Talk:Corpus callosum

message: again to reiterate. the article is messy and needs cleaning up. gender something (what??) seems to be the main function of the corpus callosum if the article is anything to go by. Why so much focus on gender studies and gender relevance in this article. suggest that much of the reference to gender studies of the corpus callosum be moved to an article on "gender studies on the corpus callosum" assuming it even fits within the exceptionally controversial wikipedia notability guidelines. otherwise include it in a sub heading and be done with it. the differences may be no more relevant than the differences between musicians and non musicians, meaning that it may well be related to behaviour and neuroplacticity and not anything essentialist regarding the nature of gender.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.5.214 (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender stuff 

message: Is it generally known to be a trait more commonly found in females?  It would be nice to see that verifyed by an external source.
Whatcanuexpect 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multitasking

message: I haven't even read, and this is first time I'm adding a cleanup tag, knowing that I should be doing the cleanup myself instead. I just don't have the willing, knowledge or even time to do it at this moment, although I am spending some time to find out how to properly use the tag. So, maybe I'll just go on the "articles needing attention" or "cleanup listing" and check off one from the list to keep my on ratio 1:1. Oh, anyway, what I meant is that definitely someone should pay attention to the obvious section needing cleanup, about the physiology. --Caue (T | C)  13:24, Tuesday 2006-10-31 (UTC)
:I've removed the section as an obvious copyvio. - ∅ (∅), 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: The rostrum is not the most anterior part. If the corpus callosum were to be unfurled then that would be the case - but it's not. I'm making the relevant correction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferson61345 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullshit 

message: === The choice of wording for the section detailing the anatomy of the corpus callosum could use some additional clarification. Remember that many users
who will read this page may not have a medical background, although it is always important to use proper terminology it is also very important to
make sure that what is written is easily understood by people without a medical background. What I mean is perhaps clarify specifically what each
descriptor word means, instead of just linking the word to another page. The introduction section could also use some elaboration, it reads like 
it was directly copied from a textbook. ===
Icecreamcooper (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity needed 

message: Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke of insight on TED.com could be an interesting link as it talks about some important aspects of the corpus collosum http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html.
122.166.135.178 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Taylor's talk is full of much confabulation and outright bullshit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.45.151 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  add Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke of insight on TED.com  

message: Updated, organized, fixed English, corrected inaccuracies. Chantoke (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on gender differences section

message: The previous title simply said "Birth disorder" and the short paragraph that followed did not actually identify a specific disorder, but reported a link between "corpus callosum birth disorder" and autism.  The cited reference did not link to an actually study, but to the BrightBeacon.org homepage (main page).
I renamed the title to "Birth Disorders" and included information about ACC (Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum), which I feel is more specific.  I cited an article from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) which appears in RightDiagnosis.com
I also added a line at the end regarding a possible link to autism and cited a different article regarding this link, since the one previously cited did not work.
- Screaming Monkey -  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.188.38 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited "Birth Disorders" 

message: Says who? "Colossal" is not formed from the same word as "callosum". "Callosum" means tough, as the article correctly points out; "colossal" means "colossus-like", i.e., very large. The claim is uncited and was inserted by an anonymous user in September 2010 with no explanation. All the Google hits, at least, for "colossal commissure" seem to be copy/pastes of this article. "Callosal commissure", however, has hits in genuine, independent articles or books: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5366527, 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3372749, 
http://books.google.com/books?id=uCpYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA558&lpg=PA558&dq=%22callosal+commissure%22&source=bl&ots=aRoO__jznM&sig=r9Hq0CPtECXxfl1PNe8cDkzGyN8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mTlMVLWJMofGgwT_5YKgCg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22callosal%20commissure%22&f=false
I'm changing it to "callosal". 72.200.151.13 (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Colossal" commissure? 

message: I notice there are no references for the section "Brain split procedure".  Is that because it links to a 'main article'?  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain split procedure 

message: While the Yokota study is quoted and referenced, there is no neutral or opposing point of view presented. The following study suggests the entire opposite. As I'm coming into this article for the first time, I wanted to post this for consensus before including this citation into the article.  
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1953331
"Previous postmortem anatomical studies have demonstrated differences between male and female in the size and shape of the splenium of the corpus callosum. The current study using the magnetic resonance imager compares the corpus callosum in 20 transsexuals and 40 controls to determine if the anatomic variance is related to anatomic sex or gender identity. No statistical differences were found in the cross-sectional areas of the entire corpus callosum, regardless of genetic sex or gender."
Awolnetdiva (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out . We follow WP:MEDRS here, which is a guideline for what makes a "good" source to support a medical claim, and this claim certainly needs one. I guess you could either move this into social and cultural or remove both sections -- both the source in the article and what you propose really aren't "good" enough to substantiate a claim like this. What I mean is they don't survey enough people to make an overall judgement, they're not recent (published in the last 5 years) and haven't been published in "reliable" medical journals (ie those that tend to accept higher-quality papers and receive more critiques). So I'd support either removing the offending material entirely, or covering it as a social controversy in another section. I hope this helps. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tom.  (By the way, Tom, the colon at the beginning of your comment was not a standard colon, for whatever reason, and Wikipedia's system did not understand it as a syntax command.  I changed it to a standard colon.) Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been almost two months, so I'm personally prepared to remove the section given Tom's arguments. Objections? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up again.  I went ahead and removed that section. Looie496 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

text:  the Yokota study is the most recent scientific study done on gender disphoria and brain structure/chemistry. The Emory et.al study was done in 1991, while the Yokota study was done in 2005. This still needs a lot more support to be any "medical claim" but the studies being done are worth noting. I think a few sentences (perhaps consolidated into the section on gender) on what the past and most recent science done on the topic is important. Geene69 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Identity Disorder 

message: The 03:33, 21 February 2016‎ 134.29.82.20 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing article there.--Wing (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  translation into Chinese Wikipedia 

message: Unnecessarily fragmented approach, confusing for poor readers, lets information be centralised and displays it with more context Tom (LT) (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Rostrum of corpus callosum]] 

message: As above Tom (LT) (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Genu of the corpus callosum]] 

message: The initial paragraph says the corpus callosum is about 10 cm in length (which may be true for humans) but before the end of the sentence is referring to all placental mammals. Removing the bogus '10 cm'; if it is replaced, it should be with a cite and with much better wording. Claudia (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see the citation needed is quite recent on that point. I'll leave it a week or so before deleting. Claudia (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "10 cm" claim 

message: In 'Structure' section, first paragraph, last sentence is said, "A sagittal section of the brain shows that the posterior end of the corpus callosum is acutely bent forward, the upper and lower parts being applied to each other.", but the accompanying medial sagittal section picture doesn't seem to show any acute bend forward at the posterior end, and I don't understand what 'upper and lower parts being applied to each other.' even means. Can anyone explain, and/or reword that sentence? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, classic Gray's Anatomy 1918 edition, we are probably celebrating the centenary of that wording this year. I've tried my hand at simplifying it, hopefully it's somewhat more understandable. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much better, thanks! I get the impression that the original text, upper and lower parts being applied to each other., might have (erroneously?!) meant that the two ends contacted each other? And now I do wonder what the new text 'free border' relating to the splenium means; I suspect it may mean the the bottom end of the splenium actually protrudes from the basal surface of the brain?  UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  posterior end 'bent forward'?    And '...parts applied to each other'? 

message: Is there any objection to me changing the 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph in Structure section from, "The corpus callosum has four main parts; individual nerve tracts that connect different parts of the hemispheres." to 'The corpus callosum has four main parts, which are sections through which individual nerve tracts pass to connect  different parts of the two hemispheres.' I'm not sure my change is very much better, but I'm pretty sure the semi-colon doesn't belong in the original at all, and I wish nerve tracts weren't called nerve tracts, as they aren't nerves at all, but I suppose it's sort of common parlance, so I won't suggest changing that, but will rather just link to nerve tract.  UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of the corpus callosum - grammar fix