This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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. -- SelketTalk 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
A user, 22.214.171.124 added NPOV tag to the article. I wonder what specific information is not neutral? — fnielsen (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
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? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
Why are there no areas numbered 16, 50, or 51? --Carnildo (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
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)