Talk:Cognitive neuroscience of dreams

request for POV check
The section on &#8220;Lesion and Activation Interpretations&#8221; reads like a paragraph from an essay. But is it neutral? Bwrs (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

request for conclusion deletion
A conclusion seems very out of place in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps it would be best to delete said conclusion. Not only is it vague, e.g. it states that To some[who?], what is most fascinating about the way our understanding has shifted is that neuro-anatomical evidence now offers support for Freud’s theory of dream interpretation, but moreover, an article which must be as objective as possible does not require a conclusion, which is best used when following a thesis that the author defends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savarez~enwiki (talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Prospects for This Article?
This article appears to have lacked recent attention. Perhaps editors focusing on its topic have applied their energies to the "Dream" article instead. I anticipate making structural edits to the "Dream" article. I can spell out my intentions in more detail if anyone cares to know. My question here: Should "Cognitive neuroscience of dreams" persist as a separate article? Current "Dream" article contains both a "Neurobiology" section and a separate "Neurology" sub-section. Canhelp (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)