Talk:Vesicular monoamine transporter 2

message: "Impairment and Disfunction" seems mistitled; Immunoreactivity is also reduced (with partial effects still observable 24 hrs later) from Amphetamine administration. See "New Insights into the Mechanism of Action of Amphetamines", Fleckenstein et al., Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2007. 47:681-98, doi: 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.47.120505.105140--143.44.71.255 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I reinserted the "God gene section" section since it is both notable (has received wide attention in the press) and takes a neutral point of view (discusses the case for and against the hypothesis).  Boghog (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the evidence for the God gene is very weak.  However some readers may be come to this page searching for more information on this topic and for that reason, the topic should be mentioned in this article with a link to the God gene article.  The later article gives a very complete overview of the topic including all the scientific criticism that has been leveled against the hypothesis.  Not mentioning the hypothesis does a real disservice to the reader. Ignoring a topic that you do not like does not make it go away.  It is better to discuss it stating the pros and cons and let readers draw their own conclusions. Boghog (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  God gene hypothesis 

message: Hi, I propose that God gene be merged into VMAT2. VMAT2 is about the gene itself, God gene is about the claim that the same gene predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences.
I consider this duplicate/overlap.
The claim in the God gene article can be better explained in the context of the gene itself.
I suggest to not merge all the content of the article but only a selection, see WP:FRINGE.
VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, fringe theories are not covered at all or even linked to in mainstream science articles. Regardless, what parts do you want to merge?  The imported content should be fairly limited in size; given the size of that article relative to this one and the fact that there's literally only 1 academic source published on the god gene hypothesis relative to hundreds about the gene that have been published, merging even half of that article into this one would be WP:UNDUE. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had a better look and all information in the god gene article that is interesting enough is already mentioned here. So basically it will be just a redirect to the "in popular culture" section. An improvement could be to add the year when the claims where made. maybe using this source. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that we shouldn't merge the article. The reason why God Gene need to be mentioned in the VMAT2 article is due to its popularity in popular sources linking this gene with the God gene term. Further explanation about it will be better to be kept in other article due to the nature of the cited references (academics vs popular sources). I think the explanation of God Gene in this article should be kept as minimum as possible. Adeuss (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are convincing arguments. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal - God gene