<article_title>Brain</article_title>
<edit_user>Tryptofish</edit_user>
<edit_time>Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:09:54 PM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Sensory systems */ format sourcing (source applies to everything on list); simplify some wording</edit_comment>
<edit_text>All of these rules have exceptions, for example: (1) For<strong> example,</strong> the sense of touch (which is actually a set of at least half-a-dozen distinct mechanical senses), the sensory inputs terminate mainly in the spinal cord, on neurons that then project to the brainstem.&lt;ref&gt;Principles of Neural Science, Ch. 23&lt;/ref&gt; (2) For the sense of smell, there is no relay in the thalamus; instead the signals go directly from the primary brain area—the olfactory bulb—to the cortex.&lt;ref&gt;Principles of Neural Science, Ch. 32&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Tryptofish<turn_user>
<turn_time>Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:17:56 PM CEST</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Brain in a vat</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>For fear of edit warring, I want to explain here why I disagree with another editor about putting a cartoon of the Brain in a vat hypothesis here. First, the image is really cartoonish and the figure legend is amateurish in that it has spelling mistakes (which of course could be corrected if there were no other issues). More substantively, the scenario depicted is purely hypothetical (and, if taken literally, physiologically impossible, although I realize that it is not intended to be taken literally). Looking at the main page from which it is taken, it does not strike me as notable enough to be included in a general article about the brain, at least not as a figure without explanation in the text. Putting it here seems to me to go against WP:UNDUE. I probably would not object to a sourced sentence of text within the section, but the figure seems inappropriate to me. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I don't have terribly strong feelings but I sort of like it, actually, and it's certainly a concept that has been widely discussed. The figure legend would of course have to be fixed, but that's no problem. What I like is that it makes a key point about the relationship between brain and mind come through very vividly. What would you think about asking for an "independent opinion" from the GA reviewer, or perhaps at the WikiProject Neuroscience talk page? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Woops, now I have to take back what I just said on your talk page (just kidding!). Yes, more opinions would be the way to go. That's why I started this thread, after all. But might it be better, instead, to just put a sentence into the text, blue-linked to the main page on the topic? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>Woops, now I have to take back what I just said on your talk page (just kidding!). Yes, more opinions would be the way to go. That's why I started this thread, after all. But might it be better, instead, to just put a sentence into the text, blue-linked to the main page on the topic? </turn_text>