Talk:DNA/Archive 11

message: I dont know if people are just arguing with me for the sake of argument but there is no more procedure for posting on this page (post about any subject wherever you want in whatever section you want). Bensaccount 01:19, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: moved temporarily to Talk:DNA/vote
===Summary===
Should we include incorrect phrases if they are common?
#No we should try and get rid of or correct incorrect phrases.
#Being common is not a reason for inclusion; this article is about DNA not about what has been commonly said about DNA. Bensaccount 21:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we include incorrect phrases if they are common?

message: Should we include incorrect phrases if they are common?
#No we should try and get rid of or correct incorrect phrases.
#Being common is not a reason for inclusion; this article is about DNA not about what has been commonly said about DNA. Bensaccount 21:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Allow me to clarify something for you, Bensaccount.  Those of us who have been trying to make progress on this passage already know the realive merits and flaws with this phrase (refer to the archives).  I, for one, would prefer if it wasn't used but it was included as a compromise to Lir. Stewart Adcock 17:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  [Peak:] It is no longer clear which of the three phrases Stewart was referring to, but please note that there was never any compromise with Lir regarding the use of "genetic code of life" as a description of (or alternative name for) DNA in the preamble. Perhaps Stewart is referring to the fact that there was at one point a proposal that included the phrase in the preamble, but it was not as an alternative name. Peak 15:13, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: We shouldn't lie to compromise with Lir. Bensaccount 17:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The "genetic code of life" and "deoxynucleic acid" and "molecule of heredity"

message: These are the current propositions cut up into stand alone points. The second paragraph has not been included as of yet.
The points have been organized according to topic. Bensaccount 19:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: CURRENT PROPOSITIONS (POINT FORM)

message: There was a reversion by Peak, and resulting discussion, Discussion moved to archive 5.
There was another discussion about the reversion by peak and the basic premise that people should not change something that is disputed without giving an irrefuted reason first. Moved to archive 5
The business to be undertaken is to comment on the proposed intro paragraphs. After a paragraph emerges that everyone agrees upon (with no negative comments only good comments) it will be posted. Bensaccount 23:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 0 is the old-consensus version. Next have been added while discussions where going on. Likely, some are now redundants or no more appropriate. Please leave them in place to insure everyone agrees on that, but strike them to make obvious they won't be part of the final choices. This clean up will be most welcome. 
 
The versions have been point formed. The redundant points should be removed. The unimportant points should be highlighted. The remaining points should be fit together. Bensaccount 22:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: strike what is no more necessary to take care of, rather than removing preferably. Thanks. FirmLittleFluffyThing 18:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok good point Bensaccount 19:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Current state of affairs

message: In their original publication, Watson and Crick gave a special thanks to Dr. Jerry Donohue. In his book The Double Helix, Watson explains one very critical contribution that Donohue made just before the structure was solved. Watson says that their original molecular models were wrong, and could not pair. When Donohue saw them, he told Watson that the models were wrong and how to correct them. Watson took this advice and had the  models remade. Once Watson had the correct models in hand, the pairing solution was obvious. 
There is considerable drama in the book about this event. It would be nice to record this critical step in the history of the solution with a sentence or two.
There is a certain irony in the fact that Donohue's advice was drawn from his experience in Pauling's lab, which he had recently left to come to Cambridge. There is a kind of easy chemical reconfiguration called tautomerization that occurs in the nucleotide bases. The textbook configuration at the time the original models were made showed the bases as what we now accept as the rare tautomers. The original models were made from these pictures. The Pauling group had this critical insight into the predominant chemical form of the bases from their work in x-ray diffraction, but this correction was not yet widely known.
When you get into the details, there is a very wiki-like flavor to this discovery.
AJim 22:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: Can someone explain to me when and how people decided to organize talk pages topically?  I am used to comments on the talk page being in chronological order.  I find that much easier to follow; all I have to do is go to the bottom of the page to see what people are talking about most recently. Slrubenstein
: [Peak:] There are many threads, and so many sections. You might consider using the Page history and diff facilities. Peak 03:40, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No more need for organization? So be it. Bensaccount 01:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Based on my experience, it is generally better to avoid attempting to reorganize other people's contributions on Talk pages.  Apart from feathers getting ruffled needlessly, it makes it difficult to see "what's new". Peak 03:40, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This talk page 

message: WARNING: Anthere's edit of 15:40, 20 Mar 2004  inadvertently messed up page (duplications). What is to be done? Peak 07:02, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: arggggghh. I try to see what I can do FirmLittleFluffyThing 15:33, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be o.k. now. Thanks, Anthere. P0M 16:57, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplications

message: A series of votes is taking place at Talk:DNA/vote#VOTE HERE.
Peak 17:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE VOTE