Talk:Brodmann area

message: I found an error in the figure from OpenStax, with the caption "A number of important Brodmann areas have been marked out on this diagram."  Area 22 is not primary auditory cortex, it is a secondary/association area including the superior temporal gyrus. The primary auditory area itself is outlined properly as Brodmann 41 and 42, but the label is incorrect.  I have corrected the figure but was unable to upload it to Wikimedia Commons because of copyright concerns. Suggestions? Libertyhamilton (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect label on figure 

message: Since this is not a brain region, but rather a method of classifying brain regions, the infobox really doesn't make sense.  I'm replacing it with two images.  -- Selket Talk 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone known how to confirm that Brodmann's original drawings are in the public domain? (They must be, right?) And also know where to get good digital versions? It seems silly not to use his own drawings. PhineasG (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: A user, 99.249.22.155 added NPOV tag to the article. I wonder what specific information is not neutral? — fnielsen (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only two bits of information open to subjective views is the notion that Brodmann areas are the most common used system, a notion which I and many neuroscientists support though, and the singled out reference to a critical article. However this seems to me solvable with addition of references and I don't think this article is righteously questioned on neutrality. I also would assume, as non-frequent user, that such a tag should be at least motivated, else it might as well be vandalism? 130.236.5.145 (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who inserted the tag was probably annoyed by the Criticism section, but since there was no explanation, I am going to remove the tag.  ("Vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and this isn't, but it doesn't have much value without an explanation.)  Please feel free to edit if you think you can improve the article. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Hi, I'd like to start documenting the cytoarchitectonics of non-primate mammals. I don't know whether this would be suitable in here, or in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytoarchitectonics_of_the_cerebral_cortex but I thought it might be appropriate to mention here that the numbers of Brodmann areas are used in non-primate anatomy, even when they're not really homologous.Keepstherainoff (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-primate use of Brodmann areas? 

message: Why are there no areas numbered 16, 50, or 51? --Carnildo (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We actually have an article about Brodmann area 16.  I don't know why nothing is said about areas 50 and 51 -- a Google Scholar search does find information about them. Looie496 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 51? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brodmann area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111073154/http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu:80/indexotheratlas.aspx?othersiteID=1045244870 to http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/indexotheratlas.aspx?othersiteID=1045244870
*Added  tag to http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/ShowItHier.aspx?questID=1032
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified