Talk:Netrin receptor DCC

Denelson83
Denelson83, I'm inclined to simply remove the innappropriate tone flag, but I'd also like to know why it was tagged in that way. Having written and edited many formal documents, it's not clear to me exactly where I lapsed in formal tone. Formal tone is surely something that rises above mere definition, but perhaps some critical suggestions would help. If the innappropriate tone flag was dropped by a bot, then the bot needs to be fixed. Criticism is always welcome, but it's better when it's accurate and specific.Niels Olson 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

primary sources from 2017 about neurodevelopment/evolution
Hi folks! There are 4 recent research papers from the Nature group that could be used to augment the presentation in the "Developmental and neurological roles" section. They are
 * Biallelic mutations in human DCC cause developmental split-brain syndrome
 * doi:10.1038/ng.3804
 * Mutations in DCC cause isolated agenesis of the corpus callosum with incomplete penetrance
 * doi:10.1038/ng.3794
 * Evolution of the functionally conserved DCC gene in birds
 * doi:10.1038/srep42029
 * Recurrent DCC gene losses during bird evolution
 * doi:10.1038/srep37569
 * Recurrent DCC gene losses during bird evolution
 * doi:10.1038/srep37569
 * doi:10.1038/srep37569

None of these involve any indications of medical therapies. Just basic genetics, IMHO. Does anybody object to me adding discussions of these and perhaps images (they are open!) to the article? DennisPietras (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)undefined
 * Of course, these should not be added. Please use secondary sources.  This is not a matter of MEDRS but rather that all the content policies say we should use secondary sources.  WP:SCIRS call for this as well. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you write. I don't have time to look through the articles properly but primary sources are allowable, as even WP:SCIRS states. It's difficult to guess how suitable it would be for WP before you actually make any changes, so I would just do that. PriceDL (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I continue to not understand your objections. In the very page you linked to, WP:SCIRS, it states "Respect primary sources A primary source... may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy." I have no clue why you are so opposed to policy that you yourself quote. sigh. DennisPietras (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)