Talk:Biology/Archive 1

From Citizendium
< Talk:Biology
Revision as of 16:31, 14 November 2006 by imported>Gareth Leng (→‎Suggestion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed Article Plan

a) purpose: a true and accurate explanation of the subject that is an inspiring introduction for an interested user to explore the topic both on (1) CZ and (2) the web. To introduce a few selected major issues in biology -like (1) evolution as opposed to belief in religion's depiction of creation of man.

b) style/intended readership level. Simple but elegant language. As a flagship entry point into Biology, this article should be written at a consciously lay level. Keep jargon out and use natural language wherever possible. Maintain a consistency and coherence of style within this article.

b) length. Short and sweet; An essay that is readable and enjoyable alone, and which looks good when printed out.

c) things needed urgently: suggestions for illustrations, or for particular examples, interesting in their own right, understandable to lay readers, illustrative of the excitement about biology, from different perspectives (impact of biological science on our lives and the environment - the Green revolution? cloning? molecular biology and understanding the building blocks of life? Ecosystems, evolution, genetic engineering, brain imaging?

This article cannot and should not attempt to be comprehensive. It doesn't matter what is left out, only that what is included is interesting and inspiring to a lay audience, accurate for an expert reader, beautiful in words, images and layout to both, and that paths to follow are signposted. How this is to be done is not clear, I personally do not like lists; I'd rather see a link to a list here, and would still rather see a link to a "map". As this article should contain nothing seriously disputed, the need for references is minimal. Gareth Leng 06:06, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Talk

Dr. Sculerati--that's quite bold, to simply dive in and rewrite the thing from scratch. I like it!

However, there is one problem, that anyone (not just you) could help with. It is that there are many links from the original biology article that no longer exist. That doesn't necessarily mean that the pages linked-to are orphans, but what it does mean is that there is no longer such an easy way into those topics from the article. What I suggest, then, if we completely scrap an old article, is that we keep a list of old links at the bottom of the article, and make sure they are incorporated into the article as appropriate. (Of course, some links probably don't need to appear anywhere on the page at all. But the names of subdisciplines, yes.) --Larry Sanger 02:40, 1 November 2006 (CST)

Fields list

I'd like to comment, but I do not know how far developed you consider this to be. Your list of fields is partial, but is it more helpful to contribute more now or to wait until you have done s--in what will undoubtedly be a more systematic way?20:47, 2 November 2006 (CST)

Reply to above by Nancy

I think I finished the basic summary, though it sure needs polishing. I would like to see it remain short. I am currently working on History and Development of Biology section. This is likely to go on for a while, and likely to stay in Biology only in outline form with a touch of narrative and then get broken off and moved to its own article. My plan is to merge it what currently exists under that title, if I can. As I get to major figures in Biology, I have been reviewing and making CZ Live their biography articles. If you look at Anton Van Luuenhook, you'll see that I came up with a header Biography section that contains the names discussion, and a second header with place of birth, date of birth - death. I'd love for the text in those headers to be in a slightly but significantly smaller font. Back to Biology, I would so appreciate it if somebody would address Larry's concerns above. Would you be so kind as to add to Distinct Academic Disciplines within Biology (Partial List)? Unless you object, I'd appreciate keeping to the curent style- very brief and general description of each in plain language, including an internal link. P.S. who are you? regards, Nancy Sculerati MD 11:21, 3 November 2006 (CST)

It my have been me. But I agree that it is too early to decide on

what will be the useful links. Another qy about the links is whether they go only 1 link down, e.g. just to Zoology, or to Mammals. For a topic like this, it might be useful to have a page showing the hierarchy of articles, though you'd need several since they intersect--maybe we have someone is is good with 3D graphics? I'm going to try to do groups from different aspects in Zoology so I can see what works, but I'm going to put it in words first, before I do a single list. Probably will take till the 15th, because I'll be away most of the time till then.

A related question is whether there should be somewhere to put the "meet" of the topic--do we do little articles all the way down, or do we stop at e.g., Mammals, and do something more comprehensive. Perhaps we've more or less come to the conclusion that the top level is not the place, if only because the article would be too long.DavidGoodman 22:13, 5 November 2006 (CST)

Style

I have made quite a few edits and have a few points to address regarding those edits. First, what is citizendium planning on doing with respect to style issues? I noticed this page has already started drifting away from those established in wikipedia. Was that intentional? I have made some changes to the titles that conform to the MoS in wikipedia. I have also established a reference section at the bottom so citations can be added.

I add some content back, such as the classification section. I hope that is OK. Along those lines, I have also restored many of internal links that were lost during the initial reorganization. Maybe we do not want to discuss homeostasis or even link to it but we can see how the article develops with time.

With respect to the lists I am not sure which is the best way to go. For the topics have add all three possible routes in the one section, we need to decide the best way to present such information. Three possible choices include: 1) having a footer template and nothing in the article; 2) Having a comprehensive list in the article; or 3) having a narrative on the topics with a reference to a separately maintained list on a different page. Chris day 05:02, 7 November 2006 (CST)

Biology and philosophy

I moved the following paragraph from the introduction:

Biology asks some of same questions found in religion and philosophy, questions such as "How did life begin?", and "What features seperate something that is alive from something that is not alive?". The biologist approaches these questions using the scientific method. Therefore, the biologists answers to such questions differ from the answers found in philosophical and religious works. Whether scientific thinking about such great issues as the origin of life on earth is compatable with religious doctrine is itself a contentious issue. Some great thinkers, such as the physicist Albert Einstein, have found no real conflict on the varying teachings in science and religion, but consider Divinity and the Natural Universe to be one and the same (see Albert Einstein for detailed discussion with references).

This seems to be a little off track for the introduction but as the whole article is not currently layed out I cannot tell how it will relate to future content. To me it seems like material that should be in the body of the article itself. Also, biologists barely touch on the subject of "how did life begin", so it seems a little too much weight for an overview article (assuming you are planning to flesh this out in the main text). Chris day 13:38, 7 November 2006 (CST)

Chris, I find the paragraph on the philosophy of the biological approach, elegantly written. After all, what separates biology from intelligent design or religion? I am new to CZ so please forgive any lapses in protocol. What inspired Watson & Crick was an attempt to understand what constitutes life. So this is engaging, and inspiring to the reader. So just as where did the universe evolve from inspires the physicist, the understanding of what constitutes life is the ultimate question in Biology. As Feynman stated, I wonder why, I wonder why I wonder.

Biology asks some of same questions found in religion and philosophy, questions such as "How did life begin?", and "What features seperate something that is alive from something that is not alive?". The biologist approaches these questions using the scientific method. Therefore, the biologists answers to such questions differ from the answers found in philosophical and religious works. Whether scientific thinking about such great issues as the origin of life on earth is compatable with religious doctrine is itself a contentious issue. Some great thinkers, such as the physicist Albert Einstein, have found no real conflict on the varying teachings in science and religion, but consider Divinity and the Natural Universe to be one and the same (see Albert Einstein for detailed discussion with references). Arnold R. Rabin,MSEE,M.D. --Arnold Rabin 04:23, 8 November 2006 (CST)

My problem is that it romanticises biology into something it is not. Very few biologists ask "How did life begin?" or "What is life?" What they routinely ask is how does it work. Or with respect to watson and Crick what is the structure. I know this sounds boring but it is the reality of the work. Chris day 08:28, 8 November 2006 (CST)

Many do not subscribe to the idea that biology is boring. An analogy might be that computer science is boring because most programmers write code or algorithms to solve discrete problems. Much of it is mundane. However in the hierarchy of CS is Kurzweil, von Neumann. So when I look up computer science, it can read a) the study of the hardware and software used to solve problems that would take enormous amounts of time if done manually. b) the study and application of circuits and algorithms to engage in problem solving; the ultimate goal of which is to achieve a level of problem solving than is not possible by man alone. I understand your difficulty with "What is life?" in a practical sense. We certainly ask "What is life?", when looking at phage, DNA , RNA viruses and now Preons, we rethink what is life.

Chris, I agree that this is a matter of style. Can we be engaging without seeming to be unrealistic or trite. In fact, in my opinion, it is engaging writing that can set CZ apart. "I looked up --- the other day and was blown away by the elegance and incite of its editors. Since Larry's goal is to set CZ apart because of our expertise, these discussions are powerful. With editors with great expertise, this can be the most accurate and the most engaging and welcome source. Maybe we can get Larry Sanger's input on style as well as that of science editors. After all it is iteration that will make CZ a great reference. In addition, the author cites Einstein inaccurately. What Einstein implied was that the mystery of life or creation of the universe was not incompatible with belief in a higher entity, he did not subscribe to religious dogma. As an aside, Einstein also stated "God does not throw dice" when confronted with quantum theory. He was wrong.--Arnold Rabin 14:58, 8 November 2006 (CST)

I am definitely not implying that biology is boring. How a cell functions and reproduces itself is fascinating and mind boggingly (is that a word?) elegant. On the other hand we need to keep the intro based in reality. When biologist ask a question such as "What is life?" is it really any different to the philosphers? We are in awe at the biology but I don't think we are using the scientific method to specifically address that question. And if we are going to cite a physicist, I would have thought Erwin Schrodinger would be more appropriate. I will add, i am not trying to black ball this paragraph but I think it needs to be discussed and through collaboration it can be improved. Chris day 15:30, 8 November 2006 (CST)
I think articles should have a personality and be interestingly written. It's possible to have a neutral article that is written in a lively way. --Larry Sanger 15:43, 8 November 2006 (CST)
I agree with this sentiment, I just thought the way it was written was a little too much (just my opinion of course). While you here, is there a manual of style? I am noticing editors here changing the stardard style of wikipedia. An example would be capitalising all words in section titles. I have nothing against that style, however, since all these articles have been scrapped from wikipedia changing that style will entail changing every article to be consistent. Have you decided how to address this issue yet? Chris day 15:58, 8 November 2006 (CST)
After poking around a bit i found the following in the forums http://textop.org/smf/index.php?board=24.0
So from what i can gather there is no set style manual in place. Is that correct? Chris day 16:20, 8 November 2006 (CST)

Intro Changes

I am by no means a biology expert, but from a layout perspective, I feel like the etymology doesn't belong at the top of the page. I tossed it atop the history section, because it seems like it should be there. I feel like the intro should be something simpler, something completely straightforward and clear to everybody, and the "Biology is the science of life" paragraph does that perfectly. I also added the third sentence to fill it out a bit, and because I think it is worth noting that Biology is a major field of science. --ZachPruckowski 15:23, 8 November 2006 (CST)

Reply to Chris on Style and to comment on Einstein made by another

Chris, I wrote the "romantic" text which is absolutely accurate, scientifically. We are not in the business of making prose sound conventional, it's truth we are after, and the clearer and more interesting the prose the better. Einstein is not inaccurately quoted. Yes, his remark about the statitical nature of quantum mechanics being unappealing in light of his idea of God is often referred to, but there is more. Click the link to the Einstein article. He clearly stated that he believed in "Spinoza's God", of the mechanism of the Universe. In other words, that the laws of the universe ARE God. Thoughtful religious people understand that the nature of God is not clear to man, and can find a resolution between science and religion, sometimes, through this viewpoint. Nancy Sculerati MD 19:09, 8 November 2006 (CST)

The reason I changed the prose was because I found the original hard to understand. So i would debate whether they are clear and more interesting. I am not trying to be negative but bring a new perspective. This is meant to be a collaborative effort afterall. The romanticised part I pasted to the talk page. Why wouldn't Schrödinger's "What is Life?" treatise be more appropriate for the intro with respect to big picture thinking? Einstein seems to be several steps away from biology with respect to his comments. Chris day 19:33, 8 November 2006 (CST)
On a pragamatic level, adding to the article by extending the unfinished segments would further the enterprise. Nancy Sculerati MD 20:48, 8 November 2006 (CST)
That is true but there is no reason we cannot discuss the current content too. Chris day 20:51, 8 November 2006 (CST)

As we are trying to educate a world audience, touching on such issues as the potential conflict between science and religion seems worthwhile. I believe that the question of "what is life?" lies at the very heart of biology, and that portraying the work of the "average biologist" is not the point. In fact, that reduction of everything to the most average is one of the biggest problems with WP- errors are reduced by constant editing but so is excellence. Now, back to Einstein. I believe that many religious people distrust biology because of fears about going against their faith. Einstein actually addressed this issue. Others may have addressed it better - but Einstein rings a big bell in minds across the planet and that's part of the considered reason for this choice. It's good to discuss, I am glad to be part of the work. You see, I see it in romantic terms - putting together a compendium of knowlege! To do such a thing we must be bold, but when there is so much to do, we best work together and advance the mission. We, and generations to come, will have infinite time to refine each paragraph. I hope, anyway! regards,Nancy Sculerati MD 21:01, 8 November 2006 (CST)

Nancy, I agree with should work together but this series of edits you made is not furthering the progress of this page. You have reverted back to your original version and in the process lost many stylistic changes that are important. Wikilinks are gone for one. I think these are early days here and there is little traffic but you should be willing to discuss differences on the talk page. Just reverting things back to your old version is not very inviting from a collaborative perspective. Personally, I am not particularly bothered to fight this one out but as more people get involved you will find that other editors will change your edits too. This is encouraged and usually after a few back and forth edits the articles are better not worse.
With respect to portraying an average biologists perspective that is hardly the issue here. The changes i made were minor with respect to the wording. Admitedly I cut the religion paragraph but that is because I think it is not suitable for the introduction. What is the intention of this article? To give an overview of biology or to debate the philosophy of biology?
It may be true that Einstein rings a bell across the planet, but what does that have to do with biology? Don't you think it will confuse people more than get them excited?Chris day 21:14, 8 November 2006 (CST)

Article planning

I don't pretend to have a view on what's being discussed above, but I would like to say that an essential function of CZ is for editors to come to agree upon a set of guidelines for particular articles. This article is illustrates the need to focus on that function, because the article will be examined and changed (probably) by many authors and editors. Some clearly-stated principles are, therefore, desperately needed, or else the article will be endlessly changed endlessly by people with very different ideas about the function of this sort of article. It seems to me the efficient way to agree on a set of guidelines is to separate out various contentious questions, discuss them individually, and agree to reach an agreement, i.e., discuss with a view to developing a consensus. We ought to make use of a "dispute resolution" process only as a last resort, I think. By the way, I think every article should have a threaded forum attached. What we might do, in lieu of that, is set up the CZ Forums with a bunch of discipline-specific boards, and then let people link from talk pages to those boards.

Over the coming weeks and months, I propose that we draft some succinctly-worded policies that describe our best practices. The jumping-off place for finding those policies will be CZ:Project Home. --Larry Sanger 00:36, 9 November 2006 (CST)

Comment on Approach

Congratulations to Nancy on diving in and starting afresh; I think a start like this is exactly what is needed to focus the issues. I think it will be easier for others to chip in if we can see where the article is going. I'd suggest maybe that Nancy proposes on this page an article plan, stating the purpose as she sees it, but including perhaps the following -

a) purpose: to act as a gateway into other articles? To advertise high points from other CZ articles with selected links and images?

b) style/intended readership level. As a flagship entry point into Biology I think it's appropriate to keep this article at a consciously lay level. Keep jargon out and use natural language wherever possible?

b) length. Short and sweet? An essay that is readable and enjoyable alone?That looks good when printed out? It might therefore be that the links and references should be kept sparse.

c) things needed urgently suggestions for illustrations, or for examples?

Maybe the only links should be to the next hierarchy of articles, or maybe the hierarchy should be displayed here as a box with links, and excluded otherwise?. WP loves links, but they clutter an article, and maybe this should be kept as clean as possible. I especially feel that this particular article should not include external links - this is a gateway to CZ biology, not the world. Leave the external links to the subarticles.

I think this draft goes too fast from the lay to the technical, and that Classification should definitely go elsewhere. I like the idea of selecting a few examples (maybe some historical, some contemporary technological perhaps -transgenics?- some molecular (DNA structure), and yes in particular examples there might be technical terms, but so long as the examples are self contained (i.e. skippable), then they don't need to be fully explained for the article to make sense.

It might be worth considering giving the article a little different focus; too many of the introductory remarks sound too trite, even for a lay readership. I think that what has fascinated people and what makes this fascination different from their interest in say cars, rocks or alcohol, is their fascination by life itself - the enduring big question is, what is life? Gareth Leng 04:06, 9 November 2006 (CST)


Nancy's Plan

I really was just trying to make a "short and sweet" article on a major page that would be (1) a true and accurate explanation of the subject in (2) inspiring and simple language that might (3) serve as an introduction for an interested user to explore the topic both on (1) CZ and (2) the web. I had hoped to lay a foundation to present major issues in biology -like (1) evolution as opposed to belief in religion's depiction of creation of man, in a concillatory way that was completely true. I wanted the language to be beautiful instead of the conventional routine. But beauty is subjective, after all. I just hope that we can collaborate here and elsewhere better. I never "reverted", by the way. I just went to an older version to retrieve language I thought was good and copied it and pasted it back in so it wouldn't be lost. I have respect for Chris, (especially his work) and the others who made changes and I was trying my best to explain what I was doing. Perhaps we can make a format for editing that is different than the WP wiki - that includes some better way to communicate direction, and that establishes an agreed style so that we don't end up in write-rewrite skirmishes over style?Nancy Sculerati MD 07:02, 9 November 2006 (CST)

Comparing first paragraphs

CZ:

Biology is the science of life. Biologists study all aspects of living things, including all of the many life forms on earth and the processes in them that enable life. These basic processes enable living things to harness energy, to synthesise the many different materials that make up their bodies, to assemble these materials to build organs and structures, to correct errors and repair injuries, to sense their environment and to make sense of it, to reproduce themselves, and to communicate with others.
Life forms have been of interest to all peoples throughout history, and the roots of biology go back to earliest known mankind. Curiosity about the human body and about the bodies of plants and animals remains active in every human society. Much of the interest in living things stems from a wish to better exploit natural resources and to improve health, and has yielded detailed knowledge about plants and animals used to improve the standard of living. Not all plant and animal lore is biological science, however. Biology differs from simple interest in plants, animals, and the human body in using a systematic approach to study, that incorporates an understanding of mathematics, physics, chemistry and other sciences. Importantly, not all interest in gaining knowlege about living things comes about from a desire to apply it, whether or not that interest comes from within biology or elsewhere. The core of that desire is sparked by the need to understand the human condition and the nature of the world.

WP:

Biology (from Greek βίος λόγος, see below) is the branch of science dealing with the study of living organisms. It is concerned with the characteristics, classification, and behaviors of organisms, how species come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the natural environment. Biology encompasses a broad spectrum of academic fields that are often viewed as independent disciplines. However, together they address phenomena related to living organisms (biological phenomena) over a wide range of scales, from biophysics to ecology. All concepts in biology are subject to the same laws that other branches of science obey, such as the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass.
At the organism level, biology has partially explained phenomena such as birth, growth, aging, death and decay of living organisms, similarities between offspring and their parents (heredity) and flowering of plants which have puzzled humanity throughout history. Other phenomena, such as lactation, metamorphosis, egg-hatching, healing, and tropism have been addressed. On a wider scale of time and space, biologists have studied domestication of animals and plants, the wide variety of living organisms (biodiversity), changes in living organisms over many generations (evolution), extinction, speciation, social behaviour among animals, etc.

The CZ article shines by comparison. What's the difference? The CZ article is really an attempt to explain the subject, to introduce it to someone who actually needs an article about the subject. The WP article, by contrast, reads like a student's report, regurgitating unexplicated facts, often without rhyme or reason. Consequently, the CZ article (these paragraphs anyway) are actually readable in a way the WP article isn't. As many people have observed, WP articles and its system seem to be set up for the benefit of contributors, while we want to be oriented toward users.

Think of this now: imagine this sort of authoritative, yet readable treatment being given to every subject (or, anyway, hundreds of thousands) in Wikipedia. The result will be, frankly, embarrassing for WP. There won't be any contest. I hate to say it, and this is the first time I've said this or even really thought it, but if we do this well, WP might as well give up.

--Larry Sanger 04:14, 9 November 2006 (CST)

No question, Nancy has made a great start. Style query - the article avoids the first person - personally I prefer to say "the need to understand ourselves" rather than "the need to understand the human condition" etc ?? I think Larry is right - and although all articles will be collaborative, yet we should wish them to be swans not camels, and so each needs a "voice" of its own, and so needs someone to "set the style" in a coherent way. Delighted for Nancy to do that here. Gareth Leng 09:09, 9 November 2006 (CST)

and just as we follow date or spelling styles already set by the aricle, we sould certainly ry to do additions and changes in as close tothe sle of the article as we can, & I hope Nancy wil upgrade if we fall short.DavidGoodman 09:43, 9 November 2006 (CST)

My impression of CZ after 48hrs

Larry, I think you are missing my point. I am not saying that Nancy's paragraphs are worse than WP's. I am saying that they can be copy edited and improved. Apparently Nancy did not agree since she reverted my edits back to the original version.

Nancy, you say that you did not revert "I never "reverted", by the way. I just went to an older version to retrieve language I thought was good and copied it and pasted it back in so it wouldn't be lost.". But this is essentially a revert, actually it's worse, since you lost all the hyperlinks along the way.

Nancy, in multiple places you have stated that you are trying to keep it simple but inspiring:

"inspiring and simple language that might serve as an introduction for an interested user" On this talk page
"I think we need to pull together in format and plain language style in order to be a better reference, more user -friendly." At Citizendium Forums

I think this is a good goal too. And my copy edits were trying to achieve that goal. Look at some of the things you changed back without discussion in one of the sentences.

My version was:

Biological studies of animals fall under the field of zoology, where as the biological study of plants is called botany. Medicine and the health sciences apply biology to understand and improve health, and to cure and alleviate the effects of disease.

Your latest version:

Biologic studies of animals fall under the field of zoology, where as the biologic study of plants is called botany. Medicine and the Health Sciences apply biology to understanding and improving health, and to curing and assuaging the effects of disease.

I have four points here:

  1. Can biologic even be used in this context?
  2. I don't understand how the use of assuage could be regarded as more simple than alleviate.
  3. All the hyperlinks are gone.
  4. You have added capital letters where they are not required (IMO).

I'm not going to go into other changes in detail since it is boring, but in other places you added back typos (knowlege) and you ignored my request for a citation to your claim that "the roots of biology go back to earliest known mankind". I have not heard this claim before. Is it possible you are referring to the beginning of agriculture, but that is a long time after "earliest known mankind"?

Immediately after you "cut and pasted" over my edits you posted the following on the notice board.

"Is your User page filled out? Please put something there if you are active on the pilot wiki. We are not anonymous here, but members of a real community (a welcoming one!)." [1]

I am not sure if this was inspired by me, although, as a new editor I had not edited on my user page or talk page. Nancy, a welcoming community would have addressed my newbie questions on this page above Talk:Biology#Style. It would also be nice if you would have been more thoughtful about my edits before "cutting and pasting". Finally, you could have commented on my talk page and explained to me a bit more about your outline for this page.

I would suggest there needs to be more discussion. If there is a vision for an article it would be helpful if there is an outline. Experts disagree all the time, this is the normal process of editing. Chris Day (Talk) 12:05, 9 November 2006 (CST)

notes from new edits after a major revision -Nancy Sculerati MD 13:12, 10 November 2006 (CST)

I moved the blurb on the word biology back to the top, BUT NOT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS BEST PLACED THERE. " The word biology" narrative may have its own section later in the article, may be put in a standard place for word roots, may be put any place unobtrusive - but cannot be included in the introduction of the article without ringing down the curtain for the audience. On the other hand, it's an important section and should be kept - so I stuck it up there before starting the article.

guinea pigs

Knowing Nancy a litte, I expect she is willing for this article to be used as an trial example. We will gain more by working this way with a number of the intial articles than by any amount of theoretical discussion on the list. WP articles start in various styles, some rather formal, some rather flowery, and many rather drab. I haven't the least preconception of what extent we should keep to a uniform style, or of what it should be (other than not drab. I'd suggest--and I only mean suggest--that normally the beginning of an article should contain an representative very brief introduction to the major themes of the article. For example, Philosophy of biology is probably appropriate for an article of its own, probably jointly written; it should be represented by a section in the general "biology" article, which in turn should be represented by a sentence or two in the lead paragraph(s). Possibly philosophy of life should be another--and similarly religious views about life are not at all the same thing as religious views about the science of biology.

So I tried to change a few phrases myself to make it more exact, trying to use more consistent language, but just to see.

The etymologies are goingto be a problem. Perhaps something could be said in a few words, but a full etymology, afrter the fashion of the OED, takes longer. Which raises the question of the source for the etymologies. We cannot simply copy or slightly abbreviate the OED-- but for many of us, there is no other way to get the information. Perhaps we need an etymology squad.

Style in working is another problem. Some of us, like myself & Nancy, have only a little experience only with WP;some will have none; some have a great deal. Our attitudes to WP conventions will also vary, and our resulting standard of etiquette wsill have to be worked out. Some parts of the prior discussion here seem to reflectthe WP dificulty of separating discussions of substance from discussions of method. To adapt a WP phrase, don't bite each other--we're all newcomers here. DavidGoodman 22:07, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Appropriate?

The third sentence currently reads (my emphasis in bold):

These processes include the making and harnessing of energy, the creation and duplication of the materials that make up the body.

What is meant by making and creation in this sentence? Neither seem suitable in this context. Making should probably be removed since as written it seems to contradict the first law of thermodynamics. Personally, I think synthesis is more accurate than creation. Chris Day (Talk) 23:41, 10 November 2006 (CST)

synthesize

  1. To combine so as to form a new, complex product.
  2. To form or produce by chemical synthesis.

create

  1. To cause to exist; bring into being
  2. To give rise to; produce

Location for etymology

The word biology" narrative may have its own section later in the article, may be put in a standard place for word roots, but cannot be included in the introduction of the article without ringing down the curtain for the audience. It is important and should appear somewhere agreeable in the first approved version of this article. Nancy Sculerati MD

Opening collage

Collage image needed: fabulous shot of earth from space, juxtaposed to images of plants, animals, and people. These should not be "clinical" but visually compelling. Emotional, dynamic- Lion attacking, baby with lopsided smile, best picture of redwood you ever saw, scanning EM, aomeba streaming, the images chosen out of highest commercial grade portfolio rather than 5th grade textbook). [[Best if images are clickable- click lion-it roars, click baby, it laughs etc. This could be done with animations using photo's, ties in to streaming video - would have to be readable as stills to those without fast computers or broadband connections)(also wouldn't be a bad idea to have video/audio narrative of text Nancy Sculerati MD

reference for the interest in living things go back to earliest mankind

I removed the insertion of the "still think we need reference here, etc.,reference for early study etc." that was placed into the text of the article. The placement in the article for this reference to be supplied has succeeded in provoking my answer, but not in what I consider a contructive way - in that it has also succeeded in distraction from finishing a coherent version of the text. Here's my answer: No reference is required, the statement is self-evident. Human beings eat plants and animals. The phrase "the roots of biology" does not mean study, per say, but could mean even interest, note the word "roots" modifying biology. Human beings by their very nature are interested in what sustains their own life, eg, their food.

I am trying to write. Please do not obstruct my work. Please keep comments that do not add but instead inhibit the flow of the existing text to discussion tab. I am not that good of a writer that I can argue each point as I try to write. I am going to have to quit for a while here because I am already out of steam. I don't want to be inappropriately personal, but about 10 days ago, I drove my car into an intersection on a green light, was struck by a speeding van that blew through a red light, my car flew into the air and landed on another car. My car and that third vehicle were totalled. I don't know what happened to the van, because I was totally knocked out for some time. I am typing now with one hand, the other in a very awkward cast, and I was never much of a typist to begin with. I have been asked by another editor to go over this article and try to get it's sound back. Please help me to do that. Nancy Sculerati MD 07:12, 13 November 2006 (CST)

I'm sorry you think my edits are less than constructive. I agree that this should be exciting to read but this should not be at the expense of accuracy. While I agree I am nitpicking on word usage, my aim is that they are edits to improve the accuracy of the article.
Please excuse the insertion with the request for a reference, after watching you edit this article I had assumed such insertions were your modus operandi. I certainly prefer to discuss things on the talk page too and agree that editorial comments in the article inhibit the flow of the existing text. That is why i pasted your two editorial comments above from the article to here. So lets start again. Chris Day (Talk) 10:47, 13 November 2006 (CST)
One way to avoid being interrupted is to work off-line. This can be problematic in active topics in WP, with multiple daily confusing edits, but should be more feasible here.DavidGoodman 00:00, 14 November 2006 (CST)

In the introduction there is a sentence that reads as follows.

"Living organisms have been of interest to all peoples throughout history, and, accordingly, the roots of biology go back to earliest mankind."

Is there a citation for the claim that "the roots of biology go back to earliest known mankind"? I have not heard this claim before. Is it referring to the beginning of agriculture, but that is a long time after "earliest known mankind"? It is not clear to me how far back this implies. What is the evidence they were studying their environment as opposed to being at one with their environment? User general information template

User workgroup information template

See CZ:Userinfo System for usage instructions.

No reference is required, the statement is self-evident. Human beings eat plants and animals. The phrase "the roots of biology" does not mean study, per say, but could mean even interest, note the word "roots" modifying biology. Human beings by their very nature are interested in what sustains their own life, eg, their food. User general information template

User workgroup information template

See CZ:Userinfo System for usage instructions.

When I first read the current sentence I had tyhought there was an implication of an event that sparked the biological interest in humans only. But now I read your explanation it would appear that the roots of biology is fuzzy and go back much further than mankind. May be we could modify it to prehistory as suggested by David Goodman? Chris Day (Talk) 10:47, 13 November 2006 (CST)

Suggestion

1) I strongly suggest that we move on. The introductory paragraphs are great for now, but the rest of the article needs to take shape. Then we will certainly need to revisit with a final check and copy edit, but it seems to me that we are leaving the big issues aside, and when the whole shape of the article is clearer we may think differently. The first paragraphs have established a voice and a level that now needs to be extended. The third section on History needs to trace some selected path of the many possible, but I like the idea of picking on one stream of technological change - microscopy - to show how increasing sophistication in our ability to measure things has changed our understanding in fundamental ways.

2) Keeping then to the theme that Biology is inspired by a wish to understand what life is, what are the milestones that we should choose here? Amongst these might be:

  • Viruses and bacteria at the e m level?
  • Images of chromosomes? - Fragile X syndrome?
  • X-ray diffraction alongside a double helix?
  • Imaging of calcium changes in an egg at fertilisation? Video anyone?

3) Then what? ..a grandeur in this view of life..?

3) Then - Classification I think should just go into another article.

4) I don't like the idea of lists within this article - we could just shift the lists to a subarticle and link to them. For now they're a diversion and I can just see them becoming an unwieldy, arbitrary selection that is a source of unproductive controversy.

Let's remember, this article is a gateway, so the snippets we mention here must have somewhere good to go. This article is just the start.Gareth Leng 03:58, 14 November 2006 (CST)

I rescued the classification stuff from the original article since I cannot imagine an article on biology that does not discuss the kingdoms of life. The current section is practically unchanged from the wiki version but i left it all since it gives some insight to the other content here. Likewise the list was just global links that I harvested from the deleted version. Some of these can be incorporated into the article. For now they are just there for context with respect to other content in CZ.
Just out of interest, are we going with templates or similar? The ones such as the Biology footer certainly gives a lot of contextual links in the minimum space. Much of this depends on how the article are to be classified in lieu of categories. The other viable option, as I discussed above, is to reference to a separately maintained list, for example List of biology disciplines. I agree the lists in this overview article are the least desirable option.
As far as milestones, classification wrt to Linnaeus is the foundation for much of modern biology and the diversity of life is still one of the major themes in undergraduate education. Obviously Mendel and Darwin's contributions should be regarded as milestones. With respect to the modern era, many of the milestones have been from a technological perspective. Starting with sequencing proteins and DNA to whole genomes. More recently the huge impact of GFP from an imaging perspective and PCR from a recombinant DNA perspective.
I agree all these milestone are important but at some point the relationships between the different fields of biology should be discussed, especially how the lines of demarcation are becoming blurred. I'm not sure the priority for this article should be to document the history of biology but rather explain the discipline, preferably with as much reference to modern biology as to the nostalgic milestones. A nod to the current trend of BIG biology is probably appropriate too. Chris Day (Talk) 13:44, 14 November 2006 (CST)

Classification is important of course, but this article is just the popular front page of what should become a series of deeper and deeper focussed articles. Here I'd like to see just enough hint of the interest in the kingdoms of life to attract a reader to an article on just that - maybe a snippet about extremophiles?. Similarly with the other "tasters" - and yes, a couple of things at the very forefront would be great.

My own preference is for an article that could be printed off and look good; so I prefer as little clutter as possible. I like the idea of a separate article that is maybe an annotated list, or a map of biology. I wonder if we can't do something imaginative for this on CZ - even just being able to collapse and open sections of a map to see subfields. Footers, I guess the policies on these are up for discussion.

Who are we aiming at exactly? I guess I have in mind an article that would interest the school student who's just deciding whether to follow a path in Biology to University, and which would be looked on with some pride by anyone who calls themselves a biologist as a suitable advert for their calling.

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Biology/Archive_1&oldid=91642"