This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anatomy: Organs High‑importance 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to organs. Animal anatomy Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience Mid‑importance 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Physiology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

I think this article is in desperate need of images. The description of where this important gland sounds like ancient Greek to someone that knows nothing about the brain and it's anatomy. JoeHenzi 18:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The third paragraph under "Functions" starts with, 'It also contains a substance which if injected intravenously causes fall of blood-pressure.' Is this supposed to refer to the correlation between blood pressure and Melatonin production?

The description in "Functions" is vague. Melatonin usally increases potassium channel conductance thereby slowing down the heart rate and possibly relaxing the endothelium (haven't checked this). moosattack

There is no reputable evidence that fluoride has any influence on humman sexual maturity. In fact, the contrary exists. So, let's just drop this line in the article until peer-reviewed data is available.

https://usahitman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/calc_pineal_500.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.76 (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following section has been totally unsourced for four (4) years. I've removed it from the article for that reason.

===Cancer===

Tumours of the pineal gland are called pinealomas. These tumours are rare and 50% to 70% are germinomas that arise from sequestered embryonic germ cells. Histologically they are similar to testicular seminomas and ovarian dysgerminomas.

A pineal tumour can compress the superior colliculi and pretectal area of the dorsal midbrain, producing Parinaud's syndrome. Pineal tumours also can cause compression of the cerebral aqueduct, resulting in a noncommunicating hydrocephalus.

These neoplasms are divided into two categories, pineoblastomas and pineocytomas,^{[citation needed]} based on their level of differentiation, which, in turn, correlates with their neoplastic aggressiveness. The clinical course of patients with pineocytomas is prolonged, averaging 7 years.^{[citation needed]} The manifestations are the consequence of their pressure effects and consist of visual disturbances, headache, mental deterioration, and sometimes dementia-like behaviour.^{[citation needed]}The position of these tumours makes them very difficult or impossible to remove surgically.

In addition, as behaviour has the British spelling, I've changed tumor to tumour.

Hordaland (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hordaland how does this improve the article or help readers?? Being unsourced is not a reason to remove this content. If you have a specific section that you find questionable you can specifically remove that section. Some of this content doesn't even need citations ("Tumours of the pineal gland are called pinealomas"). It took me about 3 minutes to find enough sources to support most of the content in this section. Please consider improving content rather than just removing it in future (WP:PRESERVE). --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should be OK now. --Hordaland (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sapientiacr thinks it's "tangential" to mention Descartes and the third eye in the lede. The WP:LEDE "should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" - if we've got a full section on Descartes' theory and related takes on the pineal gland as a third eye, I don't think a short sentence is undue. --McGeddon (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McGeddon Then add in the led: "However, most of it Descartes' basic anatomical and physiological were mistaken assumptions, not only by modern standards, but also in light of what was already known in his time.". In this way, then: "should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" OK. --Sapientiacr (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"16th century philosopher was mostly wrong about anatomy, so may or may not have been wrong to call the pineal gland the seat of the human soul" doesn't seem like it adds very much. If we're including a couple of sentences about spiritual theories in the lede, it'd seem better to throw in something about chakras. --McGeddon (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't find it inappropriate to give a brief mention of Descartes's theory in the lead, reserving all details and criticisms for the body, so long as the reader is not left with the idea that Descartes might have been correct. I don't much care though for tacking that brief mention onto a paragraph that is about something else. Also as I remember it Descartes's rationale didn't have anything to do with the "third eye" concept -- he favored the pineal because it is the only brain part he knew about that doesn't have left-side and right-side versions. Looie496 (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McGeddon Looie496 Wikipedia is not an esoteric or mystical encyclopedia. The contents of this article confused the scientific issues with the esoteric or mystical themes. Therefore it has a pseudoscientific bias. I have proposed conceptual counterparts, but have been unable to make these historical, scientific and philosophical contributions, since these have been deleted. First, I proposed to clarify errors of Descartes on the pineal gland, both from the neurophysiology perspective of seventeenth century, and from the perspective of current neuroscience Second, it is important to clarify that philosophy and modern science, do not give any metaphysical or supernatural attribute to the pineal gland. This is an abuse of wiki editors to prioritize this type of New Age pseudoscience, which seek to impose as unquestionable truths, and do not accept academically well-founded conceptual counterparts. Too bad for current scientific research, that such abuses are allowed in Wikipedia. --Sapientiacr (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't speak for McGeddon, but if you think I am promoting esoteric or mystical themes, you don't understand me at all. Descartes's ideas are of historical interest, and the "third eye" theme is of cultural interest. Neither is of scientific interest. Regarding clarification of the errors in these views, there are perhaps two points worth making: first, these things are of minor importance, not enough to justify extensive coverage in the lead; second, any material in a Wikipedia article needs to be referenced to reputable published sources. Criticisms that are based on one's own personal analysis don't belong here, however compelling that analysis is. Looie496 (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looie496 The observations that you made are very important to support my criticism against pseudoscience and to correct McGeddon´abuses . So I completely agree with your view and youre contributions. --Sapientiacr (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No bias towards pseudoscience here either. The only edits I've made recently were just to make the lede a fair summary of the article body, and to slightly expand the previously cryptic "Rick Strassman is an author and researcher whose study of the pineal has not been accepted by mainstream scientific sources" sentence to explain what his area of study actually is, without intending to endorse it. By all means add context from sources. --McGeddon (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• McGeddonThe basic problem is to present ancient mystical beliefs, as validated scientific knowledge even today. This is pseudoscience. Descartes' beliefs about the pineal gland are not valid today. Mix the current studies on the pineal gland, with the misconceptions of Descartes, three centuries ago, in the led, it is malicious and confuses readers not well informed, because they may assume that the beliefs of Descartes, remain valid today, even more so, when in the same paragraph, you write a false statement about the beliefs of Descartes in a third eye, then it is evident, that the references of such kind of statements are New Age pseudoscience.--Sapientiacr (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]