Jump to content

Talk:DNA/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

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)

Protection Again

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)

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)
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)

I was going to do that anyway... -- Cyan 18:26, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What were you going to post here after you were going to do it? I'd be happy if you were to take over.168... 23:23, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was going to post something like, "It's clear that the issues which originally led to the edit war have not been resolved, so let us proceed with talk page discussions." Any and all input you want to make, 168, would be particularly appreciated, since the edit war cannot cease without you being satisfied. -- Cyan 23:38, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As may be obvious, I was hoping Lir would get bored or frustrated and/or forget about this article and/or that enough other people would get frustrated with him to mount a more effective banning campaign. I guess you will probably get frustrated with me before that happens, because I still consider Lir someone with whom there's no point trying to discuss things, and so once again I won't be discussing things with him here. If Lir can produce a paragraph that the other people can agree with, then afterwards I will be happy to discuss that paragraph with them vis-a-vis the current version. When I do I'll probably end up quoting some of the arguments I offered recently in favor of the current version with respect to various alternate phrases and words that have come up along this long and twisted journey. I think I made several that nobody specifically replied to at the time I posted them, so they should still be fresh when the time comes.168... 00:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] The Waksman Institute at Rutgers has a series of "Molecular Biology Tutorials" online. These are based on tutorials originally written by William Sofer to accompany "Modern Genetic Analysis", an introductory genetics text from WH Freeman, but they have been extensively reworked. Here is one of the ways in which DNA is characterized: [1]

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)

A note on fairness

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)

(P.S. 168, I never removed comments, I simply asked people to put them in the appropriate place, which is a little different from what you're doing.) -- Cyan

Opening Paragraph

[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)

But why should we indicate that it is sometimes referred to as the "molecule of heredity" but not that it is sometimes referred to as the "genetic code of life" -- both phrases are used. If Im beating it to death, than so are you. I fail to see why you are so opposed to listing this "nickname". Your suggestion hardly addresses my concern when my concern is to inform the reader of what DNA's varied nicknames are. Lirath Q. Pynnor

"Genetic Code of Life"

[Peak:] Google gives six hits for "DNA is the genetic code of life":

  1. ) Talk:DNA (yes, this page is indexed!)
  2. ) Two occurrences in a James D. Watson biography by someone who goes by the name of "Bryan R."
  3. ) One is an article on a French website. They can perhaps be forgiven for their Franglais.
  4. ) Kent School District
  5. ) www.roche-hiv.com - I guess their expertise would be in drugs and HIV.

Excluding Talk:DNA, that makes 4 independent occurrences. This is hardly overwhelming evidence for DNA having a common nickname as you state, especially given these Google counts:

  • "DNA: the secret of life" = 8,140
  • "DNA is the secret of life" = 54
  • "science is a waste of time" = 44
  • "scientists are fools" = 36
  • "all scientists are liars" = 12
  • "Elvis lives" = 17,300

In any case, even if there were 17,300 occurrences, that would not justify repeating the mistake on Wikipedia, as has been explained before. Or are you proposing that we say: "also sometimes erroneously nicknamed 'the genetic code of life'"?

By the way, what's wrong with my proposal for including "genetic code"? You can tack on "of life" so far as I'm concerned. Peak 05:41, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Im glad you are speaking to me again.
[Peak:] It was 168... who stopped responding to you.
This is the third or fourth time which I have posted this link: [2]. You will find here ~187 examples of websites which refer to DNA as the "genetic code of life"
[Peak:] And for the umpteenth time, your Google search picks up occurrences such as the following one, which occurs on the first page returned by Google:
DNA holds the "key" to protein synthesis, the genetic code for life.
That is, it picks up co-occurrences of "DNA" and "genetic code".

-- this is not all of the websites which do so, this is just a group which I have selected. I have no idea why you are having so much trouble finding more links on google.

[Peak:] When I write a Google search as "xyzzy is foo bar", the quotation marks are included so that articles with the exact phrase are selected.
    • Judging from your above comments, we should also add that DNA is described as the "secret of life".
[Peak:] I think that part of the problem here may be that you are confusing DESCRIPTIONS with NAMEs (whether NICK or not).

Furthermore, please understand that it is your POV that DNA is erroneously known as the "genetic code of life".

Again you are missing the main point: the Wikipedia article on genetic code. There is no point introducing inconsistency within Wikipedia when none is called for. (By the way, are you saying that if person P acknowledges fact F, that thereby the truth status of F is reduced to a POV?)

Frankly, I agree with you -- I don't like nicknames. However, the nickname is used, and we will report that it is used. Your proposal is unacceptable because it first off defines DNA as the genetic code of life;

[Peak:]I think you miswrote the preceding sentence. In any case, permit me to remind you thatt my proposal mentions the phrase "genetic code" BEFORE the phrase "molecule of heredity".

and secondly, fails to note that some people (besides wikipedia) do refer to it as such. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[Peak:] The preamble should be short. If you want to mention all the synonyms, nicknames, characterizations and mischaracterizations that have ever been made, that should be done in a subsequent section.Peak 06:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Peak wrote a bunch of stuff interspersed with the above comments, [4]The gist of it was that not all of the links described DNA as the genetic code of life; however, I must clarify that many of the links do. If I find an article from a government certified school or a public broadcasting station (within the list that Peak so quickly discards), that describes it as such -- will that be sufficient? What if I find two or three? How many will it take? What if I find a celebrity who refers to it that way, is that good enough? Peak also suggested that the nicknames should be in a seperate section, since I can currently only think of three nicknames (or illustrative descriptions, if one will) -- it seems they can all fit within one single sentence. Lirath Q. Pynnor


Time to move toward a compromise

OK folks. I've read the discussion here and have seen the two article versions that are the basis of the revert war. After that I find that this revert war is over fairly small differences of opinion that are perhaps magnified by interpersonal conflicts. Here is my view on the two versions on a sentence by sentence basis (version 1 is the current top edit, and version 2 is the edit right below it):

I'm curious: How far back did you read, mav? 168... 02:45, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sentence 1, Version 1: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the primary chemical component of chromosomes and is the material of which genes are made.
While concise and correct a hypothetical average person might say upon reading it, "Say what? How does that apply to anything I already know - why is this thing called DNA important?" The reason why: The average person does not know what a chromosome is and why it is important. Even the concept of genes are a bit vague for most people.
Your hypothetical person, if she or he is interested in DNA, very much needs to learn what chromosomes and genes are, or else they won't truly appreciate the significance of DNA. I also think you are placing an unreasonable burden on the first sentence by implying that it needs to capture the whole essence. News stories often have 2-sentence leads in which the punch comes in the 2nd sentence. And I guess you and I just disagree about the importance of chromosomes and genes for setting context. Also my intuition is that your hypothetical person is not at all "average," as you call him or her, but reflects a small minority of the people who will be reading this article. Anyway, my main point is that chromosomes and genes are extremely important for context and that context often is best set first.168... 02:44, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sentence 1, Version 2: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries the genetic "instructions" for the biological development of all known organisms.
[mav] I wouldn't link instructions but I do think that this sentence better captures the essence of what DNA is (even though most people won't know what a nucleic acid other than the fact that DNA is a member of that group). Minor point: nix the "all" since there are RNA viruses and there is dispute among biologists whether or not viruses are organisms (I personally don't think they are, but that is my own POV).
[Peak:] The Wikipedia article is quite clear about what "organism" means, and I believe that everyone involved with this page has been comfortable with the phrase "all known organisms". Please also bear in mind that the proposed phrasing does include a Wikilink to organisms. It is important to convey the universality of DNA for non-viruses, so if we can't say "all known organisms" I would propose "all known organisms and many viruses." Peak 04:33, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In short, this version tells the reader why he or she should care about DNA by phrasing the lead sentence in a way that includes that type of information.
[Peak:] Yep, that was the idea :-)
I oppose nucleic acid for reasons I gave earlier and the first paragraph overall for the reasons I gave at the very beginning of discussions. Besides, the "nucleic acids" version would be redundant with sentence below you say you like.168... 02:44, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sentence 2, Version 1: It is sometimes called the "molecule of heredity," because parents transmit copied portions of their own DNA to offspring during reproduction, and because they propagate their traits by doing so.
[mav] I really like this version since it expands on the topic by stating a common and fairly accurate nickname of DNA and why it has earned that nickname. This is useful to both biologists and laypersons.
Sentence 2, Version 2: This nucleic acid is sometimes referred to as the "molecule of heredity" and the "genetic code of life".
[mav] Nucleic acid is already mentioned and linked in the lead sentence. Nix it. Linking molecule and heredity makes sense in order to highlight those important and relevant terms. The last part is not correct: I've never heard of DNA being called the genetic code. DNA is the medium by which the genetic code is transmitted in much the same way as the works of Shakespeare and transmitted on paper. Having this in the lead paragraph will, IMO, confuse readers on what DNA is. Since most people will just read the lead section, I don't think that that phrase is a useful one to have (even if it were common enough stated for us to include it). But if it must stay in some form, I would suggest saying "and the carrier of the genetic code of life" instead (I've at least seen that in a few places - usually worded differently, however).

That's all I have time for now. More later (I like parts of both versions, so maybe we can reach a compromise). --mav 23:52, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree pretty much exactly with mav, except I have heard people call DNA the 'genetic code', but even so, those people are still wrong. So what are the outstanding issues if we were to choose Sentence 1, Version 2 and Sentence 2, Version 1? It's about time we made a firm decision so the location of the edit conflict can at least be bumped down to the next problematic paragraph... Stewart Adcock 00:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph (V.X)

Having read mav's comments: I have revised my suggested opening paragraph. It was further revised by Lexor, who stated:

Minor tweaks: nix the bolding on most and carry, "instructions" can be misleading, DNA is not really a blueprint in the normal sense of the word, and instructions implies an overly genetic determinist view, however it is certainly necessary:

[Stewart] "of most organisms" is wrong. Assuming, as before, that RNA viruses are not organisms, name one organism that doesn't require DNA for development. Stewart Adcock 21:37, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I believe the paragraph is written from a point of NPOV, where we cannot assume that RNA viruses are not organisms -- since there isn't a consensus. Furthermore, xenophiles would be quick to argue against the usage of "all". Lirath Q. Pynnor

By that argument, saying "...of most organisms" is also POV since we can't assume that RNA viruses are organisms. This is easy to resolve. Just say "...of organisms". That implies neither. Stewart Adcock 23:10, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm really not overly concerned either way, Im merely trying to reflect mav's comments above (where he advocated "most"). I suppose if we define "organisms" as containing DNA, then I would completely agree with your suggestion. "Of organisms" does, however, imply "all". Lirath Q. Pynnor

[Peak:] This issue was resolved a long time ago: "all known organisms" -- "known" for Lir, and the Wikilink in case anyone doesn't know what "organisms" means here on Wikipedia. It is sad to observe all the energy devoted to compromise being diverted to resurrecting long-resolved issues.
Several contributors to this page have recently spoken in favor of compromise, which I (continue to) heartily support. This means no one person has "veto power".
By the way, it is incorrect (or at least very misleading) to say that "DNA transmits genetic material" as Lir's recent revisions would have us believe. DNA is the genetic material that is transmitted. The word "transmission" came up in the context of information and instructions. I still favor information or instructions.
You are quite right about "genetic material" -- somebody suggested it, and it is incorrect. I will go back to "instructions". "known organisms" does not work because there appears to be a debate over what qualifies as an organism. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Regarding P0M's criticism of "DNA is a nucleic acid", please note, firstly, that this phrasing allows us to get a nice wikilink; and secondly, that the analogy with "Neanderthal man is a man" fails, since we do not write "deoxyribo nucleic acid" (three words). DNA is a mouthful, and the target audience probably includes some who have not parsed "DNA" very carefully.
Peak 23:35, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The refutation of the Neanderthal example fails, because it appeals to a rule about writing which does not exist, at least to my knowledge. Also "transmit" originally was used to decribe how parents get their DNA to offspring. I don't know about "transmission."168... 23:43, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above paragraph was adjusted in response to POMs statements

  • [P0M] I see some problems with the above formulation. Trying to fix it would be like trying to unsnarl a backlash in a casting reel, which can sometimes be an ugly mess. First, it contains something like a tautology: "D...nucleic acid is a nucleic acid." That is like saying, "Neanderthal man was a man." The accepted way of fixing a sentence like that is to say, "... is a (or one) kind of nucleic acid...:" Then it says that DNA transmits genetic material. If you already understand what is going on, you may understand what that is intended to mean. However, the unprepared reader may well interpret it as meaning that DNA is some kind of microscopic conveyor belt along which some other material (stuff) that is "genetic" in nature. The reader will then get the picture that when this genetic stuff gets to the end of the conveyor belt it will somehow feed or nurture or stoke the biological development of most organisms. Saying that it "carries" the genetic code of life is open to the interpretation that it serves as some kind of basket on a microscopic scale in which is deposited a code. Then this conveyor belt/basket is inherited (through unspecified processes) by someone/something and after that it sows/plants/propagates traits. And where, the befuddled reader asks, did these traits come from? Being itself inherited, it is now said to be the molecule of heredity (i.e., inheritance). After transmission, development of organisms, carrying of genetic code, inheritance, and heredity are all mentioned the reader comes to a belated and probably befuddling mention of reproduction wherein DNA is (again) replicated and then (by unknown processes) transmitted to offspring.
    • [P0M] It's too late/early to have a go at fixing this thing. Besides, when I write a monstrosity like this myself I generally have to get away from the words I have saddled myself with and ask what I really am trying to say. My guess is that the key to teasing out all of the kinks will be to pull on the one loop that sticks out and hope that the rest of the snarl will follow without recourse to violence. The key, I'm guessing, will be to get clear on whether by code one means the code book or the correspondences between glyphs or other meaningful representations that are recorded in the code book.
      • I would like to note that things like traits have articles about them; if a reader doesn't know what a trait is, they probably can't understand DNA. Anytime a reader doesn't understand a word -- we expect them to click the link. Please understand that "code" is in ""; this is to inform the reader that this is an analogy. As for carrying, that is a widely used technical term, describing how DNA transmits genetic "information".
[P0M] I would like it better of people using this talk page would identify themselves more clearly. It was not my intention to suggest that a reader interested in DNA would not know what a trait is. "Carrying" would probably be o.k. in the proper context.

February 4, 2004 version

[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:

  1. 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...".
  2. 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".
  3. 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)

I have no major issues with this version. I'd rather have the genetic code sentence dropped, in the interest of keeping a concise intro passage, but I won't push this. With this version, I'm definitely in favour of keeping the nucleic acid link where it is but, again, I would compromise on that point if a link to something like chemical compound or biomolecule is put in it's place. Another minor point is that I'd rather have "which carries the genetic instructions" replaced by "which carries genetic instructions". I've taken the liberty to make that change above. Stewart Adcock 18:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Counter Proposal

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) (If it goes to a vote, Peak's pre-counter proposal version would get mine).


I find that strange since Peak's version also uses "instructions"; except without the "". "Genetic code of life" does give useful information, it informs the user that DNA has something to do with the genetic code; and, it informs the user of a common phrase associated with DNA. Lirath Q. Pynnor

(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)


Im certainly content to say "which carries" (there is a reason I've been advocating that we should do this one sentence at a time); but someone was complaining that "carries" was too technical. As for the common phrase, traditionally on wikipedia articles we always include alternate names within the opening -- why should DNA be different? Lirath Q. Pynnor

(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)

Except I can find sources from schools, public broadcasting stations, celebrities, and modern textbooks which do use that term. So it does seem more accepted than you contend. What is the harm in noting that another way to refer to DNA and its "instructions necessary for cellular organisms" is by stating that it carries the "genetic code for life" -- surely these two concepts should be introduced in the same sentence. Are you aware of some movement to convince people that the phrase is totally fallacious and should never be used? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Argh! While defending the incorporation of this phrase, you said, "As for the common phrase, traditionally on wikipedia articles we always include alternate names within the opening -- why should DNA be different?". Now (while it is true that I accept people, rightly or wrongly, use this phrase to describe DNA) it is NOT a widely accepted alternative NAME! Meaning that that is not a reasonable argument for its inclusion. As far as your later comment ("What is the harm in noting that another way to refer to DNA...") goes, then it is redundant in at least two ways. First, it is just regurgitating information already given in adjacent sentences and we clearly should aim for a concise intro passage. Second, the phrase should be covered in the body of the article, where it belongs, so why bother to include it here too? Stewart Adcock 02:35, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[P0M]: "Genetic code for life" is not an apt characterization. On that grounds alone I would strongly resist using it in the introduction. If it is to be used at all it should be used because it is a pitfall waiting to trap somebody into misunderstanding what DNA is and does. It is not an alternate name. Instead it is a spiffy looking but somewhat addled characterization.

You may not agree with the usage of "genetic code for life"; but, regardless, it is used. I can find sources from schools, public broadcasting stations, celebrities, and modern textbooks which all use that term. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[P0M]: "Is" does not imply "should."

A long time ago Lir wrote, "I don't really care whether or not the phrase is technically wrong. It is used; thus, we must include it. For now, lets decide to put it down where "molecule of heredity" is at in the article.". Let's all decide that again... Stewart Adcock 05:24, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 5th version

[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)

We should state that DNA is known as the "molecule of heredity" within the same paragraph as DNA is known as (and/or carries) the "genetic code of life". If you wish to move both phrases to the second (or third) paragraph, I will be agreeable. Both illustrative phrases should be mentioned within the same paragraph. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Okay. That seems reasonable. Anything else? Stewart Adcock 06:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Voting on February 5 Version

[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)]

1 Choose one:


2 Choose one:

3 Choose one:

  • Option a: Keep sentence with "genetic code" as is (with Wikilink [genetic code])
  • Option b: Keep sentence with "genetic code" but with links: [genetics|genetic] [code]
  • Option c: Remove this sentence from the preamble. -- Stewart Adcock, P0M, mav, Lexor (but use it after preamble)
  • Option d [added by Lir]: Keep both "illustrative nickname phrases" within the same paragraph -- Lirath Q. Pynnor

Peak 05:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've indicated my first choice options, but reserve the right to amend my votes in order to achieve a concensus where possible. Stewart Adcock 06:08, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[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)

Why bother with all these "clock ticking" rules. Its not like the vote has any authority at all. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[P0M]: There are RNA viruses, so not all things that reproduce do it by DNA.

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)

I see how this project is kind of cyclical. So maybe it's a good time to suggest this one again.168... 05:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the primary chemical component of chromosomes and is the material of which genes are made. It is sometimes called the "molecule of heredity," because parents transmit copied portions of their own DNA to offspring during reproduction, and because they propagate their traits by doing so.

Votes in favor:

  1. 168...


Clock started ticking at 07:00 6 Feb UTC

[Peak:] Everyone involved has now either voted or otherwise indicated their awareness of the vote. The last person to indicate their awareness did so just before 7:00 6 Feb UTC; since no-one objected to the 72 hour rule, that means we have until 7:00 9 Feb to modify our votes amongst the options that existed when Lexor cast his votes. Thanks to everyone who is supporting the process! Peak 23:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By my reckoning, with have near-universal agreement on this:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries genetic instructions for the biological development of all cellular forms of life and many viruses. 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.

If the page gets unprotected and this intro inserted, do we have agreement to restrict any edit wars to further down the article, at least? Stewart Adcock 01:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] The vote has been held and the result is very clear (perhaps clearer than any of us had reason to expect), so there should be no need to ask! I believe that everyone who has participated in this vote (including 168..., as he offered an alternative before the clock started ticking) is honor-bound to respect and help enforce the result. This means that any further changes to the selected version should only be made after a similar vote on this Talk page. So I would ask one of the sysops to install the selected text, and help monitor compliance.
With thanks again to everyone for their participation! Peak 05:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As I stated I would be earlier, I am now happy to debate the merits of the voted-for paragraph with respect to the paragraph that's up there now with anyone but Lir.168...|...Talk 06:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I am just going to ask a sysop to make the changes. Stewart Adcock 17:16, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As someone heretofore completely uninvolved in this, I'll volunteer my services to move the paragraph as a neutral observer. You do seem to have near consensus. I'll put the paragraphs in the article. Jwrosenzweig 17:23, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Stewart Adcock 17:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've just added some comments to the source to discourage random changes to these agreed paragraphs. Stewart Adcock 17:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would replace the first paragraph with:

Perhaps we have consensus on the first part of the first sentence. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, I don't think that suggestion was helpful at this time. Maybe we can start considering the next controversial paragraph and, if necessary, we can return the intro passage afterwards. Everybody, please try to avoid getting the page reprotected so people can work on fixing/extending other parts of the article. Stewart Adcock 17:16, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I agree with Stewart's comment above.

Disputed overview passage

To start the ball rolling, the 2nd disputed portion is listed below. Please state clearly and succinctly the issues you have with this version. Stewart Adcock 17:16, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Although sometimes called "the molecule of heredity," pieces of DNA as people typically think of them are not single molecules. Rather, they are pairs of molecules, which entwine like vines to form a double helix (top half of the illustration at the right).
Each vine-like molecule is a strand of DNA: a chemically linked chain of nucleotides, each of which consists of a sugar, a phosphate and one of four kinds of aromatic "bases." Because DNA strands are composed of these nucleotide subunits, they are polymers.

[P0M:] Sentence (1) above says DNA = pairs of vine-like molecules, but (2) says a strand of DNA = a [single?] vine-like molecule. Would it clarify things to say that two DNA strands entwine to form a chromosome, and that each DNA strand is a chain of nucleotides? P0M 22:02, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Its pointless for me to discuss the 2nd disputed portion when what goes in the rest of the article depends on what is at the beginning. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Another Edit of the Day

[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)

People were forced to vote because Lir can't be reasoned with, as I believe you yourself, POM, have recently had a taste of. I publicly made the decision way back in the archives not to discuss anything with Lir, and I pointed then to what I believe remains good evidence for believing that Lir has no desire to reach a resolution here or anywhere. The version you accurately describe as to my "own liking" is a version that is also to a lot of other people's liking, historically; and except for the political friction that it is causing now, I doubt it really much bothers anyone here but Lir. On this discussion page, the revisions people have been proposing have crept ever farther away from it in the attempt to compromise with the more or less uncompromising Lir. I refuse to compromise with Lir, who I believe is either often highly irrational or acting in bad faith; unless he is both. As I made clear above, if others arrive at a version of the first paragraph that they like, then I will be happy to debate the merits of it, with an open mind, vis-a-vis the paragraph that was up for months, which was left untouched after many edits by others, and was part of the article when it was declared "brilliant prose." But in that discussion I will not be accepting as a reason that we need it to make Lir happy.168...|...Talk 04:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

Says you. 168...|...Talk 05:42, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

[Peak:] Sadly, Lir seems to have scored another hit: 168... has become unhinged, at least temporarily. For those who don't have the time or inclination to review the sordid history, yes, it is true that Lir attempted at every stage to sabotage all attempts to improve the article, but sadly it is now the case that 168... is persisting in ignoring the fact that a vote was held, and that even counting his abstention, there was, in every case, at least a two-thirds majority agreement. (I did not cast a vote as I had framed the alternatives, but I fully support the majority result.)

Can anyone suggest an antidote to Lir's poison?

Peak 07:04, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[P0M:] I'm not sure who I'm replying to, but here is my answer to the "antidote" question. When I find myself veering toward the ego-centric defense of my own views or the ego-centric destruction of my opposition, or worrying what an opponent in the karate dojo will do to me, I do an exercise to correct myself. I repeat over and over to myself, until I seem not to need it any more, "Ego, ego, ego, ego..... ego" One either does it for oneself or gets a zen-minded karate instructor or a roshi. I can't do it for the several people that I have seen operating in this environment who would seem to me to need some such tool to reduce their degree of delusion. Those who persist in ego-centric behavior and the accompanying misperceptions of reality tend to destroy themselves. Those who spit into the wind are likely to get a facefull. And it is all on public view until such time as the archives dissipate into the Void. P0M 08:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Choosing the word "unhinged" doesn't suggest a great effort to imagine why a reasonable person might choose to be behaving as I am now, but I'll take it as an acknowledgment that you are used to perceiving me as sane, civil and committed to creating consensus. Others might wish to take note. 168...|...Talk 20:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DNA/Archive_4&oldid=96179661"