Talk:Neurobiology

message: The term neurobiology is used indistinguishably from Neuroscience (Eg: Principles of Neural Science by Kandel et. al. use the term 'Neurobiology of Behavior'). Using it to describe just the study of neurons at a cellular level would be a restrictive usage. 'Cellular neuroscience' is a term that better reflects this field (Eg. Journal of Neuroscience classifies the single cell electrophysiology (like patch clamp) articles under the heading Cellular/Molecular ; This is also the heading under which Fundamental Neuroscience editors Squire et. al list their sections on action potentials and like ). So I propose that neurobiology become a redirect to Neuroscience and its contents moved to a new article to be named Cellular neuroscience. Please give your opinion. Shushruth 07:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explaination mezzanine. I must accept I was wrong. However, I am still trying to categorize and organize all the neuroscience related topics so that they can be entered into via the  Neuroscience portal. I could use some suggestions on that count. Thanks! Shushruth 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shifting it to Cellular neuroscience 

message: Hello. I noticed a typo in the fifth line in "Neuronal Function".
"....action potentials have the advantage of travelling over long distances of neuronal processes...."
I'm juust a wikibeginer, but I just thought I let you know:-)--Blackmage337 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Typeos" 

message: As already remarked above, Neurobiology is just a synonym of Neuroscience and should become a redirect to that article. The contents of the current "neurobiology" article could be merged to Cellular neuroscience. In fact, it seems to me that it could just replace that (stub) article, which does not contain any real info not yet already present here. Any objections? --Crusio (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I seem to be the only ones that care about this, but let's leave the tag up for another week or so and then if nobody objects, we'll do the move. We'll need an admin to do this, though, because I cannot move this article to an existing one. --Crusio (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Haven't you read the discussion above? It has already been explained why it shouldn't be merged. 85.219.130.242 (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read that old discussion and I don't agree. Anybody doing computational work in this area is a neuroscientist/neurobiologist, as far as I am concerned. Sure, they may be using only computers and never even touch an animal, but they are concerned with modeling basic biological processes, hence they are biologists. In addition, the current article suggests that "neurobiology" is solely concerned with cellular stuff, which is rather ludicrous. --Crusio (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *The first sentence of the lead is sourced to Sheperd and is clear. The rest of the lead is muddled. Note that Sheperd's definition ends with "and mediates behavior". So why then would this exclude behavioral neuroscience?? It doesn't, of course. I'm a behavioral neuroscientist myself. "As far as I'm concerned", that makes me a neurobiologist and a neuroscientist (BTW, I'm also a behavioral neurogeneticist :-). I completely fail to see any difference between "neuroscience" and "neurobiology". If you want to maintain the distinction, you'll have to come up with something better than "I strongly object" and give some reasons and clearly explain what the supposed difference is. Most of this article is not about neurobiology or neuroscience in general, but about cellular neuroscience sensu stricto. What is explained about action potentials and such belongs elsewhere, not in a supposedly general article such as this. What is usable from the content should be merged elsewhere and then this should be made into a redirect to neuroscience. --Crusio (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *PS: the intro to Harvard's Neuroscience course here is illuminating, using "neuroscience" and "neurobiology" completely interchangeably. --Crusio (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

text: As you say, point taken. Every cow is a mammal, but not every mammal is a cow. If I understand you correctly, then you argue that neuroscience = neurobiology + something else. The "something else" being translational and clinical approaches. Is that correct? It reminds me of the discussions when I was working in a psychiatry department, where someone once remarked that as soon as a neurobiological (or neurological, I guess you would call that) basis was found for some disorder, it ended being a psychiatric disorder and became a neurological one (think, Alzheimer, Parkinson, Huntington, etc). I see the point, but I don't think that it is fundamental. (But then, I am someone who thinks that medicine is a subdiscipline of biology...). I am afraid that "a matter of scope and emphasis" sounds way too fuzzy for my taste. Studying declarative memory using MRI in normal humans, amnesiac mutants in Drosophila, fundamental mechanisms underlying the degeneration seen in Alzheimer, LTP involvement (or not...) in memory, etc. etc. up until and including the way alleles of some genes may be involved in the causation of schizophrenia all belongs to neuroscience in my eyes. And the defining part here is "neuro", which cannot be seen separate from "biology". I think you argue that every neurobiologist is a neuroscientist, but not every neuroscientist is a neurobiologist. I argue that you cannot be a neuroscientist and not at the same time be a biologist, hence a neuroscientist is a neurobiologist. --Crusio (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *This is not getting clearer to me. You seem to be arguing that someone's intentions, or previous experiences, or what academic courses they followed, will distinguish the neurobiologists from the neuroscientists. Even if that were true, I doon't see how that differentiates neurobiology from neuroscience. If yoour above described EEG experiment were not carried out by an economist, but by someone who up till then had been heavily involved in electrophysiological studies on, say, hippocampal slices, would it now suddenly be neurobiology? (And could economists then argue that it was not part of their field?) --Crusio (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: One thing that might be widely considered neuroscience-but-not-neurobiology, it would be the study of artificial neural networks. Looie496 (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *Not really. You need an intimate knowledge of the real thing (which is a biological thing), before you can model/simulate it. Just as the mathematician, statistician, or biologist modelling predator-prey relationships is doing biology (even though the person is perhaps not a biologist hi,/herself), the person doing neural network research is doing biological research. Granted, it may be on the intersection with computer sciences, for example, but it will not be pure cmputer science (that's why it's an intersection :-). --Crusio (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *PS: and I also think that we agree on more than that we disagree on... ;-) --Crusio (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My attention was brought to this by a note that Crusio left at the neuroscience wikiproject talk page. I've read the talk here, and I pretty much agree with Crusio and Looie. I think that the issue of how professional researchers might choose to define themselves for professional purposes is something of a distraction from the real point here, which is what is informative and helpful to encyclopedia readers. Neurobiology is a (major) subset of neuroscience. The term "neurobiology" is also an older one than "neuroscience." It makes better sense, when creating separate pages about the various subsets of neuroscience, to name them as "cellular neuroscience," behavioral neuroscience," and so on, rather than as "neurobiology." In my opinion, neurobiology should be a redirect to neuroscience. The neuroscience page should be checked critically to make sure that it adequately covers the "biological" aspects of the field. The content of the present neurobiology page should be merged into cellular or wherever else it fits best. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The general way to solve conflicts like this one is to refer to authoritative sources. --Ettrig (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a first indication, note that Open Directory chose the merge route. Note also how the Neurobiology Department at Harvard Medical school intermixes the words without any hint of distinction. I read them as saying that neuroscience is their field. --Ettrig (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a nice idea, but after spending a half hour googling for every combination that occurred to me, I haven't been able to find a single authoritative source that explicitly discusses the relationship between the two terms. Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: *I think that is exactly the problem in a nutshell: nobody (apart from Wikipedia) regards Neuroscience and Neurobiology as two different things.... --Crusio (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the phrases "neurobiology and neuroscience" or "neuroscience and neurobiology" appear pretty frequently, even in strong sources, so it's clear that people are at least unsure that the two are the same -- it's just very difficult to find anybody who is explicit about it. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Do we have consensus to go ahead with the redirect? I think so. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a little perplexed by the reasons provided by redirecting neurobiology to neuroscience. Tryptofish mentions that "neurobiology" is a "major subset" of "neuroscience," yet, proposes to make neurobiology a redirect to neuroscience,which in a nutshell, makes it equivalent to neuroscience. I agree how professionals define themselves is not the main point here. Yet, I find it interesting that reasons provided for the merger are based on professionals (Stephen Kuffler) and departments (Harvard) that train professionals. I do not  believe there is  any consensus at this  point. The reasons provided for making neuroscience and neurobiology are based on how these two words are "loosely" used. That's like saying psychoanalysis and  psychology are synonymous terms, which may be true  in Hollywood and among laymen, but academically inaccurate.mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I referred to it being "a (major) subset," I was making the point that it is part of neuroscience, rather than separate from it. I then went on to explain, for reasons distinct from professional turf terms and "loose" usages, how defining "parts" of neuroscience works better, for our encyclopedic purposes, if we use terms such as "behavioral neuroscience," "cellular neuroscience," and so on, rather than "neurobiology." Thus, I think the reasons for the redirect are more substantial than those which you mentioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: P.S. This just occurred to me. At bottom, the question about any redirect is whether a general reader, looking for a topic and typing a term into the search box, will find what they are looking for. It seems to me that someone typing in "neurobiology" will be best served by finding neuroscience (if and only if the page deals adequately with the biological aspects of the field!), and will be poorly served by finding a page that is sort of about cellular neuroscience only, and not about the other aspects of neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: We had an edit conflict, so my P.S. went in without seeing your reply here. By the way, please indent. I think your science analogy is a straw-man argument. Biology, chemistry, physics, even neuroscience, are such large subject areas that, of course, they merit pages of their own, separate from the page on science. What you are really advocating is having one page called Biology, and another called Life sciences. (And responding to our second edit conflict, I don't think expanding the categories in a life sciences article would solve the problem.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Biology is the study of life and life science, is well the study of life. That's fine and life science is appropriately a redirect to  biology. I don't see how that parallels my argument about neurobiology and neuroscience. One considers the the "biology" of the nervous system, and the other considers "everything that is scientific" about the nervous system. Again, I still don't see the  merits  of merging the  two. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: *So you would want to separate "biology" from "life science": One is on biology, the other is about "everything that is scientific about life". I really think you'll have to come up with a better definition of "neuroscience" vs "neurobiology" if you want to keep arguing that the two are different. --Crusio (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: No, I don't. One is on biology, which is the science of life, and one is the science of life, which is life science. Same thing. No contradictions there. =) mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And completely in the same way, neurobiology is the science of the nervous system, and the other is the science of the nervous system, which is neuroscience. Same thing, no contradictions here either.... :-) --Crusio (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't want to be overly forceful, and if there are aspects of this that haven't been brought out yet, we should discuss them; but otherwise it seems that we are recapitulating arguments that have already been made, and that you are in a minority of one here which seems likely to stay that way. Looie496 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looie496, thanks for making the point . I am well of that =). To me, the arguments and the reasons have not changed except that there are a couple more who agree with the view that both article needs to be merged. I am making the point once again that (1) I am not convinced by the reasons and (2) that I think we should consider other options.mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As for your reply to me, someone who wants to know about the biology of the nervous system either wants to know about everything scientific about the nervous system, or will look through an article about everything scientific to find what they want. As for your reply to Looie, none of us seem to be convinced by you. I think we are all treating you very respectfully, but at some point consensus is consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Tryptofish. Before I continue with this, please clarify one thing here. How would you like to reach this "consensus?" Right now, we are obviously not in any agreement. In fact, if there was a "consensus," I thought there was implicit agreement that we should make changes to the article first before taking radical steps to merge the two and move its contents to cellular neuroscience (see final discussion between me and Crusio above). Till this very moment, I have yet to see from you one single sentence that directly addresses my arguments about why neuroscience and neurobiology (see final points above with Crusio) should be kept separate. So far, the arguments I see are based on loose usage, false analogies, and appeals to majority (and a slight hint of force). If you have a better case, I am all ears. But till then, there is no "voluntary consensus." =)  mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: *Daniel, I got tired and basically gave up. But it is not Tryptofish who has not given concrete arguments, it is you who comes up with specious arguments and you are the only one here maintaining that there is a meaningful difference between neuroscience and neurobiology. Please provide a clear definition of both, based on some reliable sources (something nobody has been able to do yet), or please admit that you are running out of arguments and that this is all basically just your personal opinion. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that, Crusio. Daniel, no one is hinting force. In fact, we have willingly discussed this with you at great length without actually making the redirect. As for consensus, please note this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Crusio, there is a definition in the neurobiology page, which has been sourced to Gordon Shepherd. If you prefer, you can also check "Foundations of Neurobiology" by Fred Delcomyn. You can also find the definition for "neuroscience" on the society for neuroscience website? <http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=whatIsNeuroscience>. This is not my "personal opinion" and I don't know what you mean by "running out" of arguments as if I need to keep churning out new ones each time. If you are dead set on making this change regardless of the reasons against it, then at the very least, come up with a simple process for achieving that. I proposed a two step process, which I thought you agreed to initially (see comments above) or a vote of some kind. Otherwise, yes, you will continue to hear from me about why I object. =) mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Tryptofish (since we are now on a first real name basis, it would be nice to know yours too), I  am  well aware of the consensus rule. But did you also read the other rule below it? And while we are on this subject, I suggest we should have a vote on the wikipedia neuroscience page. This is obviously an issue that we have devoted some time and intellectual capital to, and so at the very least, I am asking for the entire neuroscience group (if possible) to be briefed about this issue very quickly and set a deadline for a vote. I believe I have seen precedence for this sort of thing.mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mezzanine, please comment on the content, not the editor. You identify yourself, in the pipe of your signature as well as at your user page, as having the first name Daniel. Some people here call me Trypto, and that's fine with me. I do not choose to provide my real name, as is my right in this system, and it is none of your business. Instead of patronizing me about whether I read the part about finding a middle ground, please note that I earlier suggested checking the neuroscience article to make sure it adequately covers neurobiology. I'm pleased that Looie has opened a discussion, but I have got to say that your (mezzanine's) comments here are bordering on disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Trypto, you are well within your rights to conceal your identity. I myself address individuals based on their signatures that appear on the page itself, which may be their real name or pseudonym. If someone were to address me by my real name, I assumed that they obtained it when editing this page or when reading my profile page. That is also fine by me. All I asked was reciprocity. Addressing me by my real name (which is not the default appearance) without revealing yours can come across (intentional or not) as a little, and just a little, condescending. As for patronizing you, please understand that that was not my intention. I apologize if I caused any offense. I thought my comments matched the tone of the individuals that I was having a discussion with. mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: *How silly is this going to get? Apparently this whole discussion of identity was caused by the fact that I addressed "mezzaninelounge" as Daniel. Well, guess what, your username IS "Danielkueh". That's how I see it all the time in my watchlist, that's how I see it if I look at diffs, as is my habit in this kind of discussion. So at some point I just didn't think of "mezzaninelounge" any more and addressed you as Daniel. If "mezzaninelounge" would have been your username, instead of just being something that you must have added to your signature under "User Preferences", I would have addressed you like that and the confusion would not have arisen. If you feel that addressing you by your real name is condescending, then that is too bad (and not a little bit strange either). As it is not only your real name, but also your username, I am not going to apologize for using it. --Crusio (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Crusio is apparently your real name and you are  more than welcome to address me by mine (nothing strange at all about that). If you looked at what I said carefully, I never said "you" were condescending and I never asked you or anybody to apologize either. I was merely remarking that addressing someone by their real name while concealing one's identity can at times be perceived differently by other people. I am not gonna comment on whether it is silly or not to discuss this other than the fact that I was merely responding to a comment that part of my comments were perceived as disruptive. mezzaninelounge (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, lets all cool down people. Mezzaninelounge, I don't feel you were treated condescending by Trypto, I think you overeacted a bit. Trypto did perhaps exagerate somewhat when he said you were being "borderline disruptive" (although I admitted already earlier that I start to get tired of this endless discussion). As for the real issue: yes, Shepard provided a definition of Neurobiology. And how does his definition somehow exclude some other parts of Neuroscience? --Crusio (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: That's basically what we're doing here, and there is a pointer to this page from Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Neuroscience, but if you like we can do it formally.  I have just opened Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#RFC: merging the Neuroscience and Neurobiology articles -- please express your opinion there.  I don't think we need to recapitulate the discussion yet again, as long as people have a pointer to the material here. Looie496 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Crusio, you are right, I might have overreacted. My mistake. Let's move on. I was trying to make the point that Shepherd's definition defines neurobiology as the study of neurons, etc, which I know you might find this ambiguous, is a matter of scope and emphasis. The SfN website describes neuroscience broadly as the science of the nervous system, which includes among other things, medicine, etc. This was also distinction that was made by Fred Delcomyn in "Foundations of Neurobiology." The point here is that in addition to scope and  emphasis, there is a distinction made along the lines of goals of each field. Neurobiology is a basic science whereas Neuroscience may be basic, clinical, applied, and translational. Again, people might find this trivial or pedantic. I admit I don't. When I see an electrical engineer building a AI machine and used the human brain as an inspiration, he/she is not a neurobiologist and his/her work is not neurobiology by Shepherd's definition. The engineer was not interested in the study of neurons as much as designing a system that parallels or emulates the workings of the nervous system. I would agree that he may be a  neuroscientist in that his work is scientific and it does involve the nervous system, albeit, at a superficial level. In response to Gariepy's rationale. Yes, no doubt, the tools in the field has changed, etc just like all other fields have changed. But the basic foundations and principles of the field hasn't. What distinguishes say a molecular biologist from say a biochemist is not necessarily the tools used by both, but by how the type of knowledge that was created. And I think this is an important distinction. Neurobiologist to my mind are biologist in the sense that they study things with an eye on the major themes of biology such as evolution, energy (signal) conversion, behavior, systems, etc. In the end, I suspect that the merger will take place and I am glad that we had this discussion. I know that it may be a little long drawn and I may have been a pain in rear at times, but I  do hope that in the end, I was able to make my point of why I think the articles should continue to be separate and that I hope folks were able to, for just 1 second, appreciate nuance that was emphasized here. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to explain my vote in the Neuroscience talk page supporting a merge : I think the debate here is due to 2 different visions of what Biology is. On one side the people who define biology by its definition in any dictionnary (the science that studies living organisms) and on the other side those who define biology as the scientific tradition of what is done specifically in biological sciences departments in our universities. I think it is not trivial that computational neuroscience came up as a dividing issue, as this is a new tool that for the 1st group of people should be included in biology, and for the second group of people should be classified in a larger field. I think that creating new categories of sciences just because we discover new tools makes no sense; especially if the new techniques ask the same questions that the science was asking before the appearance of the new technique. Simulations are not exclusive to neurosciences. In cell biology, liver physiology, etc ... I have seen in those domains some simulations. Should we create 2 articles : Liver sciences and liver biology, because some simulations have been made about physiological processes in the liver ? Let's not forget that this is what all this is about : neuro means neurons or the brain, and we're currently discussing about whether to merge 'Brain biology' to 'Brain sciences'. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Jean-Francois Gariepy, thank you for making that point. Upon reflection, that line of reasoning for wanting to merge the two articles was what I was looking for. Thanks again. =) mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to say sorry for having gotten hot under the collar. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: :::My attention was brought to this by a note that Crusio left at the neuroscience wikiproject talk page. I've read the talk here, and I pretty much agree with Crusio and Looie. I think that the issue of how professional researchers might choose to define themselves for professional purposes is something of a distraction from the real point here, which is what is informative and helpful to encyclopedia readers. Neurobiology is a (major) subset of neuroscience. The term "neurobiology" is also an older one than "neuroscience." It makes better sense, when creating separate pages about the various subsets of neuroscience, to name them as "cellular neuroscience," behavioral neuroscience," and so on, rather than as "neurobiology." In my opinion, neurobiology should be a redirect to neuroscience. The neuroscience page should be checked critically to make sure that it adequately covers the "biological" aspects of the field. The content of the present neurobiology page should be merged into cellular or wherever else it fits best. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The general way to solve conflicts like this one is to refer to authoritative sources. --Ettrig (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a first indication, note that Open Directory chose the merge route. Note also how the Neurobiology Department at Harvard Medical school intermixes the words without any hint of distinction. I read them as saying that neuroscience is their field. --Ettrig (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a nice idea, but after spending a half hour googling for every combination that occurred to me, I haven't been able to find a single authoritative source that explicitly discusses the relationship between the two terms. Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think that is exactly the problem in a nutshell: nobody (apart from Wikipedia) regards Neuroscience and Neurobiology as two different things.... --Crusio (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the phrases "neurobiology and neuroscience" or "neuroscience and neurobiology" appear pretty frequently, even in strong sources, so it's clear that people are at least unsure that the two are the same -- it's just very difficult to find anybody who is explicit about it. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Do we have consensus to go ahead with the redirect? I think so. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a little perplexed by the reasons provided by redirecting neurobiology to neuroscience. Tryptofish mentions that "neurobiology" is a "major subset" of "neuroscience," yet, proposes to make neurobiology a redirect to neuroscience,which in a nutshell, makes it equivalent to neuroscience. I agree how professionals define themselves is not the main point here. Yet, I find it interesting that reasons provided for the merger are based on professionals (Stephen Kuffler) and departments (Harvard) that train professionals. I do not  believe there is  any consensus at this  point. The reasons provided for making neuroscience and neurobiology are based on how these two words are "loosely" used. That's like saying psychoanalysis and  psychology are synonymous terms, which may be true  in Hollywood and among laymen, but academically inaccurate.mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I referred to it being "a (major) subset," I was making the point that it is part of neuroscience, rather than separate from it. I then went on to explain, for reasons distinct from professional turf terms and "loose" usages, how defining "parts" of neuroscience works better, for our encyclopedic purposes, if we use terms such as "behavioral neuroscience," "cellular neuroscience," and so on, rather than "neurobiology." Thus, I think the reasons for the redirect are more substantial than those which you mentioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: P.S. This just occurred to me. At bottom, the question about any redirect is whether a general reader, looking for a topic and typing a term into the search box, will find what they are looking for. It seems to me that someone typing in "neurobiology" will be best served by finding neuroscience (if and only if the page deals adequately with the biological aspects of the field!), and will be poorly served by finding a page that is sort of about cellular neuroscience only, and not about the other aspects of neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: We had an edit conflict, so my P.S. went in without seeing your reply here. By the way, please indent. I think your science analogy is a straw-man argument. Biology, chemistry, physics, even neuroscience, are such large subject areas that, of course, they merit pages of their own, separate from the page on science. What you are really advocating is having one page called Biology, and another called Life sciences. (And responding to our second edit conflict, I don't think expanding the categories in a life sciences article would solve the problem.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Biology is the study of life and life science, is well the study of life. That's fine and life science is appropriately a redirect to  biology. I don't see how that parallels my argument about neurobiology and neuroscience. One considers the the "biology" of the nervous system, and the other considers "everything that is scientific" about the nervous system. Again, I still don't see the  merits  of merging the  two. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: *So you would want to separate "biology" from "life science": One is on biology, the other is about "everything that is scientific about life". I really think you'll have to come up with a better definition of "neuroscience" vs "neurobiology" if you want to keep arguing that the two are different. --Crusio (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: No, I don't. One is on biology, which is the science of life, and one is the science of life, which is life science. Same thing. No contradictions there. =) mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And completely in the same way, neurobiology is the science of the nervous system, and the other is the science of the nervous system, which is neuroscience. Same thing, no contradictions here either.... :-) --Crusio (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't want to be overly forceful, and if there are aspects of this that haven't been brought out yet, we should discuss them; but otherwise it seems that we are recapitulating arguments that have already been made, and that you are in a minority of one here which seems likely to stay that way. Looie496 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looie496, thanks for making the point . I am well of that =). To me, the arguments and the reasons have not changed except that there are a couple more who agree with the view that both article needs to be merged. I am making the point once again that (1) I am not convinced by the reasons and (2) that I think we should consider other options.mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As for your reply to me, someone who wants to know about the biology of the nervous system either wants to know about everything scientific about the nervous system, or will look through an article about everything scientific to find what they want. As for your reply to Looie, none of us seem to be convinced by you. I think we are all treating you very respectfully, but at some point consensus is consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Tryptofish. Before I continue with this, please clarify one thing here. How would you like to reach this "consensus?" Right now, we are obviously not in any agreement. In fact, if there was a "consensus," I thought there was implicit agreement that we should make changes to the article first before taking radical steps to merge the two and move its contents to cellular neuroscience (see final discussion between me and Crusio above). Till this very moment, I have yet to see from you one single sentence that directly addresses my arguments about why neuroscience and neurobiology (see final points above with Crusio) should be kept separate. So far, the arguments I see are based on loose usage, false analogies, and appeals to majority (and a slight hint of force). If you have a better case, I am all ears. But till then, there is no "voluntary consensus." =)  mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: *Daniel, I got tired and basically gave up. But it is not Tryptofish who has not given concrete arguments, it is you who comes up with specious arguments and you are the only one here maintaining that there is a meaningful difference between neuroscience and neurobiology. Please provide a clear definition of both, based on some reliable sources (something nobody has been able to do yet), or please admit that you are running out of arguments and that this is all basically just your personal opinion. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that, Crusio. Daniel, no one is hinting force. In fact, we have willingly discussed this with you at great length without actually making the redirect. As for consensus, please note this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Crusio, there is a definition in the neurobiology page, which has been sourced to Gordon Shepherd. If you prefer, you can also check "Foundations of Neurobiology" by Fred Delcomyn. You can also find the definition for "neuroscience" on the society for neuroscience website? <http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=whatIsNeuroscience>. This is not my "personal opinion" and I don't know what you mean by "running out" of arguments as if I need to keep churning out new ones each time. If you are dead set on making this change regardless of the reasons against it, then at the very least, come up with a simple process for achieving that. I proposed a two step process, which I thought you agreed to initially (see comments above) or a vote of some kind. Otherwise, yes, you will continue to hear from me about why I object. =) mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Tryptofish (since we are now on a first real name basis, it would be nice to know yours too), I  am  well aware of the consensus rule. But did you also read the other rule below it? And while we are on this subject, I suggest we should have a vote on the wikipedia neuroscience page. This is obviously an issue that we have devoted some time and intellectual capital to, and so at the very least, I am asking for the entire neuroscience group (if possible) to be briefed about this issue very quickly and set a deadline for a vote. I believe I have seen precedence for this sort of thing.mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mezzanine, please comment on the content, not the editor. You identify yourself, in the pipe of your signature as well as at your user page, as having the first name Daniel. Some people here call me Trypto, and that's fine with me. I do not choose to provide my real name, as is my right in this system, and it is none of your business. Instead of patronizing me about whether I read the part about finding a middle ground, please note that I earlier suggested checking the neuroscience article to make sure it adequately covers neurobiology. I'm pleased that Looie has opened a discussion, but I have got to say that your (mezzanine's) comments here are bordering on disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Trypto, you are well within your rights to conceal your identity. I myself address individuals based on their signatures that appear on the page itself, which may be their real name or pseudonym. If someone were to address me by my real name, I assumed that they obtained it when editing this page or when reading my profile page. That is also fine by me. All I asked was reciprocity. Addressing me by my real name (which is not the default appearance) without revealing yours can come across (intentional or not) as a little, and just a little, condescending. As for patronizing you, please understand that that was not my intention. I apologize if I caused any offense. I thought my comments matched the tone of the individuals that I was having a discussion with. mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: *How silly is this going to get? Apparently this whole discussion of identity was caused by the fact that I addressed "mezzaninelounge" as Daniel. Well, guess what, your username IS "Danielkueh". That's how I see it all the time in my watchlist, that's how I see it if I look at diffs, as is my habit in this kind of discussion. So at some point I just didn't think of "mezzaninelounge" any more and addressed you as Daniel. If "mezzaninelounge" would have been your username, instead of just being something that you must have added to your signature under "User Preferences", I would have addressed you like that and the confusion would not have arisen. If you feel that addressing you by your real name is condescending, then that is too bad (and not a little bit strange either). As it is not only your real name, but also your username, I am not going to apologize for using it. --Crusio (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Crusio is apparently your real name and you are  more than welcome to address me by mine (nothing strange at all about that). If you looked at what I said carefully, I never said "you" were condescending and I never asked you or anybody to apologize either. I was merely remarking that addressing someone by their real name while concealing one's identity can at times be perceived differently by other people. I am not gonna comment on whether it is silly or not to discuss this other than the fact that I was merely responding to a comment that part of my comments were perceived as disruptive. mezzaninelounge (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, lets all cool down people. Mezzaninelounge, I don't feel you were treated condescending by Trypto, I think you overeacted a bit. Trypto did perhaps exagerate somewhat when he said you were being "borderline disruptive" (although I admitted already earlier that I start to get tired of this endless discussion). As for the real issue: yes, Shepard provided a definition of Neurobiology. And how does his definition somehow exclude some other parts of Neuroscience? --Crusio (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: That's basically what we're doing here, and there is a pointer to this page from Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Neuroscience, but if you like we can do it formally.  I have just opened Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#RFC: merging the Neuroscience and Neurobiology articles -- please express your opinion there.  I don't think we need to recapitulate the discussion yet again, as long as people have a pointer to the material here. Looie496 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Crusio, you are right, I might have overreacted. My mistake. Let's move on. I was trying to make the point that Shepherd's definition defines neurobiology as the study of neurons, etc, which I know you might find this ambiguous, is a matter of scope and emphasis. The SfN website describes neuroscience broadly as the science of the nervous system, which includes among other things, medicine, etc. This was also distinction that was made by Fred Delcomyn in "Foundations of Neurobiology." The point here is that in addition to scope and  emphasis, there is a distinction made along the lines of goals of each field. Neurobiology is a basic science whereas Neuroscience may be basic, clinical, applied, and translational. Again, people might find this trivial or pedantic. I admit I don't. When I see an electrical engineer building a AI machine and used the human brain as an inspiration, he/she is not a neurobiologist and his/her work is not neurobiology by Shepherd's definition. The engineer was not interested in the study of neurons as much as designing a system that parallels or emulates the workings of the nervous system. I would agree that he may be a  neuroscientist in that his work is scientific and it does involve the nervous system, albeit, at a superficial level. In response to Gariepy's rationale. Yes, no doubt, the tools in the field has changed, etc just like all other fields have changed. But the basic foundations and principles of the field hasn't. What distinguishes say a molecular biologist from say a biochemist is not necessarily the tools used by both, but by how the type of knowledge that was created. And I think this is an important distinction. Neurobiologist to my mind are biologist in the sense that they study things with an eye on the major themes of biology such as evolution, energy (signal) conversion, behavior, systems, etc. In the end, I suspect that the merger will take place and I am glad that we had this discussion. I know that it may be a little long drawn and I may have been a pain in rear at times, but I  do hope that in the end, I was able to make my point of why I think the articles should continue to be separate and that I hope folks were able to, for just 1 second, appreciate nuance that was emphasized here. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to explain my vote in the Neuroscience talk page supporting a merge : I think the debate here is due to 2 different visions of what Biology is. On one side the people who define biology by its definition in any dictionnary (the science that studies living organisms) and on the other side those who define biology as the scientific tradition of what is done specifically in biological sciences departments in our universities. I think it is not trivial that computational neuroscience came up as a dividing issue, as this is a new tool that for the 1st group of people should be included in biology, and for the second group of people should be classified in a larger field. I think that creating new categories of sciences just because we discover new tools makes no sense; especially if the new techniques ask the same questions that the science was asking before the appearance of the new technique. Simulations are not exclusive to neurosciences. In cell biology, liver physiology, etc ... I have seen in those domains some simulations. Should we create 2 articles : Liver sciences and liver biology, because some simulations have been made about physiological processes in the liver ? Let's not forget that this is what all this is about : neuro means neurons or the brain, and we're currently discussing about whether to merge 'Brain biology' to 'Brain sciences'. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Jean-Francois Gariepy, thank you for making that point. Upon reflection, that line of reasoning for wanting to merge the two articles was what I was looking for. Thanks again. =) mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to say sorry for having gotten hot under the collar. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: We discussed the above very thoroughly here, and reached what I think was consensus at the WikiProject talk page RfC. Since then a lot of time has passed, and I've been periodically making reminder comments, and I'm not aware of any objections. So what I'm about to do, for now, is to create a redirect from this page to neuroscience. The page history here will still be intact for anyone who wants to merge material here into cellular neuroscience or elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Let's be aware of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Society for Neuroscience is Coming.  The Neuroscience and Neurobiology articles are among the first place where new and naive people are likely to show up -- this might already be happening.  Let's try to treat newcomers, who are likely to be scientists or graduate students, with patience and respect if we can, pretty please.  In particular, it would be good to make a special effort to avoid harsh or terse reverts to what look like good faith edits. Looie496 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SFN Wikipedia initiative