Talk:DNA/Archive 4

message: This archive was created on 13 Feb 2004.  Please do not edit it.  If you wish to continue, or rekindle, a discussion started here please copy the relevent text to the current talk page.  Thankyou. Stewart Adcock 23:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: I just protected the page, which I did because of Lir, who I regard as belonging to a class of vandal.168... 17:56, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, but I don't think it's quite right to use this argument to override the last non-Lir edit.Peak 06:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the approach we have been taking, the place to approach a compromise with Lir, for those who wish to do so, is here. I reverted to the version of the paragraph that was up for months and months before Lir came along. It happens to be a version I prefer, but I see that as just my good fortune, and I'm sorry you aren't happier for me. 168... 18:10, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: DNA, the prime informational macromolecule of life, is a polymer made up of monomers called nucleotides.
Besides the reference to "information", please also note "macromolecule" (versus "molecule" or "molecules").
 
Please also note that the referenced source is talking about a single strand of DNA, as it makes evident with the accompanying illustration, and this explains why the author uses "macromolecule" in the singular.168... 18:15, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Again 

message: When I first protected this page, I made my feelings known about the sort of discussion that was appropriate: specifically, discussion of the article content was to be preferred to discussion of each others' behavior. Mav has a different standard, and that's as may be; nevertheless, I feel it is only fair not to change the rules in the middle of the discussion. For those interested, Ed's original post, removed by 168, reinserted by Mav, and re-removed by 168, may be viewed here. -- Cyan 16:59, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on fairness 

message: *I suggest: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries the genetic "instructions" for the biological development of all known organisms. This macromolecule is sometimes referred to as the "molecule of heredity" or the "genetic code of life". DNA is inherited and used to propagate traits; during reproduction, it is replicated and transmitted to offspring.
**It has been argued that DNA's nicknames should not be mentioned within the opening paragraph. I do not understand why we should violate the community norm of listing alternate names in the opening.Lirath Q. Pynnor
[Peak to Lir:] - you are beating the poor horse to death. If that's your intention, then it would be easiest for everyone if you could say so. There is a way to include "genetic code" in the preamble, as follows.
[Peak to everyone]: The following version of the preamble (two paragraphs) was constructed to address everyone's stated concerns, but I have not included the Wikilinks (the page having been Protected makes it impossible to "copy and paste" the text with wikilinks):(For protected pages, there should be a "View Source" link instead of an "Edit this page" link. -- Cyan's non-sysop sock puppet)
:Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries the genetic instructions for the biological development of all known organisms. These instructions are encoded using the the genetic code. DNA is sometimes referred to as the "molecule of heredity" as it is inherited and used to propagate traits. During reproduction, it is replicated and transmitted to offspring.
:In bacteria and other simple cell organisms, DNA is distributed more or less throughout the cell. In the complex cells that make up plants, animals and in other multi-celled organisms, most of the DNA resides in the chromosomes, which are located in the cell nucleus. The energy generating organelles known as chloroplasts and mitochondria also carry DNA, as do many viruses. 
Peak 22:51, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph

message: [Peak:] I am not sure what the ground rules are anymore, so I am not sure whether there is much point in anyone making any proposals just now, but I was beginning to worry that silence might be mistaken for consent, so I would like to present a variant of my previous proposal, together with some explanatory remarks and commentary. First comes the variant:
:Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries genetic instructions for the biological development of all cellular forms of life. These instructions are encoded using the the genetic code. DNA is sometimes referred to as the molecule of heredity as it is inherited and used to propagate traits. During reproduction, it is replicated and transmitted to offspring.
:In bacteria and other simple cell organisms, DNA is distributed more or less throughout the cell. In the complex cells that make up plants, animals and in other multi-celled organisms, most of the DNA is found in the chromosomes, which are located in the cell nucleus. The energy generating organelles known as chloroplasts and mitochondria also carry DNA, as do many viruses.
Comments:
# Since we write "deoxyribonucleic acid" as two words, it is not immediately obvious that the name implies that DNA is in fact a "nucleic acid". In fact, the "de-" prefix suggests otherwise — indeed, if something is detoxified, it is no longer toxic.  However, in the spirit of compromise, I am also OK with: "DNA is the chemical which carries...".
# Some might object that "all cellular forms of life" does not mention viruses, so I would point out that viruses are explicitly mentioned in the second paragraph.  However, in the spirit of compromise, I am also OK with: "all cellular forms of life and many viruses", though I still prefer "all known organisms".
# Lir's "genetic code" is mentioned.  I strongly prefer the Wikilink [genetic code] as opposed to e.g. [genetic|genetics] [code]. However, in the spirit of compromise, I would not mind omitting the sentence with genetic code, at least from the preamble.
Peak 05:14, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: February 4, 2004 version

message: *X.2 -- Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries biological "instructions" necessary for the development of all cellular organisms; it is sometimes said to represent the "genetic code of life". Because DNA is inherited and used to propagate traits, this macromolecule is known as the "molecule of heredity"; during reproduction, DNA is replicated and transmitted to offspring.  
** Lirath Q. Pynnor
I have several nit-picking issues with this. (1) "which acts as the biological "instructions"" implies a highly deterministic view, which is not widely held.  (2) "it is sometimes said to carry the "genetic code of life"" gives no extra information that I feel deserves to be in the intro passage (of course, it has a place in the body of the article). (3) The final sentence seems artifical and awkward to me.  Just say it out loud.  You might disagree though. Stewart Adcock 18:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) The difference being you said "which acts as the" and Peak said "which carries". (2) "it informs the user that DNA has something to do with the genetic code", yes it does, but this is duplicated information. And "it informs the user of a common phrase associated with DNA", yes it does, but this doesn't belong in the intro, as I said. Stewart Adcock 22:52, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: (1) "which carries the ..." is not the same as "which carries ..." which I was advocating.  Sorry, I should have made my point more clearly.  Drop the "the" and I'll be happy with that bit.  (2) As for the so-called common phrase, I think we can all agree that this point has been well-and-truly dragged through the fields by now.  I will summarise for you: "genetic code of life" is NOT a widely accepted alternative NAME for DNA.  Yes, people often do use that phrase to describe DNA.  NO, it is NOT a widely accepted alternative NAME for DNA; it doesn't belong in a, succinctly written, introductory passage.  I don't want to be patronising, Lir, but it is simply NOT a widely accepted alternative NAME for DNA.  comprendre?  Stewart Adcock 02:00, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter Proposal

message: [Stewart:] Below is, bascially, Peak's suggested passage.  I'm copying it to here so it doesn't get lost in the ramblings above.  I have removed the second sentence because I, for one, don't thing it adds anything significant.  Based on Peak's comments, I think he is of the same opinion.  Anyone with a vaguely reasonable argument for doing so may add it back in.
:Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries genetic instructions for the biological development of all cellular forms of life. DNA is sometimes referred to as the molecule of heredity as it is inherited and used to propagate traits. During reproduction, it is replicated and transmitted to offspring.
:In bacteria and other simple cell organisms, DNA is distributed more or less throughout the cell. In the complex cells that make up plants, animals and in other multi-celled organisms, most of the DNA is found in the chromosomes, which are located in the cell nucleus. The energy generating organelles known as chloroplasts and mitochondria also carry DNA, as do many viruses.
Optional second sentence:
:These instructions are encoded using the the genetic code.
Lir, which specific parts of the above can't you compromise on?  At least we'll then know what we need to fix. Stewart Adcock 05:37, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  That seems reasonable.  Anything else?  Stewart Adcock 06:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: [Peak:] The clock hasn't even started ticking yet as not everyone has been notified of the procedure. Once the clock starts ticking, no more options can be added. Votes can be changed until the clock stops ticking. At that point, as I said, any ties that can be resolved by REMOVING my vote will be so resolved; otherwise, there will be a revote, with the field of candidates whittled down depending on the results of the prior vote. Peak 07:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Just to avoid rehashing this again:  You are right, of course.  We settled, earlier, on the (slightly controversal) descision that viruses aren't organisms.  Therefore we may claim that our putative choices, above, are not incorrect. Stewart Adcock 04:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 5th version 

message: [Peak:] The February 5 version has been proposed and seconded, so I would like to suggest that, to maximize compromise, we vote separately on the three choices
that still remain (see below).  In those cases where there is no majority, then we can vote again on the ties.  If at any point there seems to be an impasse, then I will withdraw my vote to remove the impasse.  This process should lead to a final version fairly quickly. Would 72 hours be long enough for each voting cycle?
[Addendum: Voting has already started, but I want to make it clear that voting was intended to be "one vote per person per choice". If someone casts N votes for a single choice, each such vote will be counted as 1/N. Or should we have a vote on switching to APPROVAL VOTING? Peak 07:12, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: [Peak:] The clock hasn't even started ticking yet as not everyone has been notified of the procedure. Once the clock starts ticking, no more options can be added. Votes can be changed until the clock stops ticking. At that point, as I said, any ties that can be resolved by REMOVING my vote will be so resolved; otherwise, there will be a revote, with the field of candidates whittled down depending on the results of the prior vote. Peak 07:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Just to avoid rehashing this again:  You are right, of course.  We settled, earlier, on the (slightly controversal) descision that viruses aren't organisms.  Therefore we may claim that our putative choices, above, are not incorrect. Stewart Adcock 04:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting on February 5 Version

message: [P0M:] It appears that 168 has replaced the beginning of the DNA article with something of his own liking. Several days have gone by during which a sincere attempt has been made to arrive at a comprehensible statement that is agreeable to most people. But one person can still undo the work of many. Perhaps it is time for everyone to review Erik Berne's book Games People Play. What is the payoff for this kind of behavior?  P0M 22:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This has little to do with Lir. The issue has been discussed at length and most of us decided on a solution. You are the one ignoring the consensus and you are the one who is refusing to cooperate. Lir has been working with others to arrive at the compromise while you just revert everything you don't like. --mav 05:05, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Says the vote above. --mav
Continuing the discussion User talk:Maveric139:
Mav, has anybody actually asked you to intervene at DNA (i.e. besides Lir?). You don't seem to understand what is going on there. You also ignored my request long ago to tell me how far back into the discussion history you had read. If nobody is inviting you and you don't have the patience to study the matter, I suggest you stay out of it.168...|...Talk 03:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Nobody has to ask me - I'm already involved in the discussion over that page. You seem to be ignoring the consensus and the RfC process. --mav
Since you've now ignored the question twice and have a track record of going after me without regard for the context of my alleged malfeasance, I feel pretty safe to conclude now that you didn't read very far back in the discussion at all and that you really could care less about this article. 168...|...Talk 05:49, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Can anyone suggest an antidote to Lir's poison?
Peak 07:04, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Edit of the Day