Talk:DNA/Archive 12

Featured on MediaWiki:April 25 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Is this page protected from editing ? 09 march 2004

No. Please, just have the best of time on this page from now on.
Following some private discussions, I will just dare to remind you that no encyclopedic article is "done" on Wikipedia, and that no vote made a couple of weeks ago by 5 people, justify that a preambule stays frozen for the months to come. The discussions below suggest me, that some editors do not perceive the current "community" version as necessarily the best ever. I hope it improves :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing 17:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Later... So, here is the deal. Here we have about 4 or 5 people who agreed upon a version. Now, a new editor comes along, and has been making many detailed comments on the talk page, explaining why he thought the "community" version not perfect, and proposing a new version.

You have two options.

Either you reject the right of this new editor to change the current community approved version. You revert him, or we protect the page. If you do so, you set a precedent : a set of editors, at one time can decide what the proper version should be, freeze that version, and protect it against winds and storms. In effect, the page is no more a wiki, and we could declare this page to be the first article on the first stable version for release.

Or you accept someone else opinion on the matter. Bensaccount made some comments on the community version...please give him a feedback on all these comments. Besaccount made some propositions for another version. Please give him some feedback on his version, and why you do not want to keep it.

If you do not find an agreed upon version, between all of you, ON THE TALK PAGE, by the end of the week, I suggest that next monday (or so), a list of all the propositions be made. You vote on whether to keep the old community agreed version or to have a new one. And you vote among the new ones. The agreed upon version (the old community approved or a new version) will be frozen for a full month from the moment it is voted. Any one feeling like changing his mind, or any new editor will have the opportunity to launch a new debate after that time.

Clear ? :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing 12:50, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(if not clear, that means no change of the current version unless there is an agreement HERE).

I restored the HTML comment after Anthony removed it recently. However I worded it less strongly than it used to be. Please make it stronger again if you think that is appropiate. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I had removed it :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing

Discussion on how to discuss together...

How to Discuss DNA

I think its important to address one point at a time, starting with the first sentence. Until we do so, we will just keep running in circles and archiving endless pages of concurrent debates. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I agree. Bensaccount 23:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(This start-to-finish style of article construction disturbs me slightly but...) In the interest of making progress, I'd recommend that you consider the first paragraphs fixed for now. We all know that they aren't perfect (a symptom of consensus editting) but, optimistically, they can be fixed with iterative editting once the more important problems have been ironed out of the remainder of the article. Stewart Adcock 17:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Theres no harm in fixing up the rest of the article first so you can go ahead, but I want to fix the beginning because it is incorrect (and is the most important part in my opinion). Bensaccount 17:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My sole interest here is in addressing the beginning. Once that has been done, I plan to move on to some other article. Lirath Q. Pynnor

A comment from pom

[P0M:] Smarting a bit after 168's remarks that seemed to include me among "people who were not around during the discussions long ago [and] think they understand what is going on and they don't... [and should take it to heart that] Zen and pop psychology don't trump ignorance," I went back and read through the archives. I think it is clear that Lir has achieved a stunning victory against all others by playing "let's you and him fight," and I can understand why 168 does not like to be in the position of dealing with his victory. I don't think anybody else should be happy with that victory either. If anything has emerged from these discussions its seems to be a consensus regarding Lir's edits. That consensus should not, IMHO, argue in favor of any of the other candidate passages. P0M 06:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Other issues

[Peak to Bensaccount:] You may be well-intentioned, but you are clearly ill-informed about the amount of effort that many people, including some very smart ones and some experts, have invested in the effort so far. Yes, that means a lot of time has been spent doing the things you ask for: discussing details, disproving ideas, and attempting to get people to accept facts. If you read the archives, you will see that serious problems arise when a someone (e.g. a sysop or a subvandal) insists that UNANIMITY is required. This is an invitation for subvandals to create havoc. (E.g. in the present case, a very valuable contributor (168...) has (at least for now) quit Wikipedia.) So there are much larger issues here than the wording of one particular preamble. Peak 18:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I believe it has been shown possible for one person to insist that his/her take on reality is superior to all others, to change the text, and then to systematically revert all attempts by others to alter this perfect piece of writing. I don't recall having seen Peak take this attitude, nor have I seen him use demeaning language toward other, or characterize the positions as not being worthy of consideration (without offering a reason why some position won't work), but his attitude seems to be a rarity on these talk pages. Problems seem to arise when one person can establish and defend by revert a position that other have good reason to oppose, but problems also arise when one person can veto a change on the grounds that a unanimous vote to change is necessary. I suspect these two things are both versions of the Molly Sugden syndrome. She's the lady who always ends a fiat with the words, "I am unanimous in regard to that issue."

[P0M:] Another thing that I have noticed (and have commented upon before) is the frequency with which the techniques of verbal assault are substituted for reasoned analysis by some participants in debates. Criticisms of content are frequently prefaced by unflattering characterizations of the authors of said content.

[P0M:] A third tendency I have noticed is the frequent use of the technique of refusing to answer a major point that someone has raised by attacking something that is not of central importance. P0M 20:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[Ant to Bensaccount] Do not feel discouraged :-) If you find a better phrasing or content for the preambule, just do it :-) Otherwise, just let the time do its affair. It will depends on whether 168 chooses to come back or not. FirmLittleFluffyThing

Edit Boldly Where Angels...

[P0M:] For many actions one may take, the social context is vitally important. Changing any line in an article written by one of the Lords of the Universe is asking for an instant revert with a snotty "summary" message to the effect that sophomoric attempts by lesser beings are reprehensible. Some of my edits have met that response. On the other hand, editing a line written by an objective writer who can see the advantage to the new formulation can sometimes even yield a commendation. On the third hand, editing a line or a block of text that has been a focus of irrascible debate for the past several weeks or months is an exercise in futility. It may even be an exercise in futility if one gets the formulation exactly right -- because people are incapable of being objective. Getting it exactly right involves writing with a physicists sense of elegance. I don't know of any renown physicists who dare characterize their own work -- in words or in formulae -- as elegant. Perhaps it is part of the training in objectivity that does it. Perhaps it is the unsympathetic response of experiments to fervent entreaties that does it.

[P0M:] We are advised to "edit boldly". I've been criticized (mildly) for bringing something up on a talk page instead of just jumping in and changing something. I've also been told, when proposing a change (in outline) on a talk page, "Just you try it, and see what I will do about it." (I'm paraphrasing, and maybe bringing into my paraphrase some of the emotion that stuck to the written message as a result of preceding acrid remarks from that contributor.)

[P0M:] Personally, I'm not eager to waste everybody's time, and to have my actions entail confusion to the general reader who finds a different article every time 'e returns to it. I would rather take the proposed change to talk page and hash it out -- even though my efforts may be characterized in various unflattering ways. If I can make my point clearly enough, I seem to be able to change other people's opinions or see the light in regard to what others have said.

[P0M:] I think the main problem with the precious preamble, over which so much virtual blood has been spilled, is that nobody is clear on what ideas need to be conveyed. If one does not have a clear intention, a clear mental picture, of what needs to be conveyed, no amount of skill, no accumulation of paraphrases, no... Nothing is going to help. We have been arguing about buzz words and catch phrases, but we have failed to nail DNA.

I think what you are looking for is "what the preamble is". It is a definition (a simple association). I hope nobody want to argue about this because I am sick of sidetracking. Bensaccount 00:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Edit boldly? Well, o.k., but how about thinking clearly and how about being aware of the inevitable consequences of some actions? P0M 23:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More comments by Pom 16/03/2004

[P0M:] "Edit boldly" is advocated by the administration of the Wikipedia. Maybe they like to see edit wars? It strikes me that having a reversion war is a waste of everybody's time, yet it is inevitable if somebody makes an insensitive change.

POM, you understand well the very concept of Wikipedia :-) Wikipedia thrive on edit wars. It is needed to make the blood of editors run more quickly, and to hook them in. A wiki were no one dare editing other people words (french and japanese are certainly far less bold than american people :-)) is not a healthy wiki. Now, there is a limit when edit war becomes more destructive than constructive, and it is certainly directly connected to the level of obstination :-)

[P0M:] Ritualized behaviors to head off aggression are essential to every culture. The rules can be different in different cultures, but within a culture the individual fares better if 'e can go by the rules. I believe that it's o.k. to knock and enter in Japan. If you knock and enter through a closed door in Germany, I'm told, you may be handed your head. (Virtually, at least.) Each place has its own conventions.

[P0M:] If, for instance, Dysprosia and Mav have been working for a month on a paragraph on antidisestablishmentarianism and have just patched up a (virtual) blood feud, and I come on the scene, delete the paragraph and replace it with my own version, surely the two of them will not applaud my efforts unless my insight and my prose outshine theirs the way that Rumi outshines Ogden Nash. Rather than affronting them, if I have any desire to make a positive contribution then it would seem to me the better strategy to negotiate the changes -- and to not try to negotiate from a posture of arrogance either.

Yes. But that was worth trying no ? Ok, that did not work. I was curious.

Earlier proposals for intro and discussion moved to archive 9

Should we include incorrect phrases if they are common?

As many sources refer to DNA as the "genetic code of life" or as something which contains, transmits, or carries the "genetic code of life" -- I feel that phrase should be part of this article. Furthermore, it should be just as prominently displayed as "molecule of heredity,"; since such "alternate names" are traditionally placed within the first paragraph -- that is where "genetic code of life" should be placed. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This should not be done because:

You are only adding these phrases because you think they are common.
"Genetic code of life" is very abstract and can refer to much more than DNA.
"Molecule of heredity" is not an alternate name for DNA. It is a vague misinterperetation at best. "Molecule of heredity" should be a redirect to heredity because the typer has made a mistake (there is no such molecule). Bensaccount 22:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal pov, the phrase "genetic code of life" is used by a significant number of textbooks, academics, celebrities, television programmes, and websites. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You just proved point number 1 above. Bensaccount 01:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you disputing that the phrase is used? Lirath Q. Pynnor

No im saying you are only adding the phrase because you think its commonly used. This doesn't make a phrase correct. Ex: Lakes and oceans are blue because they reflect the blue sky (not true). Bensaccount 04:10, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is your personal POV that the phrase is incorrect. People do use the phrase in reference to DNA; thus, the article should include it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

What you just said was basically: The phrase is correct because it is common (AGAIN). (and yes my POV is to disagree with you because of the 3 reasons above). Bensaccount 16:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I never said the phrase was correct. What I said is that the phrase is sufficiently common, and thus the article must include it. You appear unaware that the Wikipedia maintains a policy of not determining what is and isn't correct -- we try to include all points of view. Lirath Q. Pynnor

It is acceptable to include all points of view when the correct one is in doubt. It is not acceptable to include points of view that have irrefutably been proven incorrect. Bensaccount 23:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It does not matter whether, or not, the phrases are correct. Regardless, since they are used, they must be included here. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You think we should include incorrect phrases? How about calling it deoxynucleic acid its also a common mistake. Bensaccount 23:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. As you can see here [1] Hartnell College has intentionally used the term "deoxynucleic acid" in reference to DNA. It is our job to list and report all such usages, regardless of whether we personally believe they are technically appropriate. Naturally, you should feel more than free to write in the article why the term might be considered inappropriate -- however, I am merely asserting that the terms should be mentioned as part of the article. If you don't believe that this is standard wikipedia policy, you might wish to ask about this at the mailing list.Lirath Q. Pynnor

Ok I can understand how it could be useful to include incorrect items as long as they are:

Not included in the introduction as a correct description.
Corrected (or at least classified as incorrect).

Therefore I propose creating a section entitled Common mistakes or somesuch name.Bensaccount 02:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That would not be acceptable because it is our personal opinion that it is a mistake to use these terms. We must maintain an objective viewpoint. It would be appropriate to state, "Some people describe DNA as the "genetic code of life"; however, others object to this term because of..." Lirath Q. Pynnor

If you must include a line like "Some people describe DNA as "deoxynucleic acid" because of a typo, however, everyone who knows the real name of DNA object to this term because it is a mistake." it would go in the section entitled common mistakes. There is no reason to put this in the intro. Bensaccount 15:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your problem is that you can't accept something as being a fact unless it is commonly accepted. This is absurd. How would you describe even the simplest things like the shape of a square? "Some people describe the shape of a square as square; however, others object to this term because they think a square is a circle. In conclusion, a square may be shaped like a square or a circle." Bensaccount 16:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Even if more people think a square is a circle, it remains a square, so an article about a sqare shouldn't say that people think a square is a circle, it should say that a square is a square. (A completely different article could address the popular opinion that a square is a circle). Bensaccount 16:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A square is not a circle because more people think it is a circle. A square is still a square. DO NOT ARGUE THIS POINT!. (It will make me very angry).

It is the duty of every article about something real (encyclopedia or not) to report what is fact. Anything otherwise is a form of a lie. Bensaccount 16:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Allow me to simplify for everyone:

Everytime you write something, you know if you are telling the truth or lying. If you dont, you shouldn't be writing about it, you should be reading about it. There are times when lying is acceptable. This is not one of them. Popular opinion plays no part in this. Bensaccount 16:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How many times must I repeat that I am not asserting that DNA is properly known as deoxynucleic acid or that it is properly described as the "genetic code of life". My sole assertion is that a significant number of people do refer to it as such; and thus, the article must report it in accordance with the basic guidelines of the wikipedia.
- Deoxynucleic acid is not a typo, there are people who deliberately use that term. The information should be at the beginning of the article, because in all articles we attempt to list alternate names/nicknames/metaphors at the beginning.
- As you stated, our goal is report what is fact. It is fact that people refer to DNA as deoxynucleic acid and as the "genetic code of life". Thus, we must report it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

So you think this article should not be about DNA but rather about what has been commonly said about DNA? If this is the article you are looking for, you are on the wrong page. Go edit some page like "What Watson and crick have said about DNA" or "What people who can't spell have said about DNA" Bensaccount 23:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you review the numerous pages on what sort of information the wikipeda wishes to include. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This article is about DNA not about what has been commonly said about DNA. Bensaccount 00:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

The "genetic code of life" and "deoxynucleic acid" and "molecule of heredity"

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)

[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)

We shouldn't lie to compromise with Lir. Bensaccount 17:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] At this point I'm not clear which phrase is "this phrase." When people like the writer at Hartnell make a mistake and write "deoxyribonucleic" as "deosribbonocleric" ;-) or whatever, the usual way to to deal with it, if we are required to quote the mistaken passage for some reason, is to follow the error with the Latin word "sic" in parentheses. Ordinarily there would be no reason to catalog every misspelling and beginner's mistake in an article devoted to explaining something.

[P0M:] If we are now actually talking about the "genetic code of life", then I can happily agree with both Lir and Bensaccount. The idea of a "hereditary code-script" has historical importance because it appeared in a seminal book by a physicist, Schrödinger, that got the bio-chemical researchers on the right track. So the idea has to be in the article at the appropriate point. That being said, I started objecting to several things in the introduction a very long time ago (in subjective time) and most of what I said was scrambled in the recent cataclysms. One of the things that I did not like in the introductory passage was this very phrase "genetic code of life". I object to it because it is not the most apposite way to explain what is going on. Now you are probably going to ask me why I have not provided a more apposite way and I will be frank and tell you that I have been discouraged from doing so in part because of the intrinsic difficulty of the task and in part because of the intense partisan attitude that even attempts to provide "a gentle response" have sometimes met on this talk page. P0M 18:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Summary

Deoxynucleic acid - This is a common incorrect phrase therefore it should be corrected before inclusion (see above).
Molecule of heredity - Appeared in a seminal book by a physicist, Schrödinger, that got the bio-chemical researchers on the right track. Therefore should be included in the history subsection.
Genetic code of life - This is a common phrase, but phrases such as "DNA is the genetic code of life" are both incorrect (see Genetic code) and relatively uncommon (see archives for empirical evidence). Thus the preamble could in principle include the phrase, but not as a synonym or characterization of DNA.

The Two-Thirds Majority Version

A consensus-building process has taken place. A two-thirds majority agreed to the version which then became the posted version from 14 February to 6 March, as well as at various times before and since those dates:

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.

Comments on this version

I do not think there is a hurry. There would be a hurry if the current version was factually wrong, or pov. This is not the case. So, rather, let's try to focus on the brand new version :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing

{Peak to Anthere:] Actually, the first sentence is partly incorrect, or at least misleading, because of the use of the word "primary". This was discussed earlier on this Talk page, and my recollection is that this was one of the main reasons for seeking consensus on an improved version. (Ultimately, this led to the "near-consensus version" that you are treating so unkindly.) Here is an extract from Talk:DNA/arhive_2#5:

isolated chromosomes (metaphase) approx. 15% DNA, 12% RNA 70% protein

... There is indeed lots of gunk to hold the chromosomes together. Your source is almost certianly correct. Stewart Adcock

Pros and Cons

DNA is not introduced quickly so that it can be subcatagorized throughout the article. (They try and cover too many aspects). Bensaccount
- This asserts that the preamble fails to introduce DNA quickly enough, but that could be said of any preamble to a complex topic. User: Peak
  - Ok comment disproved. Bensaccount
Once again, genetic instuction is too vague. (see above). Bensaccount
- This is a vague assertion that something else is vague. User: Peak
  - Ok comment disproved. Bensaccount
Developmental biology has to do with the development of organisms. DNA is in no way limited to this. It codes for ALL the structure and functions of organisms. Bensaccount
- is misdirected criticism as the first sentence specifically mentions viruses. User: Peak
  - That is not what I mean - follow the link to developmental biology. Bensaccount
"Molecule of heredity" is not an alternate name for DNA. It is a vague misinterperetation at best. "Molecule of heredity" should be a redirect to heredity because the typer has made a mistake (there is no such molecule). Bensaccount 22:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- is irrelevant as there is no claim that the phrase is an "alternate name." User: Peak
  - See updated problems with molecule of heredity above. Bensaccount
The central dogma of cell biology (DNA replication, transcription, translation) is not even mentioned (although part of it is). Bensaccount
- asserts that the "central dogma" should be mentioned in the preamble, but there are many good reasons for not doing so. Basically it introduces a whole "can of worms" where it is least needed. (Like most dogmas, the (original) central dogma proved wrong.) Peak 05:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Ok dont do the dogma - comment disproved. Bensaccount

In the second paragraph DNA is dichotomized into prokaryotes and eukaryotes. If you are going to dichotomize DNA do it in the subcatagories, not the intro.Bensaccount 16:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] DNA is not dichotomized in the second paragraph.Peak 05:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is. If not prok vs. euk, then in as location. Bensaccount

All the comments that were disproved were left out of the propositions as of 10/03

Other

Also if you are going to propose a whole new intro, first you have to prove there is something wrong with the old into. I have done this above (archive 9) and suggested a new intro based on the problems and achievements of the old intro. (This is my version in the proposals as of 10/03)

Who was involved in this vote? Bensaccount 22:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is in the archive Bensaccount. FirmLittleFluffyThing

All the comments that were disproved were left out of the propositions as of 10/03

The propositions as of 10/03

The original version (on the page now) was replaced by the near consensus version from above. This vesrion has been broken up into its consecutive paragraphs and they are listed with the other suggestions below.

First paragraph

The first paragraph should be a definition. (Wikipedia:Define_and_describe)

Option0A (in case some of you forgot, this is the "near-consensus" version :-))
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.

- :Lack of clarity around propagate traits (see slru)

It seems perfectly clear to me. I'm not adverse to someone suggesting an alternative wording though. Stewart Adcock

[Peak:] I agree with Stewart. Perhaps Slru would care to make a proposal?Peak 05:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The sentence is misleading (same as heredity above). Bensaccount 22:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- : "Biological development" is only a fraction of what DNA codes for.

[Peak:] Perhaps, but this part of the paragraph is highlighting what makes DNA especially interesting and important.

- : "Molecule of heredity" is misleading (see above)

[Peak:] I have looked "above" and do not see why you consider the phrase misleading. Slru's concern is with the "propagation of traits". The only other concern I have seen expressed is that sentences such as "DNA has been called the molecule of heredity" could be construed to imply that the double-helical form of DNA is a single molecule, which, from a certain POV, it is not. However, the sentence does not say anything about the double helix, and any confusion there may be about how to count molecules of DNA is dealt with in the body of DNA.

- : DNA replication is less than 1/3 of the role of DNA. If you include it you should include the central dogma first.

[Peak:] Mentioning "biological development" adequately covers the "central dogma" -- please try to think of "biological development" in a broad sense. However, if you still feel that the combination of "biological development" and "reproduction" is missing something important, then perhaps you could state what it is at the same level of abstraction, and thereby improve this version.Peak 05:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Option 0S (avoid complications involving "traits" to address Slru's concerns)

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries the 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 forms the basis of the inheritance of genetically determined characteristics. During reproduction, parental DNA is replicated and transmitted to offspring.

Option 1A
Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is a macromolecule that encodes the structure and functions of a cell. This biological information is heritable, hence the common phrase molecule of heredity. DNA can also be found in viruses.

- : "Molecule of heredity" is not a clear formulation and rather mass media information (see pom)

I agree. But, at least that sentence isn't wrong. Stewart Adcock

The sentence is misleading. It should be moved to the history subsection (see above). Bensaccount 22:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- : "Biological information" is unclear.

- : technically, it does not encode the structure and functions of a cell; it encodes the structure of proteins for enzymes that are vital to the structure and function of cells and organs. I think this is a very important and too often misunderstood/oversimplified distinction that gives people a misleading view of how inherited traits work. Slrubenstein

+ : I think the link macromolecule is important

Why? Stewart Adcock

It is good to associate DNA with what it is (a macromolecule). More specific would be to say its a nucleic acid. Bensaccount 00:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please tell me if I'm wrong, but haven't we been over this before? My prefered choice has been nucleic acid for a while. Stewart Adcock 00:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) (In fact, Nucleic acid was selected in majority version of the intro. Stewart Adcock 01:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC))

~~Option 2A~~

Option 3A
Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is a macromolecule that encodes the structure and functions of a cell. It is the first component in the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA → RNA → protein). DNA can also be found in other entities such as viruses.

- : the dogma is not something that is meaningfull to readers as a first sight on the topic. It should be in the body of the article itself

I agree. It belongs here no more than "molecule of heredity" does. The term "dogma" is misleading anyway. When Crick first formulated the idea back in the late 50s, he meant "dogma" as meaning "with no reasonable evidence". Luckily, most people read it as meaning "doctrine" instead. If, bensaccount, you think that it is important to introduce the central dogma in the preamble, then a third paragraph following this is probably the best place to do it.Stewart Adcock

If you don't want the central dogma in the definition I wont argue but you should not include ANY functions of DNA to be consistant. Bensaccount

- : The first sentence mentions cells but not viruses, and is therefore misleading. The first sentence should not be a half-truth.

- : What does it mean to say that something "encodes the structure and function" of something else? It sounds more like metaphysics than science. The use of the word "function" here is particularly problematic, especially in a preamble.

I Disagree function and stucture are very simple words for association and arent metaphysical. Bensaccount 18:40, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

technically, it does not encode the structure and functions of a cell; it encodes the structure of proteins for enzymes that are vital to the structure and function of cells and organs. I think this is a very important and too often misunderstood/oversimplified distinction that gives people a misleading view of how inherited traits work. Slrubenstein

- : The phrase "central dogma" introduces too many complexities. To someone who does not already know a lot about DNA, it conveys no specific information, and is more likely to convey vague ideas about religious dogma, or fallacious claims to absolute truth. (The primary meaning of dogma is a "doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church." The secondary meaning has to do with "absolute truth".) The sequence DNA->RNA->protein is important but check out the article Central dogma.

Unrelated comments moved to archive 8

Option 4A

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA or deoxynucleic acid) is a nucleic acid that carries genetic "instructions" which play a significant role during the biological development of all cellular forms of life, and many viruses; it is, thus, sometimes said to metaphorically be the "genetic code of life". DNA is also 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. This macromolecule encodes the structure and functions of cells; it is the first component of the central dogma of molecular biology.

- :Genetic instruction again

- :Developmental biology again

- :"genetic code of life" is a metaphor for what? (unclear, see above)

- :molecule of heredity again

- :heredity and propagation of traits involves meiosis, genetics (mendels laws etc), the expression of traits (the central dogma) and so much more. DNA is just a nucleic acid.

- :structure and function again

Option 5A (combines pros of above without cons)
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid. It encodes the structure and functions of an organism. DNA can be found in all cells and many viruses.

- :structure and function again. Technically, it does not encode the structure and functions of a cell; it encodes the structure of proteins for enzymes that are vital to the structure and function of cells and organs. I think this is a very important and too often misunderstood/oversimplified distinction that gives people a misleading view of how inherited traits work. Slrubenstein

Option 6A (Slrubenstein)
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 these copied portions play a crucial role in the propogation of traits from one generation to the next.

Second paragraph

(Description?)

Option0B (in case some of you forgot, this is the official community version :-))
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.

- : This paragraph is an attempt to dichotomize prokaryotes and eukaryotes. It should be put into the subheadings. Bensaccount 18:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that this paragraph is making such an attempt. It is stating the cellular locations of the DNA which is, of course, distinct accoss these cell types. Stewart Adcock 22:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well then it should go into the Location subheading. Bensaccount 22:33, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks moved to archive 8

Stuff that should be included in the first paragraph

I am very surprised that in an introduction, there is no mention of the structure of the DNA in double helix, with the 4 bases, adenin, thymin, cytosin and guanin. Because if there is one thing that springs in most minds (with a mimimum of education probably) is this visual of the double helix. Compared to the lack of reference to that helix vision that most people probably have, the mention of the presence of DNA in chloroplast and mitochondria (organels that very likely means nothing at all for all those non biologist) seem rather curious. Just my opinion :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing

the structure of the DNA in double helix - because that's not necessarily the structure. with the 4 bases, adenin, thymin, cytosin and guanin - the link to nucleic acid does this. organels that very likely means nothing at all for all those non biologist - organelles were covered in my school syllabus at the age of 13 or 14 so I'd antipate that most people have at least heard of them, and they are wikilinks if not. Stewart Adcock 22:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Suit yourself. That was just a thought :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing

propogation of traits

I know people have been doing a great job, but we still need to do something about "because they propagate their traits by doing so." It is inaccurate in part because DNA doesn't exactly "do" things, and because the contribution of DNA to the propogation of traits, however significant, is not total; the propogation of traits involves other things. Slrubenstein

I am not sure, but think the first two paragraphs may be frozen. So I have reverted my own change to the first paragraph. But I hope people will discuss this issue (which I brought up about ten days ago) so we can resolve it, Slrubenstein

You won't see any discussion here unless you join me in demanding that the mediation committee do something. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I din't think I have ever demanded anything, as a contributor to Wikipidia, and this makes me uncomfortable. Are you saying that no one will discuss my ideas because they don't value my ideas? Well, I'm not sure that is true (but I don't mean to sound egotistical), but really, if no one else here thinks my point is valid, that's that. Slrubenstein

We dont need a mediation comittee. We are doing fine. Bensaccount 22:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CURRENT PROPOSITIONS (POINT FORM)

These are the current propositions cut up into stand alone points. The second paragraph has not been included as of yet.

First paragraph

(The first paragraph is a definition (simple association).)

DNA is a nucleic acid.

DNA carries genetic instructions for the developmental 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, DNA is replicated and transmitted to offspring.

DNA is a macromolecule that encodes the structure and functions of a cell. This biological information is heritable, hence the common phrase molecule of heredity.

DNA can also be found in viruses.

DNA is a macromolecule that encodes the structure and functions of a cell.

It is the first component in the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA → RNA → protein).

DNA can also be found in other entities such as viruses.

DNA is a nucleic acid that carries genetic instructions which play a significant role during the biological development of all cellular forms of life, and many viruses.

DNA is, sometimes said to metaphorically be the genetic code of life.

DNA is also referred to as the molecule of heredity, as it is inherited and used to propagate traits.

During reproduction, DNA is replicated and transmitted to offspring.

This macromolecule encodes the structure and functions of cells.

DNA is the first component of the central dogma of molecular biology.

DNA is a nucleic acid.

It encodes the structure and functions of an organism.

DNA can be found in all cells and many viruses.

DNA is the primary chemical component of chromosomes.

DNA is the material of which genes are made.

DNA is sometimes called the "molecule of heredity," because parents transmit copied portions of their own DNA to offspring during reproduction, and because these copied portions play a crucial role in the propogation of traits from one generation to the next.

Article location

I would like to re-open the discussion of moving the content of this article to the title "Deoxyribonucleic acid", as Ben has suggested. The title "DNA" will redirect to "Deoxyribonucleic acid", so no links will be broken; we can leave the disambiguation note at the top of the article, in the same format as the disambiguation note at the top of Artificial intelligence. If no one objects, I will make the move in a day. -- Cyan 19:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Except since DNA is the most common name used to refer to this, that move would be a violation of the naming conventions. Lirath Q. Pynnor

True, but that's not necessarily a bad thing; exceptions are permitted when people agree to them. I put forth the suggestion that the setup for the AI set of pages would also be appropriate here; if you (or anyone) do not agree to the move, please state so clearly, and I will not move the article. -- Cyan 21:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think I just did state so clearly. Furthermore, DNA is also known as deoxynucleic acid (also DNA), so moving would be a violation of NPOV as well as the naming conventions. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[P0M:] Are you sure? Check for the two words in Google. They frequently occur in the same article, e.g., in list of chemicals preparations for sale, and appear to have different meanings. For instance, check out [[2]] P0M 04:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A number of sources use deoxynucleic instead of deoxyribonucleic. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[P0M:] I think we need a chemist to elucidate the difference between the two terms. P0M 06:04, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are already two sections of this talk page dedicated to this subject, do we really need another? Bensaccount 15:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, since the most common term to refer to this is DNA; which is where the article should be. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Agreed. (Yikes.) There are many articles at XYZZY where XYZZY technically has many other meanings. Peak 07:12, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] If two different words having two different meanings are both getting abbreviated "DNA" then that would argue for using the appropriate word. It's odd that Watson and Crick used different words in two articles on "DNA" in the same year. Surely there are chemists contributing to this discussion who can explain why different terms are used. Whatever is going on, it seems not to be a simple misspelling. P0M 06:53, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(As a chemist). "deoxyribonucleic acid" is DNA. "deoxynucleic acid" is something different (doesn't have the ribose sugar) but unfortunately, the substitution of "deoxynucleic" for "deoxyribonucleic" is a common typo. We really shouldn't encourage use of a term that only exists in this context due to typing mistakes! It is possible that "deoxynucleic acid" is also abbreviated to DNA, but I think it is highly unlikely that this chemical of minor importance will ever have its own article and, in my opinion, no disambiguation of the abbreviation is needed -- I suspect that many other things share the abbreviation, DNA, but almost everyone is going to always associate those three letters with "deoxyribonucleic acid". Stewart Adcock 19:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Upon reflection, I'm adding an extra note) I need to go and look up what "deoxynucleic acid" actually is because I've just realised that the "deoxy" bit only makes sense with the sugar component. Watch this space! Stewart Adcock 19:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't found a definitive answer, but I believe that "deoxynucleic acid" refers to a set of chemical compounds, of which "deoxyribonucleic acid" is a particular example (specifically, containing a ribosyl moiety). The fact that use of "deoxynucleic acid" is more often than not a typo still stands. Stewart Adcock 19:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It may be technically incorrect, but it is used intentionally -- not as a typo. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[P0M:] I believe Lir is correct. Crick and Watson use both terms in the titles of papers during the same year (1953 if memory serves). It's hard to believe that so many people out there are making "typographical" errors of this magnitude. If it is any kind of error, it is not just a typu (sic).

[Peak:] Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction. Consider:

Onelook.com indexes 966 dictionaries, not one of which mentions "deoxynucleic" or "deoxynucleic acid", whereas 36 define "deoxyribonucleic acid".

Google finds two pages for 'Watson Crick "Genetic Implications of the Structure of Deoxynucleic"', and 35 for the same but with "Deoxyribonucleic".

QED. Peak 06:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

P0M 14:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC): Chemistry profs locally say that "deoxynucleic" is a mistake, too. If "deoxynucleic" is considered correct, and if it doesn't have status as a "real word" with a different meaning, then I think it would be better to avoid perpetuating the error by mentioning it in this article. There should simply be a redirect.

[P0M:] As for the title, I would guess that FDR leads to an article on Franklin Delano Roosevelt and that technically the full name is to be preferred, but DNA has the advantage that it takes in the 2 forms of the "full" word. As long as the reader finds the article easily regardless of which one 'e searches for, it's same-same to me. P0M 02:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

15/03/04 State of affairs

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)

The section above the current proposals (10/03) is about the 2/3 majority version. This version has had comments made on it and the points that were resolved are not and should not be listed in the discussion of the current proposals. Bensaccount 22:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who can explain the numbering system for the current propositions? Bensaccount 22:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

History section

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)

propagation of traits request moved to the section for things that should be included in the intro.

Archives

Is this page protected from editing ? 09 march 2004

Discussion on how to discuss together...

How to Discuss DNA

A comment from pom

Other issues

Edit Boldly Where Angels...

More comments by Pom 16/03/2004

Should we include incorrect phrases if they are common?

Summary

The "genetic code of life" and "deoxynucleic acid" and "molecule of heredity"

Summary

The Two-Thirds Majority Version

Comments on this version

Pros and Cons

Other

The propositions as of 10/03

First paragraph

Second paragraph

Stuff that should be included in the first paragraph

propogation of traits

CURRENT PROPOSITIONS (POINT FORM)

First paragraph

Article location

15/03/04 State of affairs

History section