Talk:White matter

message: What does the size of the white matter of pedophiles has to do with the article? It seems disconnected, out of place. I suggest it should be moved in the appropriate article related to pedophiles.Visarga (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fine, and good infact. We always need a good strong kick to remind us that correlation does not imply causation. However, it would be more appropriate on that page, not on this one. Its a rather dubious claim after all. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pedophiles statement seems out of place 

message: Yes, white matter is named for its color, but shouldn't the first sentence of the article be something more definitional? If I know that white matter is white, gray matter gray, and the substantia nigra is black, I still don't know anything about white matter.  Laurosaur (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no other names for it. Not really. So no that'd be a bad idea. Scientists name things for a reason, because having laymen can easily confuse these subjects. Imagine if every time you opened a page, it awas a roulette to determine which word which means the same thing ultimately would be used. Rapid confusion would follow. As for not knowing anything about white matter? Theres nothing that can be done. Millenia of constant asking and poking and probing has only given us complex and hard to understand rules and the vaguest notion on how to examine and explore such htings without the obvious badness that could result. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird intro sentence 

message: The statement "child molesters with pedophilia" seems redundant.  Wouldn't any child molester be a pedophile? The Lightning Stalker (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that sentence -- one cited source is a bad link, the other is a BBC news story.  Even a citation of the journal publication would not properly meet WP:MEDRS.  Basically that information doesn't belong in an article like this. Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant Terminology 

message: The illustration on this page which is labeled micrograph of white matter is the same illustration on the Grey Matter page and there is labeled micrograph of grey matter.  So what gives?  Anyone else catch this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narjis542003 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: The section called Types of astrocytes seems to be stranded, I mean, almost unconnected with the surrounding text. I suggest it either be connected with the flow of the rest of the article or else be removed. Dratman (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right.  I went ahead and removed it.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your quick response.  Dratman (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of astrocytes section is stranded 

message: Isnt the brain been mapped by a supercomputer? 78.19.141.82 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mapping the brain