Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:35, 13 April 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Vital article Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Neuroscience Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

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

A fact from Human brain appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 February 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that there appears to be no localized consciousness in the human brain? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2004/February.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

I can't verify cited source for number of neurons

In the STRUCTURE section, "has shown about 200 billion neurons in the human brain" is note 4. I read the paper linked at that note, but I can't find any mention about the brain having 200 billion neurons. Am I misreading something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.73.42 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Language and emotion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Language and emotion is a redirect to this page. What's the point of that? Is there a better target? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that I misread as two items - Language and Emotion being redirects so removed the tag. Then changed redirect to Language section. Don't know if that redirect notice still needs to be re-entered? thanks Iztwoz (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fine now. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Merging this with "human brain size"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey!! Can I merge the article "human brain size" by adding it under a chapter called "size" in this article..? The current size of the article about the size of the human brain is not very long. And it seem to fit under the article. MicroMacroMania (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you have moved Brain size to Human brain size. After all, there are other species besides humans. I'm going to start a discussion at WT:NEURO#Brain size and Human brain size. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You pretty much need to slow down a lot here. You are playing around with highly important articles, and doing so from a perspective that is clearly controversial. You have also been told several times that you should not misrepresent sources, and should do a better job at finding and using reliable sources. Moving and splitting articles without prior discussion is also not a good approach. Slow down, learn the rules and the policies, read more about the topics you are interested in.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I am reversing it all I guess..? Or does an admin do it? And okay I am slowing down.. MicroMacroMania (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Flynn effect

It is not possible to insert the Flynn effect as a related article to the section on the evolution of the human brain, it quite simply has no relation whatsoever to that topic. The Flynn effect is an effect related to the testing of Human intelligence in ther 20th century, and to my knowledge noone has ever proposed that it has an evolutionary or even a genetic cause. If the flynn effect has any place in the article it would be in the section that describes relations between Brain size and intelligence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this is a freighted topic when I put it back as "further information". I was just noting that it had been a "see also" for a long time without previous controversy, and I consider "further information" to simply mean "you can find more information here", and not "this topic is mechanistically the same thing as the topic of this section". I'm not sure which section of this page you are referring to in the last sentence of your comment, because the only place I see that discussed is in the evolution section, second paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

But you cant find further informaiton about the evolution of the human brain at the article about the Flynn effect because they are entirely unrelated topics. You inserted as a further reading in the section about the evolution of the human brain. I thought there was a subsection on intelligence, and if there were that is where it would be relevant. The Flynn effect is by most accounts a demonstration that intelligence scores are susceptible to environmental changes. It really has no place outside of a specific discussion about trends in IQ test scores.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a related discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Brain size and Human brain size. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Improvements to Evolution Section

There are a few things that I would edit in the “Human Brain” page. Focusing on the evolution section I think that it is only very general information. I think that this section could be improved if it was expanded. The different structures of the brain as stated frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes, the hippocampi, and the cerebellum could be added to in regards to how each section of the brain has also evolved. Also another thing that could be improved is the transition between the paragraphs in this section because as of now it is kind of choppy and confusing so I think maybe fixing the transition leading into intelligence and its relations to brain size. Lastly this section also discusses a study that states that fertility and intelligence have a negative correlation however the name of the study is not stated so if the study name or citation was added here it could help people navigate to the study itself for more information. These are just a few improvements that I saw that could be made but overall the page looks very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patel.1340 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on now at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Brain size and Human brain size, about reorganizing our pages on brain evolution. There will likely be expansion of our page on Evolution of the brain, as well as creation of a new page on Evolution of the human brain, and much of what you are talking about would probably fit better at those pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it is a real good idea expanding and even creating a new page on the evolution of the human brain because there is so much information that could be added in that section without drawing the attention to evolution only in the general Human Brain page. --Patel.1340 (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This article can be improved If the author stated the cause for the changes in brain size. For instance, the genes ASPM and Microcephalin have been linked to the evolution of the human brain size and is often related to the split between chimpanzee and humans. Also the author could have mentioned that the genes that control brain size could be a larger part of the genome that is associated to higher cognitive processes. The final way this article could be improved is if the authors focused less on the IQ. The article itself, states that IQ is a variance that doesn't necessarily respond to real world intelligence in the first place yet half of the Evolution section of the Human brain article focuses on the brain size evolution and its correspondence to IQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solanki.15 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that this may be a student project. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a student project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solanki.15 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Alot of vandalism

We should semi protect the page probably...ParanoidLemmings (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Requested page protection for 1 week. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Structure

Kudos to this article's authors, when browsing it I have to say it's written well and clearly, so well done and thanks for your contributions! I've reorganised this article so that sections follow WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. The benefit of this approach is that it's a standard approach for anatomical articles, and the second benefit is that sections that are missing tend to stand out a bit more. I've retained all of the content. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The new order seems better.. But should the pictures not generally be on the right?ParanoidLemmings (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks paranoid lemmings, I don't believe I changed any of the images during my reorder. So, if you see something like this, that's probably not too contentious, be bold and fix it! --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The guideline about image placement is at MOS:IMAGELOCATION. For small numbers of images, the default is for them to be placed right. However, when there are many images, as there are on this page, it's often good to alternate left and right. Of course, it's all a subjective matter of editorial judgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. No you did not move any of them. It is just me who is thinking abit about where to place the pictures. I just remember that pictures in general tend to be on the right. I dont know what is best for this article though. Tryptofish seems right about what to do. A mix of right of left seems goodParanoidLemmings (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

IQ

"Neurological differences between the sexes have not been shown to correlate in any simple way with IQ or other measures of cognitive performance." that is not true following the page on IQ. Look down in the part about group differences. " Items like the MRT and RT tests that show a male advantage in IQ are often removed". Which statement is true..? One of them have to be changed..ParanoidLemmings (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the statement in the article is not inconsistent with the fact that some tests show malke advantage and others dont, because it says that there is no SIMPLE correlation. The finding is that some types of IQ test tasks seem to systematically favor men and other women. So there is a correlation but it is not simple.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lack of citations and references

Large parts of the article dont have any citations at all. Forexample the part about Lateralization and Topography dont have any references at all. We should try to see if i can find some citations for the unsources parts of the article.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. This article has been relatively neglected for a long time. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I know of some much better sources than have been used beforehand on this article. I'll keep a close eye on this article, and I encourage Looie496 to do the same. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class neuroscience articles
• Top-importance neuroscience articles
• B-Class Anatomy articles
• Top-importance Anatomy articles
• Anatomy articles about neuroanatomy
• WikiProject Anatomy articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles