hard-wired to recognize human facial features, so the current picture of the human forehead is easily and immediately identified in comparison. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not an improvement. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)