Content deleted Content added
→Removing new NeuroElectroDynamics section: new section |
Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs) →Removing new NeuroElectroDynamics section: Restored to status quo ante |
||
Line 38:
In order for this article to include this material, there should be evidence that it has drawn attention from other workers in the field. The book is not sufficient -- there should be either reviews or publication of articles on the underlying concepts in peer-reviewed journals. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
:The content has been re-inserted. I have restored to status quo ante. Looie496 is right. This is not a comment on the merit of the theory. Wikipedia's [[WP:RS|sourcing policy]], particularly when applied to biomedical articles (see [[WP:MEDRS|this guideline]]), insists that new thought may be included only when it has been evaluated by uninvolved experts in peer-reviewed journals, and when its inclusion will not give it undue weight (see [[WP:UNDUE|this fundamental policy]]).
:If you make a change to an article, and it is reverted, polite practice here (per [[WP:BRD|this guideline]]) is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Please feel free to discuss this matter here, but the discussion will revolve around those policies I've linked to, not the merits or nature of the theory. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
| |||