Talk:Chronobiology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re the infra/ultra debate: yes I know it seems weird, but I got the content from the U of Va website, and that was how they characterised the two rhythms. Also, it is common to use an expression such as "human females" rather than "women" when one is switching back and forth between discussions of animals and humans. It's a bit more clinical. User:MMGB

Yeah, "human females" doesn't sound that bad here. But if I find people referred to as diseases or as "cases" in other articles, I will change it. People are not merely objects, and Wikipedia should be (I think) more humane than "clinical" communications. (not meant personally, just in general :-) -- Marj Tiefert, Thursday, June 13, 2002

[edit] Some people consider it ...

Please insert a reference to these people or delete the statement: "Some people consider it pseudoscience and others protoscience." Jclerman 00:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Related to...

Please explain how on basis of a verifiable peer-reviewed reference. Jclerman 17:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have a "verifiable peer-reviewed reference". This is not academia .... and it is not "necessary" to have this. A google search (like here) is quite sufficient. JDR 17:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., what you are asking is from a "non-NPOV position of peerage")