Talk:Life/Draft: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nancy Sculerati
(→‎Disambiguation, or whatever: have begin the disambig)
 
(673 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Formating decisions==
{{subpages}}
Citation style as per [[Help:Citation style]] [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 01:25, 5 February 2007 (CST)
 
Other style standards? 
 
----
==General copy discussion==
In response to Larry Sanger's request, let's go about rewriting this article. For the purposes of the article, I suggest that we take the meaning of life to be equivalent to living things, and the opposite of death, and also of inanimate things or objects. Some points to cover: (1) features of living things v. inanimate things,(2)  definition of death - when is something alive no longer alive? (3) which organic molecule collections have life? which don't? why? [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 17:38, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 
*I note David Tribe working on this article.  I added a subsection "Linguistic Considerations Relating to the Definition of Life".  I may presume too much in this case, but it does speak to Nancy Sculerati's suggestion to "...take the meaning of life to be equivalent to living things...".  Happy to delete or put somewhere else in article or elsewhere.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 16:49, 3 February 2007 (CST)
 
*I also re-wrote the first paragraph of the Introduction, to provide a generalization that could set the stage for describing what we know about the common characteristics of living things. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 19:11, 3 February 2007 (CST)
 
==Thermodynamics==
The intro is massive and should probably be much smaller. I usually consider them  more like an abstact than an intro commmonly seen in academic papers. One way around this is to move most of the thermodynamic perspectives into a new section. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 02:01, 5 February 2007 (CST)
 
*Chris: Will take your suggestion and try additional tacks to shorten Intro.  Thanks. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 19:25, 5 February 2007 (CST)
 
:*Chris: Shortened Intro, moved thermodynamic perspective to separate section. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 14:34, 13 February 2007 (CST)
 
== Re-writing per Larry's Request ==
 
I have undertaken to re-write this article from the beginning, responding to suggestions along the way.  I have re-written the following sections/subsections:
 
*Introduction
*Shared Characteristics of Living Things: Systems and Thermodynamic Perspectives
*Some Definitions of Life Resonating with the Preceding Exposition
*Other Shared Characteristics of Living Things
*Life Further Characterized (partial)
 
I will try to come to an intermediate closure soon, so the workgroup can consider the article for approval--with the idea that, like [[Biology]], refinements and amplifications will find their way in.
 
--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 17:43, 12 February 2007 (CST)
 
== Seeking opinions on what to change or further develop in this article ==
 
Taking this article in its current draft, what would others, in particular the Biology Group, like to see further developed or modified.  I have much more in mind for this article, but would like to consider the practicality of getting out a draft that qualifies for consideration of approval. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 14:31, 13 February 2007 (CST)
 
 
I struggled a bit with this article. I had several reservations, but I think my biggest problem was that this article has this exciting theme and somehow seems to reduce the grand question to almost pedantic considerations of definition.I really only saw the point at all when I came to Mayr's words.
 
*Gareth: I agree about the impact of Mayr's words.  I will move that section up front.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)
 
*Gareth: In moving the Mayr Section up front, we make the point Mayr makes about terminology, echo it with other luminaries, then go on to the science.  I feel we really need to educate about the misguided and misleading practice of turning processes and activities into 'things'.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 12:38, 18 February 2007 (CST)
 
I think the point is that the simplest living biological system is incredibly complicated, and explaining why they have to be so complicated (machinery for all the processes of living; sensing the environment, feeding, reproduction etc) and what that entails (simplest cell needs ? can't remember, is it 8000 genes?). I guess the question that that begs is how did life originate? It seems to me that is one possible direction for this article.
 
*Genes can't serve, because genes don't code for interactions, much less co-ordinated dynamical and hierarchical interactions.  Hence need a systems science.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)
 
Another possible direction would be to talk of the diversity of life, and to explain those elements that were so important for diversification.
I think you need to carefully check the text, not all cells have the machinery to reproduce themselves for example (think red blood cells).
 
*Yes. I had not got that far in editing the article.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)
 
I have the flu now, I guess I was expecting some discussion of viruses and life, and a discussion that persuaded me that the question of what counts as living is an interesting question, not a dictionary question. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:17, 14 February 2007 (CST)
 
OK, I think each of these statements is false:
 
*all cells have an inherited "blueprint" for constructing its components, and mechanisms for carrying out the construction;
No. Red blood cells dont have a nucleus or DNA. Sperm and ova don't have a full blueprint. Many differentiated cells are not able to reproduce themselves.
*all cells have the capability to assemble and organize themselves from more rudimentary states;
No, just not true, animal cells need a multicellular environment in order to express their developmental fate
*all cells and multicellular systems exist interdependently with other cells and multicellular systems;
does this mean anything?
*all cells and multicellular systems eventually die. I'm not sure that there is any (non trivial) reason why many organisms (fungal organisms) ''must'' die[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:02, 14 February 2007 (CST)
 
**Yes. Needs work.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)
 
**Re flu: get well soon.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)
 
Fascinating work so far, but don't you think there are rather too many lists to be maximally readable? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:13, 15 February 2007 (CST)
 
:*Larry: Will consider. Off the top: lists sem to make otherwise paragraphed complex topics ''more'' readable.  But will re-examine.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:02, 16 February 2007 (CST)
:*Larry: Moved one section with a long list to an Appendix.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 12:32, 18 February 2007 (CST)
===Opening===
Anthony, I think the article could gain from a simpler opening few sentences. cheers [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 03:49, 27 February 2007 (CST)
 
==Title==
Just a passing comment, very probably not a new thought here.  I think this article should be re-titled [[life (biology)]] to distinguish from any future article such as [[life (philosophy)]](?) and [[Life (magazine)]]. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 16:10, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 
:Stephen: Yes, 'life' has many senses.  But everyone will take unqualified 'life' in its biological sense.  Typically, as new 'life' articles appear, a header will announce the present article as distinguishable from [[Life (magazine)]] etc.  I think the other 'life' articles should qualify 'life' in ''their'' titles, leaving biological 'life' unqualified.  If qualification deemed necessary, I'd suggest 'Life, or Living Systems' as title.  Not sure how to format.  Thanks for the thought.  Hopefully others will comment.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:04, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 
::When I saw the article title in recent changes for the first time, my first impression was its philosophical sense - why, how, meaning, mystery, etc. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 23:41, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 
Anthony, this article is very erudite and becoming very interesting. I've tried to simplify the text in places, I hope without losing anything, but please revert anything without hesitation.
 
I think I would favour changing some of the lists into prose.
 
The scope of the topic is of course vast and you have to select some path through, and I can see many possible very different articles on this theme. I think things that come to mind are, in chemistry, the division between organic and inorganic, and in biology, the concept of a vital spark - and maybe Frankenstein.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 04:40, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 
I cut this out: "Interestingly, in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb 'to live' preceded usage of the noun 'life' by some 300 years." not because I don't find it interesting, it's the kind of aside I always like, but because this is about the written use of the word, we know nothing of its spoken use. ???[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 04:59, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 
:Gareth: Thank you for 'erudite'. I trust you refer to the content as scholarly. I have tried hard to keep the text as unambiguous as possible, to facilitate its accessibility.  I appreciate you help in 'simplifying' the text, especially the consolidations.
 
:I would like you to know some things about my writing style:
:*Whenever possible, I try to avoid using the verb 'to be' and its declensions (e.g., is, are, was, etc.). I do that mainly because I consider them weak verbs that give the sentences no force, or dynamism, or strength--the result of taking the easy way out.  I prefer to find an active verb, a legitimate one or sometimes a coined one whose meaning the context makes clear.  The more active verbs in a piece, the more dynamic the text gets, as I see it.  In many instances, you change the verbs I used to the weaker 'to be' versions, and I don't quite see why.  I think 'to simplify'.  But if so, I feel we should not support that mode of 'simplicity', which one might interpret as 'dumbing down'.
:*Another reason I try to avoid 'to be' forms: They often seem dogmatic and at the same time in reality only state a partial truth.  For example: "Plants are living things". But if one posits what plants 'are', one must have a longer list of the identities of plants, much longer. Depending on context, one can write more specifically.  For example, in the context of the discussion of 'semantic primes', I would write: "Plants define as living things".  In a context of exemplifying living things, I would write: "Plants qualify as living things". Of course, 'are' works both places, but then you lose the richer and more specifying 'define' and 'qualify'.
:*Another reason I try to avoid 'to be' forms: They often encourage using the passive voice, which often submerges the subject or agent, and tends to dull the writing.
 
:I do not follow that standard as a 'purist' would. "To be"s have their place in my writing, but I use them sparingly.  Nevertheless, I would not try to dissuade you from re-writing my sentences with 'to be' verbs, as it often forces me to rethink the sentence to find an active verb that will strike you as apposite.
 
:Regarding your suggestion to convert lists to prose: I prefer to use lists to reduce the density of the prose. They encapsulate the messages, making it easier for the reader to get the messages and take them home with her. I plan to write a short essay: "Ten reasons for using lists in CZ articles."  As time permits.
 
:Regarding your: "I cut this out: "Interestingly, in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb 'to live' preceded usage of the noun 'life' by some 300 years." not because I don't find it interesting, it's the kind of aside I always like, but because this is about the written use of the word, we know nothing of its spoken use."
 
:Indisputable. I have read two histories of the making of the OED. It would surprise me if English speakers spoke the word 'life' during the 300 years in which we can feel certain they spoke 'live', yet 'live' but not 'life' found its way into writings.  Knowing how OED combed the literature, not finding 'life' suggests the English didn't use the word.  Still, I only try to justify, and have no real problem bdropping the sentence. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:49, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 
:Regarding your: "The scope of the topic is of course vast and you have to select some path through, and I can see many possible very different articles on this theme. I think things that come to mind are, in chemistry, the division between organic and inorganic, and in biology, the concept of a vital spark - and maybe Frankenstein."
 
::I totally agree. Right now I focus my thinking on the various perspectives scientists have on what fundamentally constitutes a living system--hoping in the end to generate a synthesis.  That accomplished, much else needs consideration.--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:58, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 
==Ambiguity==
"Species populations tend to grow as resources and other factors permit." Do you mean increase here or growth in body mass?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:07, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
:Thanks, Gareth, for catching that ambiguity.  I changed the sentence to read"
:::"Species tend to grow in numbers of individuals as resources and other factors permit."
--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 21:57, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== Pictures ==
<div class="thumb tright" style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid #CCCCCC; margin:0.5em;">
{|border="0" width=301px border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 85%; border: 1px solid #CCCCCC; margin: 0.3em;"
|colspan=2|[[Image:PLoS_biology_234x60.GIF|301px]]
|-
|[[ Image:Tynagh Chimneys.jpg |138px]]
|rowspan=2|[[Image:SynechococcusPhageS_PM2.gif|163px]]
|-
|[[Image:Sperm_Entry.jpg|138px]]
|}
<div style="border: none; width:300px;"><div class="thumbcaption">
'''Top left;''' '''Tynagh Chimneys''', A view from above a chimney field, showing the chimneys (round black circles) and bubbles, which contain chambers. The object placed for scale is two centimeters across. These fossil chimneys were formed well after life's origin, but may be similar to those in which, according to one hypothesis, metabolism first began
:From:  Jump-Starting a Cellular World: Investigating the Origin of Life, from Soup to Networks  Robinson R  PLoS Biology Vol. 3, No. 11, e396 doi:[http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396]
 
'''Top right'''; A Transmission Electron Microscope Image of the Synechococcus Phage S-PM2
(Image: Hans-Wolfgang Ackermann)
:From:  The Third Age of Phage  Mann NH  PLoS Biology Vol. 3, No. 5, e182 doi:[http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030182 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030182]
 
'''Bottom left'''; The first polar body (the smaller cell atop the oocyte) deforms the mammalian egg away from its encapsulating zona pellucida, creating a gap.
:From:  The Ins and Outs of Sperm Entry  Chanut F  PLoS Biology Vol. 4, No. 5, e160 doi:[http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040160 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040160]
</div> </div></div>
 
<div class="thumb tright" style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid #CCCCCC; margin:0.5em;">
{|border="0" width=300px border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 85%; border: 1px solid #CCCCCC; margin: 0.3em;"
|[[Image:PLoS_biology_234x60.GIF|300px]]
|-
|[[ Image:Lamellibrachia luymesi.jpg |300px]]
|}
<div style="border: none; width:300px;"><div class="thumbcaption">
A) Close-up photograph of the symbiotic vestimentiferan tubeworm Lamellibrachia luymesi from a cold seep at 550 m depth in the Gulf of Mexico. The tubes of the worms are stained with a blue chitin stain to determine their growth rates. Approximately 14 mo of growth is shown by the staining here. (Photo: Charles Fisher) (B) Close-up photograph of the base of an aggregation of the symbiotic vestimentiferan tubeworm L. luymesi from a cold seep at 550 m depth in the Gulf of Mexico. Also shown in the sediments around the base are orange bacterial mats of the sulfide-oxidizing bacteria Beggiotoa spp. and empty shells of various clams and snails, which are also common inhabitants of the seeps. (Photo: Ian MacDonald)
From:  Microfauna–Macrofauna Interaction in the Seafloor: Lessons from the Tubeworm  Boetius A  PLoS Biology Vol. 3, No. 3, e102 doi:[http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030102 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030102]</div></div></div>
This section is designed to discuss if / which pictures should go in this article.  [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 18:26, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Tom, I hope several.  Suggestions?  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 21:58, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
::Here i three images i just uploaded from PLOS. Maybe one of these will be useful? [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 14:36, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
:A picture of a baby human or baby animals? maybe just postpartum? What about an egg that is hatching... like a chick poking it's beak/head through.[[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 18:49, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 
 
Love all the pictures Chris.
When thinking about this I wondered about an image of sperm fertilising an egg as the instant of conception of a new life. This led me to wonder -Anthony, in what sense, if any, is a single spermatazoa alive? This goes back to the question I think of whether viruses are living.....[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:21, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
:Glad you like the pictures.  With regard to sperm, I'd say it is definitely alive. In seedless plants there are alternating generations between sporophyte and gametophyte.  They represent the diploid and haploid stages.  Sperm are just highly specialised. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 14:11, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Off the top thoughts about spermatozoa: Whether a "living system", I'd say yes, as qualified as motile bacteria, from thermodynamic perspective.  Different way of reproducing itself than motile bacteria, through its parent's progeny's meiotic activity.  But reproduce it does, and with meiotic cross-over variation, as in its parent's progeny.  Not a lifestyle for viruses: not generated from an organism's own cells on its own behalf, has to hijack the organism's cells; no internal organization functioning to keep its organization far-from-equilibrium.  Not so for a spermatozoon.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:57, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 
==Prions==
In the exceptions section it states that prions 'reproduce'. I am wondering if this is an accurate statement? It would seem that it is the cell that is reproducing the prion as a normal part of its program. This is unlike a virus where the cell is co-opted to reproduce virus specific proteins, DNA and RNA. There is no doubt that the prion can catalyse a conformation change in the cells own version of the protein but is this reproduction in the biological sense?  [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 22:31, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:I agree, and will remove statement.  Need more knowledge of prions. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:10, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 
==Tough decisions time?==
This article is clearly maturing towards Approval. It is already long (47kB) and short of illustrations, so some decisions should be made about where to cut or seek to edit tightly. My personal suggestion would be to remove the Mentionables (essentially a recapitulation and out of tune with a flowing scholarly essay) and the Appendix (don't really think it adds much), and edit the new section on information processing quite hard (for example the opening, that talks of the information gained from biology, perhaps sets the reader off on the wrong track. It may be better to plunge straight into the meaning of information).
 
Comments?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 08:09, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 
(BTW Just to explain my last edit - I looked at that sentence because it lacked a verb, then felt that it was very tough to follow - then wondered if it was needed at all.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 08:14, 13 March 2007 (CDT))
 
:Gareth:
::*I had hoped to remove the "Mentionables" section, after making sure the article covers each concept explicitly. I'll work on that soon.
::*I suggest we not worry too much about length in this case, as 'life' is a truly major topic. We should try for some degree of comprehensiveness, try to make it standard source. (I'll check 'life' articles in other sources (Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, Stanford, etc.  Have avoided that to facilitate developing an innovative approach.)
::*I will try to shorten the "Information" section.  Nobody really seems to know the meaning of information, or at least not everyone agrees on a definition.  I really did not want to get into 'Shannon' information explicitly.  Nevertheless I will give the piece a rethink. I still want to reach the serious high school student.
::*I welcome suggestions for figures, or suggestions where to look for them.  Can one request permission from publishers/authors to reproduce figures from journals/books. If so, what procedure does CZ use? Can I select figures I'd like to include and have someone at CZ administration handle the requests?
::*Re sentences with no verb: Verbs, not always necessary for sentence comprehension. As in previous sentence.  Only strict prescriptivists require them.
::*I still feel the need to say a few things about 'self-organization', because I feel the 'autonomous agents' section not adequate to cover the major points. Working on that offline.  Studying Per Bak's 'self-organized criticality' among other works.  A 'life' article without dealing with 'self-organization' explicitly would seem grossly incomplete.  I feel that hole in the article.
::*Re Appendixes: We should allow them because readers can treat them as optional, yet they do not impede the flow of the narrative.  In the 'life' appendix, the quotes reverberate with the narrative, and contribute to the heuristic for learning about what constitutes 'living'.
::*I would gladly agree having the article nominated for approval, but hoped to have the rest of the week to tidy up. I'll probably want to start working on the draft version soon after approval, as I feel 'life' a critical piece for CZ.
--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 12:53, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:::Gareth: I have compressed the article by putting 'Mentionables' in an appendix at the ''very'' end of the article, after 'References'. Easily ignored. :::--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:19, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== Consider for first-draft approval? ==
 
From one perspective, we might consider this draft for approval, pending a few tweaks, with the expectation that further refinements and new areas of interest can emerge in the next draft.  I would suggest eschewing pictures for picture's sake, and seek illustrations in future drafts that coordinate appositely with the text.  Thoughts?  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:39, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:From a non-scientist reader's perspective, this is simply fantastic work, all. My comments are that the glossary sub-heading definitely needs to be filled in (I had to stop and add up root words with root words a few times), and a main picture would be a marvelous addition, even if by reason of dressing. Truly impressive work! [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:23, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::Stephen: Thanks for your complimentary remarks.  I plan to work on the Glossary soon.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 16:46, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::BTW, Stephen: Thanks for the edits, good ones.  Question: how do you code a 'dash' instead of a 'hyphen'? Can one code a short 'dash' as well as a long 'dash'?  I prefer the latter for within-sentence clause separation.  Where do I go to learn how to put diacriticals on letters?
 
A good place to go is the [[Citizendium_Pilot:How_to_Edit_the_Citizendium#Character_formatting|How to Edit CZ]] page. Below is a sample of what that page has to offer. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 17:33, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
|- valign="top"
|
'''<span id="diacritics">Diacritical marks:</span>'''
<br/>
À Á Â Ã Ä Å <br/>
Æ Ç È É Ê Ë <br/>
Ì Í
Î Ï Ñ Ò <br/>
Ó Ô Õ
Ö Ø Ù <br/>
Ú Û Ü ß
à á <br/>
â ã ä å æ
ç <br/>
è é ê ë ì í<br/>
î ï ñ ò ó ô <br/>
&oelig; õ
ö ø ù ú <br/>
û ü ÿ
|
<br/>
<pre><nowiki>
&amp;Agrave; &amp;Aacute; &amp;Acirc; &amp;Atilde; &amp;Auml; &amp;Aring;
&amp;AElig; &amp;Ccedil; &amp;Egrave; &amp;Eacute; &amp;Ecirc; &amp;Euml;
&amp;Igrave; &amp;Iacute; &amp;Icirc; &amp;Iuml; &amp;Ntilde; &amp;Ograve;
&amp;Oacute; &amp;Ocirc; &amp;Otilde; &amp;Ouml; &amp;Oslash; &amp;Ugrave;
&amp;Uacute; &amp;Ucirc; &amp;Uuml; &amp;szlig; &amp;agrave; &amp;aacute;
&amp;acirc; &amp;atilde; &amp;auml; &amp;aring; &amp;aelig; &amp;ccedil;
&amp;egrave; &amp;eacute; &amp;ecirc; &amp;euml; &amp;igrave; &amp;iacute;
&amp;icirc; &amp;iuml; &amp;ntilde; &amp;ograve; &amp;oacute; &amp;ocirc;
&amp;oelig; &amp;otilde; &amp;ouml; &amp;oslash; &amp;ugrave; &amp;uacute;
&amp;ucirc; &amp;uuml; &amp;yuml;
</nowiki></pre>
|- valign="top"
|
'''Punctuation:'''
<br/>
¿ ¡ § <br/>
&dagger; &Dagger; &bull; &ndash; &mdash;<br/>
&lsaquo; &rsaquo; « »<br/>
&lsquo; &rsquo; &ldquo; &rdquo;
|
<br/>
<pre><nowiki>
&amp;iquest; &amp;iexcl; &amp;sect; &amp;para;
&amp;dagger; &amp;Dagger; &amp;bull; &amp;ndash; &amp;mdash;
&amp;lsaquo; &amp;rsaquo; &amp;laquo; &amp;raquo;
&amp;lsquo; &amp;rsquo; &amp;ldquo; &amp;rdquo;
</nowiki></pre>
|- valign="top"
|
'''Commercial symbols:'''
<br/>
&trade; © ® ¢ &euro; ¥<br/>
£ ¤
|
<br/>
<pre><nowiki>
&amp;trade; &amp;copy; &amp;reg; &amp;cent; &amp;euro; &amp;yen;
&amp;pound; &amp;curren;
</nowiki></pre>
|- valign="top"
|
'''Greek characters:'''
<br/>
&alpha; &beta; &gamma; &delta; &epsilon; &zeta;<br/>
&eta; &theta; &iota; &kappa; &lambda; &mu; &nu;<br/>
&xi; &omicron; &pi; &rho; &sigma; &sigmaf;<br/>
&tau; &upsilon; &phi; &chi; &psi; &omega;<br/>
&Gamma; &Delta; &Theta; &Lambda; &Xi; &Pi;<br/>
&Sigma; &Phi; &Psi; &Omega;
|
<br/>
<pre><nowiki>
&amp;alpha; &amp;beta; &amp;gamma; &amp;delta; &amp;epsilon; &amp;zeta;
&amp;eta; &amp;theta; &amp;iota; &amp;kappa; &amp;lambda; &amp;mu; &amp;nu;
&amp;xi; &amp;omicron; &amp;pi; &amp;rho; &amp;sigma; &amp;sigmaf;
&amp;tau; &amp;upsilon; &amp;phi; &amp;chi; &amp;psi; &amp;omega;
&amp;Gamma; &amp;Delta; &amp;Theta; &amp;Lambda; &amp;Xi; &amp;Pi;
&amp;Sigma; &amp;Phi; &amp;Psi; &amp;Omega;
</nowiki></pre>
|}
 
Thanks, David. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 12:45, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 
I think that, prior to approval, the article needs the close attention of an annoyingly meticulous copyeditor type, such as myself, except that I don't have time right now.  I also wonder what the reasoning is for the plethora of workgroups.  I don't know why any groups other than Biology and maybe Philosophy should be assigned the topic. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:59, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 
The article is remarkably detailed and appears to be quite authoritative, by the way--not that I'm in a position to be able to say so. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 21:06, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Larry: I agree the article needs a copyeditor. I hope someone can jump in soon to do that. I had to concentrate on the concepts, and try to achieve clarity and coherence, that elusive ideal. I spent most of today rewriting the section on synthesizing the various perspectives on what constitutes a living thing. If a copyeditor doesn't jump in, I'll do it myself, but other work may put it beyond launch date. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:18, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:I started [[Life]] to learn by teaching and hope to continue that process as it self-amplifies.
 
:I cannot remember who added the extra workgroups.  I'll look closely at each and try to engage with the author/editor who added them.--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:18, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 
: I think that this is a great article. There are a few places though where the meaning may not be clear to readers: I know what is meant by the extract below, but I think it will confuse because intuitively the randomised sentence seems more unlikely that the ordered, not less. I've thought about how to express it rigorously but can't come u with a concise alternative I'm afraid, so I'd suggest just cutting it.
 
"That becomes more intuitive in thinking about sentences. Sentences carry messages; they contain information. The more random the collection of words, the less certain the message. Consider that same collection of words randomized: “More the random certain the less the collection words of message the”.  The more unlikely the collection of words, the more certain the message, the more information content." [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:26, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::Gareth, I agree.  Try this: "That becomes more intuitive in thinking about sentences. Sentences 'convey' information. The more random the collection of words, the less certain the message. Consider that same collection of words randomized: “More the random certain the less the collection words of message the”.  As a random collection of words, the preceding 'sentence' conveys no message. For that collection of words to convey a message, the words must be arranged according to rules of syntax.  But there are many more different ways to arrange the words randomly than there are in arranging them according to the rules of syntax.  That means that randomized collections of words are more probable than syntactical arrangements, and the latter less probable. Think of each word written on a tile and the tiles shaken in a hat.  Picking the tiles out of the hat blindly and arranging them in order of selection, and repeating the process many times, will give many more non-syntactical arrangements than syntactical ones. The more improbable arrangements convey information.  Information has low probability." --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:30, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
: Style points; I don't think we can say that organisms subject themselves to natural selection, that implies a voluntary will.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:56, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::Gareth: Reasonable.  Will try another approach. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:30, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
: Gone through with a low stringency copy edit, hope I haven't disturbed anything in the process.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 07:13, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::Copyediting much appreciated. You've given me the em dash &mdash; thanks.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:30, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
 
OK, last three edits I've just cut small sections out as I thought that they didn't help the flow of the article. However I'll stop now and let you see what I've done and revert anything. No need to explain.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:14, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::Article flows better now. Thanks again. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:30, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
 
::The long quotes - while uniquely worded, would it still be better to paraphrase them or portions of them? Stephen Ewen 16:34, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:::Stephen: The problem for me in those instances, I cannot do better than the quotes themselves.  I pick them to fit and for emphasis.  I'd like the reader to hear it from the horse's mouth &mdash; so to speak. And maybe induce them to read the original.  But will keep your suggestion in mind whenever I tender a long quote.  "Brevity is the soul of wit." --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:30, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== Need help with image. ==
 
Trying to incorporate Biobooks6.jpg into article [[Life]].  Lead picture. Get error.  Can anyone help. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:24, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
Problem related to server work today.  Fix in progress. -- [[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] ([[User_talk:ZachPruckowski|Speak to me]]) 23:31, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
:Appears fixed.  -- [[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] ([[User_talk:ZachPruckowski|Speak to me]]) 23:36, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== Playing with words ==
 
What a wonderful article, Anthony! My hat is off and my hands are applauding! I find myself playing with words and hope to be helping the narrative flow, but I may be ruining things instead, despite that hope. Please revert anything I do without a second thought and if it's getting burdensome to do so, let me know. Thanks for all your efforts here. Nancy [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 07:21, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Thanks, Nancy. I learned so much trying for a novel approach, and benefited greatly from collaborative nature of the project.  The Workgroup kept me on my toes and out of trouble.  [[Biology]] and [[Horizontal gene transfer]], inter alia, always on my mind.
 
:Please feel free to 'play with words', the ultimate Lego set.  I'll cringe little at losing active voice for passive in some cases, and I try to eschew the weak 'to be' forms, but despite the losing battle I will soldier on.
 
:I appreciate your edits. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:27, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 
==Words...==
1)Historical time? I think this is incorrect, as history is the human record (contrasted with prehistory) and implies time. Is there an alternative? Gould uses "geological time."
 
2) capable of evolving - an individual is not capable of evolving, and I think we have to be especially careful with woords here to avoid a common naive belief that individuals can evolve. Can we reword this, maybe by adding the word transgenerationally, or longer but better, "from generation to generation". Maybe this lets us skip the time problem too.
[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:37, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Gareth: I changed 'historical time' to 'geological time'.  In the "Self-Organization" section, I re-wrote the ending as follows:
 
::*''The ability to remain as a compartmentalized, self-organized, functioning system, in which factors tending to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter, and facilitated by production and exportation of waste, always operating far from equilibrium, and capable in principle of reproducing itself and of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.''
 
:I will check the other sections for need to reword.
 
:Thanks --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:52, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 
 
I found that the progressively elaborate definitions become progressively harder to read and understand, so I've tried to balance the elaboration of each definition with a simplification of elements that were given more fully in previous definitions. I hope this works. I think it does[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:13, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:I'll look at those carefully and get back to you.  I did intend the crescendo effect. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:52, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== spotted animals image ==
 
The spotted creatures image is very cool and I remember seeing in my old biology textbook... but did we tie it in with the article well enough? (or is it good enough?)  (good=adjective... well=adverb... hmmm... [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 21:46, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
:so to figure out the correct english, I imagine you remove the "enough" and then decide whether it should be well or good, then add the enough back in. So is my well enough correct?[[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 21:47, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Tom: I agree, pic not integrated with text. I removed it. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 10:55, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== Somehow an older version of [[Life]] supplanted the most advanced version ==
 
Somehow an older version of [[Life]] supplanted the most advanced version. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 15:51, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 
That appeared to occur when author Joe Quick purportedly made a minor edit.  I cannot determine how old the version that supplanted the most advanced version, but it preceded many edits by me and others, and it preceded addition of three or four images, now missing.
 
We need to restore the version immediately preceding Joe Quick's edit.  I have been working on that version offline, and have made many edits, including additional Citations and Notes.  I could replace the current version with that offline version.  However, I await Gareth Leng's input, as he also put much work into the article.
 
Comments? If we leave the current version, I would have to devote considerable time and effort to upgrade it, including adding back the images, and incorporating my new edits. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 15:51, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 
I went ahead and reverted it to the edit immediately before Joe Quick's last minor edit.  I assume this is the one you want.  Joe Quick probably edited an out of date version by mistake somehow.  I don't see any evidence that it was a problem on the server side.  If you click history, you'll see a list of every copy of the page we have saved.  If someone clicks on the time in an entry for a previous edit, they'll be taken to that version of the article.  If they alter that version of the article and save it, it becomes the newest version of the page. -- [[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] ([[User_talk:ZachPruckowski|Speak to me]]) 17:18, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Thanks, Zachary.  I believe I can work with this version.  Too late tonight to check thoroughly, but will in a.m. and get back to you.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:35, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== Images ==
 
With all due respect, this article is a little on the pedantic side - and that is emphasized with the giant picture of all the books. That's a great picture, but not enticing in the beginning. Perhaps that picture could be demoted out of the first place position and replaced with a seductive picture of living things? Like the first of the Plos biology images on this page, above? Image:Lamellibrachia luymesi.jpg One idea, for your consideration. Nancy [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]]
 
:Nancy: I can appreciate your judgement about a little on the 'pedantic' side, though I would hope you would consider a little on the 'scholarly' side as an alternative.  I would guess that editor/authors will turn in science articles running the gamut from informal to formal.  Styles will undoutedly differ.  I hope CZ will not penalize scholarly articles, even if they do take some effort on the part of the interested reader. 
 
:No one to my knowlege has attempted a scientific multi-perspective treatment of the subject of 'life'.  I just wanted to make the article a real synthesis, and as authoritative as possible in keeping with the principles of clarity and coherence.  In your earlier remarks you highly praised the article and jumped in with edits of your own.  I trust you do not question the factual material.
 
:Regarding the lead image of books: I wanted the reader to get an idea of the many different aspects of the topic of life, and the feeling that by reading the article they would get a taste of what those books contain.  I also wanted each of the images to relate specifically to the text, and did not feel the PLoS Biology images had any real connection.  Others also made that comment to me when I earlier had the PLoS Biology images in the text.  I do not think we should have images just for images sake, or for the sake of having enticing or seducing figures not strictly tied to the text.  I should think that people who go to the article will have a reason to want to read it, and will not need seduction or enticement to do so.
 
:With all due respect, I regret disagreeing with you.  I hope my thoughts above will encourage you to reconsider. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:17, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 
 
: Yes, I think it could be dropped right down to the further reading section, giving lfe (so to speak) to an inevitably dry area. I think we are missing something of a sense of the infinite grandeur of life, to misquote Darwin. The spotted composite I think was great but somehow didn't display that diversity. Maybe we need a diversity of single celled life, something to illustrate what is emphasised here, the cell as the key element in living things? [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:55, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::Gareth, I can move the 'books' image to the further reading section, but it really doesn't tell a story there.  Not all the books in the image are listed, or should be, in the further reading section.  The idea was, to write about life, one has to synthesize a lot of knowledge from many disciplines. That's why I put it first.
 
::However, I would not want to jeopardize article approval on the image issue.  What I think a great lead image would be: a sperm fertilizing an ovum--the start of new life.  I could not find one. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:17, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 
I would not withold approval over such an issue, Anthony. I'm just making a suggestion. You have written the vast majority of the text here, and I believe that the final choice of images should be up to you. Nothing for me ''to'' reconsider.:-)  [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 13:21, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Thanks, Nancy. I will continue to struggle over the images issue.  See David Tribe's remarks and my response below.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:42, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 
 
I think it is a mistake to have no attractive images of organisms. They should be at the top, if possible. The pictures of textbooks will not draw the average reader in, as I see it. Its a missed opportunity, I think, and if the text doesn't draw them in, the text should be edited to create links key images corresponding to messages about, reproduction, cells, whatever.. [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 20:25, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:David: First let me thank you for your suggestion to relocate the summary before the general explanatory text, which I have now done and would like you to review and critique.  I think it works well.  As to your point about having "attractive images of organisms" "at the top", I want to emphasize the article is about 'what is life?', or 'what constitutes a living entity?'.  What you suggest regarding images seems appropriate for [[Biology]] but not apposite for [[Life]]. Personally what I'd like to see 'at the top' is a single image that says 'life' or 'living', rather than one that focuses on 'organisms'.  Perhaps a diagram of a eukaryotic cell, since cells are the basic building blocks of all living things.  Or a diagram of the fertilization of an oocyte by a spermatozoon, since sexual reproduction is so common among living things.  Or even the prototypical embryo. Or the 'tree of life'.  Unfortunately I'm a tyro when it comes to locating free images of the type I would like--but I shall keep looking. With respect to the interior sections, I think the images should relate to the topics, as in the section on thermodynamics, highlighting the sun as the main source of energy for all life on earth--as thermodynamics explains.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:42, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
:: Giving more thought to what are the best images, some that make us question what is life would be good - a bacteriophage (easy to find) and lichen perhaps?. Ill put in a phage or virus with a caption. [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 16:19, 27 March 2007 (CDT)


==Approval==
==Approval==
OK, I've updated the version number, and don't see any dissent from approval, so at the end of today, this article will be approved unless there is a last minute objection.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 06:05, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


Seems to me its time to think of approving this provided (in my view anyway) that it has appealing images of organisms or ecosystems or whatever, but LIVING things at the start. Something breathing pulsating dividing or growing (or all of the above). A froggie or a race horse or a sea horse or whatever. A shoal of fish? A forest plus deer or birds? A new born baby? Even a puppy?
:Thank you, Gareth. In the new version number, I still see a typo or two, and a few wikilinks needed, but I will not edit the current version, so you will not have to update the version number again today.  I understand an editor can make minor copyedits to an approved version, but I'll check policy on that if I decide such edits necessary after today's (hopefully) approval.  The curse of the perfectionist.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 14:20, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
 
What do we need to do this approval : I think a one week deadline or maybe 10 days is more than enough. Do we need more than one editor. Maybe?  Please advise. [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 23:51, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:David: I guess I was shooting for a 'scientific' article and not thinking so much about images not tightly tied in with the text. I wish we could put an image upfront that says 'life' ''generically'', like the double helix or the act of fertilization or cell division. I will try Gareth's suggestion below.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:47, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
Anthony, I think one photo you want may be here on Wiki Commons
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sperm-egg.jpg#file][[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:08, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
Also in commons [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ADN_animation.gif][[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:19, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:I believe both those have already been uploaded to CZ. I'll hunt them down. playing devils advocate, one problem is that the egg/sperm is low quality and another is that the moving gif is a bit gimmicky and can be distracting. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 13:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
==Consideration of qualification to title of article==
 
Please give consideration to changing the title of this article to Life (definition for scholars) or something to that effect. As it is such a high level article, and Anthony makes a good case for its having qualities that might be destroyed by informality, it serves a great purpose. But as the only article on Life - without qualification, it is too advanced for poorly educated readers to follow. Anthony is unapologetic about making demands on the reader :-), and that's ok -but the level of scholarship required and expected should be upfront. We will avoid criticism that way. We have previously discussed having levels of articles. I think that -with the qualified title-that this article can be approved now. Without it, there are issues of accessibility. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 12:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
:: I think this suggestion is worth considering, and then we can approve this massive effort and fine scholarship straight away.  [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 16:23, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:::Nancy, I like the idea of qualifying the title.  For this one, suggest "Life (scientific perspective)", or "Life (scientific basis)". Nancy, I think 'scientific' puts the scholarly implication upfront.  With that title qualification, perhaps then we could have additional "Life" articles: "Life (origin)"; "Life (diversity)"; "Life (artificial)"; "Life (extraterrestrial)", etc.  Naturally, I also like the idea of 'approval with title change', with a one-week waiting period so I can work with Chris's, David's, and Gareth's suggestions. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:17, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
Sounds good, I have heard from Gareth recently and I know that he is inundated with "real life" work, and he has indicated that he is likely to be off the wiki for a bit. So I think your suggestion of timing is timely :-). But- the qualifier "scientific", although apropos to the article, does not serve the required function of tagging the high scholastic'' level'' of the article. It would be quite possible, for example, to have an article Life (scientific) written for older children, and hopefully, someday we will have such an article. Can you, or anyone, come up with a word that is accurate (again, scientific is accurate) but also alerts the reader to the level of the text? That is what is needed for approval, in my eyes. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 19:03, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::Agree, science for all ages and 'levels' of intellectual sophisistication.  How dumb of me not realize that.  Let me try again to reveal the abberancy of my thinking. 
 
:::How about:
:::*"Life (fundamental laws of nature)"
:::*"Life (laws of nature)"
:::*"Life (upper division)"
:::*"Life (graduate level)"
:::*"Life (physicochemical)"
:::*"Life (physicochemical principles)"
:::*"Life (physics and chemistry)"
:::*"Life (modern scientific synthesis)"
:::*"Life (basic science principles)"
:::*"Life (academic)"
 
:::Nancy, keep pushing me &mdash; you are right on, and I need it.
 
:::BTW: I knew nothing about life until you and Larry got me going. (Well, not exactly 'nothing'.)  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 21:10, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
I can well imagine that it was not exactly nothing. :-). I think "definition" should be part of the subtitle, because that is the essential conclusion of the article- it builds until there is a definition. The entire article explains that definition, and supports it. So, for the reader who is looking for a discussion of forms of life, for example, it is clear at the outset that this article is not that. This article defines Life as ....well, read the article and see. Academic or scholastic are two adjectives that would indicate the level. Depends on what you want, Life (a graduate-level academic definition) might be fine, unless you can say it better some other way. On a pragmatic level, speaking of levels, for example , in the Biology article ,which is written in lay terms, if it starts Biology is the science of life. And if life in that sentence hyperlinks here, it will jar -but not with the parenthetical qualification. Should we ever have a lay level article, perhaps the hyperlink will be to there - or to a menu page that allows a choice. If we ever have a biology article written for graduate level scientists, then the word life in that article might link to this article by default, and allow a different choice only through a menu. But whatever happens, the future being notoriously hard to predict, if we indicate the level now, and qualify the title, it can only help us. Life (a graduate-level academic definition) works, I think. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 10:58, 28 March 2007 (CDT)\
 
:Nancy, one way to view the article is that it builds to a definition of life, as you say.  Another, is that it builds to a comprehensive explanation of the interplay of the laws of nature that characterize a living system. 
 
:Would you accept "Life (an upper-division level explanation/definition)"? 
 
:I suggest 'upper-division' because:
:*I believe upper-division university students would find the article no more challenging than other upper-division science courses;
:*I believe the article might encourage university students to pursue a biology career, seeing it as developing into a 'hard science';
:*I believe upper-division students in physics and chemistry, computer science, etc., might be encouraged to see careers in applying their sciences to biological questions;
:*I believe professors might encourage their upper-division students to read the article, discuss it, critique it, perhaps even contribute to the article's evolution.
 
:Or, better, in my opinion, how about: "Life (a college-level explanation/definition)"?  We shouldn't underestimate the intelligence of college students, or imply if they're not upper-division they won't find the article accessible.
 
:I feel somewhat chary about going with 'definition' alone, since the article stresses not fussing about the definition of 'Life' &mdash; the noun &mdash; but about 'living' &mdash; the activity, which is not in the title.
 
:Could we go with "Life (a college-level explanation/definition)"? That would seem to cover all our points.
:If so, how do we go about getting the title changed? --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 15:15, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
We can change the title with a move. That can be done by a constable at approval. Perhaps it would better be entitled "Living systems (life)" and that would solve the whole issue. Living systems is not a basic concept and does not therefore require an explanation of level - just like RNA interference didn't. I don't know how you feel about that particular title, Anthony, or whether the other editors would find that acceptable, but I mention it as a possibility. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 16:46, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:I'd have no objections to "Living systems (life)", except that would mean re-writing the Introductory section and the lead-in to the first section &mdash; as they take off from "Life" as title. The new title would also mean re-writing many other sections where 'life' is the focus. You did not comment on "Life (a college-level explanation/definition)", which I would prefer.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 19:16, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
I didn't love it, but it would be ok; college level is probably not strictly accurate, though not strictly false either, and definition/explanation would likely flow nicely in German, but is awkward in English, awkward, however, is not a sin-let's see what the others say. I could live with it as a title, but a better choice might be suggested by them.  Meanwhile, let me ask you something important. :-)'' What'' is the significance of &mdash ??? Nance [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 19:35, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Re 'important' question: I use the em dash for a variety of reasons: appositional, long pause, conjunctional, etc. A dash of this, a dash of that &mdash; so to speak. :-) Anthony --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:59, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::Good call on the qualification to the title. Cheers! [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 01:28, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 
Looked over article again. How about Living systems (life) or Living systems (Life) for a title. I read it over with this title in mind, and it reads well. No change in the text would be needed, Living systems already implies the level, and so no additional qualification would be needed, the article would be included in any search using the term Life or life, as well as systems - which is what the more sophisticated reader might use as a search term, after all. What do you think? (P.S. Anthony, it's not the use of the - that I question, it;s the actual insertion of &mdash in the text, is this a word processing glitch? Or does that collection of symbols, &mdash, have a meaning? If it's just that it comes out &mdash when you paste text in instead of -, then I will gladly copyedit and make the substitution).  [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 10:18, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Nancy, I'll go for "Living systems (Life)", capitalized 'Life'.  Gives one the opportunity for future extensions of article to discuss (briefly) 'other' living systems (e.g., living systems embodied in non-molecular symbol structures; synthetic living systems constructed from novel synthetic polymers).  If we can agree, perhaps the workgroup will okay it.  Should make sure Larry agrees, but doubtless he will.  Thanks for giving this the big think.
 
:Re &mdash: should find none in text, only in the wiki-code.  I'll check text to make sure; sometimes I forget the semicolon after &mdash.  With semicolon, as in "&mdash;" (see wiki-code) the text should show the em dash symbol.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 16:16, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 
---
Nancy: Following an overnight of mulling it over, I now find myself uncomfortable with substituting "Living systems" for "Life" as the article title, however qualified parenthetically.  I would prefer to go back to your original suggestion of keeping "Life" but with qualification, perhaps as to 'level' of explanation. My choices would be:
*Life (college-level)
*Life (general principles)
*Life (principles of living systems)
I remain open to other suggestions for parenthetical qualifiers.
Given that CZ will have other articles on "Life", with their own qualifiers, readers can choose which aspect of "Life", or what level of treatment, they want to read, or contribute to.
I put my effort into writing an article on "Life" based on general principles, and really would prefer to keep it that way. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 15:09, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 
I think that Living Systems (or living systerms) should be part of the title, and that final title you suggest might be ok- why don't you run it by Gareth, Chris, David- get a perspective. I think that we are close to approval and that they should sign off, anyway. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 15:18, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 
==The theme==
I have put the six themes below as they currently iterate through the article. For each subsequent version I have idicated the differences; bold is an addition whereas a strike through is a removal with respect to the previous version. There seem to be some unnecessary changes between the versions and some changes that I think are typos.  I have made a few comments about some of the versions below:
 
'''version 1''' subsequent to the sections titled on Systems and Thermodynamic
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The ability to remain for a time as an organized, functioning system, in which factors that tend to disturb the system’s organization are opposed by built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter, and facilitated by production and exportation of waste (disorder) — operating from an organizationally enabling state far from an ever-approaching equilibrium (the state that we call 'death')
|}
 
'''version 2''' subsequent to the section titled Evolutionary
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The ability to remain for a time as an organized, functioning system, in which factors that tend to disturb the system’s '''dis'''organization '''meet offsetting''' <s> are opposed by </s> built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter, and facilitated by production and exportation of waste (disorder) — operating from an organizationally enabling state far from an ever-approaching equilibrium (the state that we call 'death'), '''and capable in principle of reproducing itself, and of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.'''
|}
 
The addition of of dis to "'''dis'''organization" seems premature.  Shouldn't this still be organisation? Also the replacement of "are opposed by" with "meet offsetting" seems more like a stylistic change than the addition of a new idea. For continuity I think version one and two should be the same both going with either offsetting or opposed.
 
'''version 3''' subsequent to the sections titled Exobiological and Self organisation
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The ability to remain for a time as a '''self-'''organized, functioning system, in which factors <s>that</s> tend'''ing''' to <s>disturb the system’s</s> disorganiz'''e'''<s>ation</s> '''the system''' meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter, and facilitated by production and exportation of waste<s>(disorder)</s>, always operating from an organizationally enabling far'''-'''from'''-'''<s> an ever-approaching </s> equilibrium '''state''' <s>(the state that we call 'death')</s>, and capable in principle of reproducing itself, and of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.
|}
Here again there seem to be changes that are more stylistic.  Why not just use the phrase "''factors tending to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter''" in all six versions? It is confusing to see stylistic changes mixed in with "big idea" changes.
 
'''version 4''' subsequent to the section titled Autonomous agents
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The ability to remain for a time as a self-organized '''system''', functioning '''autonomously to work in its own behalf for self-maintenance and reproduction, where''' <s> system, in which</s> factors tending to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter, and facilitated by production and exportation of waste, always <s>operating from an organizationally enabling</s> '''exploiting its situation''' far from equilibrium <s>state</s>, and capable <s>in principle of reproducing itself, and</s> of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.
|}
With respect to consistency you should go with 'far from equilibrium" or "far-from-equilibrium".  See next comment below with respect to the removal of enabling.
 
'''version 5''' subsequent to the section titled networks
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The ability to remain for a time as a self-organized system '''of networks of modular robust networks,''' functioning autonomously to work in its own behalf for self-maintenance and '''self-'''reproduction, where factors tending to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter, and facilitated by production and exportation of waste, always exploiting its '''organizationally enabling''' <s>situation</s> far from equilibrium '''state''', and capable of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.
|}
 
This version goes back to ''enabling'' having been transiently removed in version four.  The first version has the sentence:
::"''operating from an organizationally enabling state far from an ever-approaching equilibrium''"
Isn't there one sentence that can be used in the first version that can then be in all six versions without being changed?  Tinkering with this sentence throughout only serves to make the changes of substance less clear.
 
For the addition of "''self-organized system '''of networks of modular robust networks,'''''" the word networks is redundant.  Couldn't it be simplified to "''self-organized system '''of modular robust networks,''"?
 
'''version 6''' subsequent to the section titled Information procesing
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The '''informational content and information-processing''' ability to remain for a time as a self-organized system of networks of modular robust networks, functioning autonomously to work in its own behalf for self-maintenance and reproduction, where factors tending to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter, and facilitated by production and exportation of waste, always exploiting its organizationally enabling far from equilibrium state, and capable of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.
|}
 
I hope these observations are helpful. Another thing is that you might want to use a boxed style for these definitions so it is more obvious that they represent a theme throughout the article. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 13:21, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
===Working backwards===
In the following examples I worked back from the final product to try and get six versions where only additional content was added to build up from version 1.  In this way the definition builds without stylistic changes.  Does this work? [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 15:21, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The ability to exist as an organized, functioning system, where factors that tend to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter. This is facilitated by the production and exportation of waste while exploiting its organizationally enabling, far-from-equilibrium, state.
|}
 
 
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The ability to exist as an organized system, functioning '''for maintenance and reproduction''', where factors that tend to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter. This is facilitated by the production and exportation of waste while exploiting its organizationally enabling, far-from-equilibrium, state '''and capable of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.'''
|}
 
 
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The ability to exist as an '''self-'''organized system, functioning for '''self-'''maintenance and '''self-'''reproduction, where factors that tend to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter. This is facilitated by the production and exportation of waste while exploiting its organizationally enabling, far-from-equilibrium, state and capable of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.
|}
 
 
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The ability to exist as an self-organized system, functioning '''autonomously to work in its own behalf''' for self-maintenance and self-reproduction, where factors that tend to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter. This is facilitated by the production and exportation of waste while exploiting its organizationally enabling, far-from-equilibrium, state and capable of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.
|}
 
 
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The ability to exist as an self-organized system '''of modular robust networks''', functioning autonomously to work in its own behalf for self-maintenance and self-reproduction, where factors that tend to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter. This is facilitated by the production and exportation of waste while exploiting its organizationally enabling, far-from-equilibrium, state and capable of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.
|}
 
 
{|style="width:100%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:#FFFFCC; "
|The '''informational content and information-processing''' ability to exist as an self-organized system of modular robust networks, functioning autonomously to work in its own behalf for self-maintenance and self-reproduction, where factors that tend to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter. This is facilitated by the production and exportation of waste while exploiting its organizationally enabling, far-from-equilibrium, state and capable of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.
|}
 
 
Boxes are obviously better to read than ''italics'' which are dreadful IMHO on the computer in paragraphs [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 16:26, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
 
::Chris: I very much appreciate your careful examination of the wording consistency in the crescendo of descriptions of what constitutes a living system. I need to give your suggested changes the careful scrutiny they deserve. I might think sacrificing a tiny bit of consistency okay if clarity seems to require, but I reserve judgment until I work on your wordings. I appreciate your eagle eyes and aesthetic sensibility.
 
:::I consider the 'box' idea genius. I may ask your help if I want to suggest a background color change. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:37, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::::Anthony, the wording is up to you, my example is just that.  I agree that sacrificing some consistency is OK but we should try and keep it to a minimum.  If you have a colour in mind just point it out.  Or i can give you a range to pick from. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 19:54, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:::::Chris, thanks. I have taken your 'working backward' approach, and have started carefully rewording, with consistency paramount but not compulsory.  BTW: I found the color code I like (light-blue), but I'd like to know how to indent the box slightly, and equally at the left and right margins. Can you help me with that? --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 15:23, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
Anthony, see the code for the box below.  I changed the colour, obviously.  I removed the width parameter since when 100% is used with an indent it is still 100% and then protrudes to the right of the browser window.  Removal of the width parameter means the right margin is used by default.  The indent parameter is margin-left, currently set at 20px. You can play with the indent to get the desired effect. Lastly, I have added some cell padding so the text is not so tight against the box boundary.  Again, you can play with this parameter to get the right look. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 17:02, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
{|cellpadding="10" style="border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:lightblue; margin-left: 20px"
|The '''informational content and information-processing''' ability to exist as an self-organized system of modular robust networks, functioning autonomously to work in its own behalf for self-maintenance and self-reproduction, where factors that tend to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter. This is facilitated by the production and exportation of waste while exploiting its organizationally enabling, far-from-equilibrium, state and capable of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.
|}
 
:Very nice. Thanks Chris.--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:21, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::I just reread you comment above and realise you preferred the boxes to be indented "equally at the left and right margins".  One way to do that is to adjust to the width to less than 100% and center the box, as below. If nothing else this example will add tools for your future articles. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 23:02, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
{|cellpadding=10 align=center style="width:95%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:lightblue"
|The '''informational content and information-processing''' ability to exist as an self-organized system of modular robust networks, functioning autonomously to work in its own behalf for self-maintenance and self-reproduction, where factors that tend to disorganize the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter. This is facilitated by the production and exportation of waste while exploiting its organizationally enabling, far-from-equilibrium, state and capable of playing a role in the transgenerational evolution of the species to which it belongs in adapting to changing environments.
|}
 
== Consider for an upfront image ==
 
[[Image:Spermeggdnabooks.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Signs of life. Top: Spermatozoon and oocyte merge to begin a new building block for a living system. Middle: DNA, the informational basis for producing the structural components of a living system (Courtesy of the Department of Energy Gallery). Bottom: life encoded in books.]]
 
Caption change.--Aristotle
 
That would appear right-aligned at the level of the TOC, under the short introductory paragraph and just superior to the first section heading.
 
I'll put it up on the article for you to see how it looks in context.  It may need some PhotoShop tweaks.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 18:59, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
==spermatozoon==
 
Hey, are we back at Aristotle? How about-for the caption, "the oocyte receives the spermatozoon to begin new life" (she ain't gonna do it twice, you know, it's up to the oocyte to be penetrated, many try but only one is admitted, or so I've heard). Forgive my informal language. And why do we consider the "spermatozoon" at the end of the article rather than a "gamete", or both types of gametes, ''each'' by name? If you are mostly interested in the aspects of a cell that are minimal but anyway, we call the cell alive, why not use a red blood cell? If you want to make the point that gametes do not reproduce themselves directly, then we are back to my question of choosing only one gamete. You guys have ''such'' a predictable focus, I'm afraid. (meow) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 16:19, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:I think the gametes get confusing.  The concept of life produced by sex is different from the concept of life as outlined in this article.  Or am I missing something here. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 17:09, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
 
Caption leading picture:Signs of life. Top: a spermatozoon penetrates an oocyte to begin new life. Middle: DNA, the recipe of life. (Courtesy Department of Energy Gallery) Bottom: life encoded in books.
 
End of article:
Exceptions
Not all entities that otherwise qualify as living reproduce themselves, although they exist as reproduced living things. Biologists call such living things 'sterile'. Examples include programmed sterility (e.g., worker ants, mules); acquired sterility (due to acquired injury (disease) to the reproductive process; access sterility (lack of reproductive fitness); voluntary sterility (e.g., human couples). Obviously living things with the capacity to reproduce may die before reaching the reproductive stage in their life-cycle. Conversely, non-reproducing individuals may still effect reproduction of copies of their genes by facilitating the reproduction of kin, who share many genes (see kin selection).
Viruses would not qualify strictly as living things, but manage to 'reproduce' in living systems.
One might ask whether a spermatozoon qualifies as a living entity. From the thermodynamic perspective, one might answer affirmatively, as it keeps itself ‘living’ by doing cellular work. It has a compartmentalized internal organization functioning to keep it far-from-equilibrium. In that respect it resembles a motile bacterium. A spermatozoon reproduces, but in a different way than a motile bacterium: it does it through its parent’s progeny, which the spermatozoon plays an essential role in generating. It doesn’t have to hijack a cell’s machinery to reproduce; it cooperates with another cell (an ovum) to generate cells with machinery to reproduce it. Moreover, in reproducing that way, it subjects itself to meiotic crossover variation, just as its parent’s progeny does, contributing to the variation needed by natural selection to perpetuate the process of living on an earth with ever-changing environments.
[edit]
 
Copied the above from the caption and the last section at the very end of the article. That's what I'm referring to-and that's what you are missing, Chris. I tell you in the same spirit with which you alerted me to the optimal sizing of David, in Cosmetic Surgery, both as a serious suggestion and with a very big smile, along with an elbow in the ribs. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 17:52, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:All right, you guys, I screwed up again, so to speak (arf).  I will change caption to:
 
::Signs of life. Top: Spermatozoon and oocyte merge to begin a new building block for a living system. Middle: DNA, the informational basis for producing the structural components of a living system (Courtesy of the Department of Energy Gallery). Bottom: life encoded in books. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 19:30, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
:Damn, my ribs hurt. :) [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 23:06, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
As they most certainly should! (unfortunately, so does my elbow.:) ) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 10:23, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== the new first pic ==
 
I would like it better if it were on the right side and not left. Thoughts? Also, the sperm image is slightly blurry and I think it is not good to have the first picture be slightly blurry. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 01:22, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Tom, I will move it to the right margin, though I had it there and it looked lonely.  Do you know any code that would position it at the right '''and''' leave some gap between the right edge of the pic and the right margin, so that the pic does not sit flush with the right margin?
 
:Also, re fuzzy sperm-ovum.  Got that from Wikimedia Commons.  Definitely want the sperm-ovum merge, but can't find a better free copy.  Can you help? --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 12:10, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
:: Re fuzzy picture- that what you get with high magnification often, slight fuzzy seems no problem to me. [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 01:00, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== &mdash ==
 
Nancy, found a few &mdash's where I left off the semicolon &mdash; fixed them.  Dash it all. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 16:24, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== Title change notices ==
 
Someone added the following to the top of the article:
 
:{{Possible title change: Life (college-level)}}
:{{Possible title change: Life (general principles)}}
:{{Possible title change: Life (principles of living systems)}}
 
Generally, there should be a ''really good'' reason for putting anything between the title of the article and the first sentence of the article.  (This, by the way, goes for "see also" links, which belong at the bottom, not the top, of articles.)  Definitely we shouldn't put templates that are primarily for the use of ''contributors'' rather than ''users'' on the article page.
 
As to the proposed title change, the first title implies that there might be "Life" articles within the main namespace that are written at other reader levels--which is not the case.  Moreover, ''all'' articles, particularly about such "universal" topics as "Life," should be written at the university student level, i.e., they should be accessible to a university-educated person who is unfamiliar with biologists' approach to the topic of life.  As to having "general principles" and "principles of living systems" as subtitles, CZ articles don't have subtitles.  They can have disambiguating phrases in their titles, however.  So, for example, we might have [[life (biology)]] and [[life (game)]], but not [[Life (general principles)]] --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:54, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Re text added at top, mea culpa. 
 
:I believe the current [[Life]] article does give the "...biologists' approach to the topic of life", as attested to by the profile of biologists cited in the references and further reading. I suggest '''Life (biology)'''. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 20:23, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== image copyright ==
 
Anthony, as constable, I deleted the Book cover picture. I did so simply because it is copyrighted, and no permission for use was listed. I know you are a published author (in spades). I think the easiest way for us to think about copyright for images for Citizendium is to pretend that you are submitting a review article to a journal, JAMA, NEJM- any one you like. Now, what figures and images could you submit? For a copyrighted image -you would have to have a release.Now, if you were doing a book review, a picture of the book is fine-in fact, that use is specifically granted by publishers without the need for additional copyright release. To publish on Citizendium it is at least as strict to have copyright permission as publishing figures and images in a professional journal. Since we don't have a copyright licensing agreement yet, and since the site states over and over that -at this point- we are GNU Free Documentation, that means another person (as far as I can tell) could copy the image you submit to Citizendium and change it and redistribute it. That's just the sort of thing that is liable to ''really'' aggravate the copyright holder. There may be ways around that, but I am sure book covers are OUT, unless it is either a picture of such an old book that the copyright has expired, or a picture of an entire collection of books-as you have submitted, such that it is an original photograph, an original composition. If a book cover is used such that what is ''really'' being displayed is its copyrighted cover image, meaning it is used as illustration in an article that is not a book review and is not about the book as the focus,- and there is no specific release to Citizendium by the copyright holder, that's trouble. Now, I am not a lawyer, as you know I am only a surgeon - and only a subspecialist surgeon, at that. Perhaps that description of myself will help excuse my compulsion "to do" in your eyes (understanding that it is the nature of the breed), and explain why, as constable, I could not look at an image I felt sure was a copyright violation without deleting it. Forgive me, please. I know that you thought about it before you uploaded it, and I can see why you liked that image. I wish I had a great image for you. There may be a colleague at SF who could give you one? Who has an original photograph from a laproscopic image he or she might be willing to release copyright on, such that it could be shared under GNU? If I am wrong about this, I will gratefully accept correction. But if in doubt about copyright in an image, I think we must delete. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 08:57, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Now you mention this, I'm afraid the same is true of Schrodinger's ''What is Life?'' cover.  Possibly the book spines too.  None of these uses could be described as fair-use. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 11:40, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 
::Nancy and Chris: I understand.  I will remove the front cover of "What is Life".  I'll leave the spine collection shot, as I assume on can publish say a shot of oneself in one's study with bookshelves behind.  As to using book jacket covers in the future, I will request permission from the publisher, explaining how CZ works under GNU.  That okay?  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:08, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 
I guess so-images are a problem for all of us. I agree with your opinion that the shot of your study is fine, and I think that is very defensible. Perhaps in the future some of the copyright issues will be worked out with different licensing. We had a great picture for [[Chiropractic]] that we had to delete, too. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 15:42, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== Regarding title change ==
 
Given Larry's note above ('title change notices'), I guess the [[Life]] article cannot have a 'subtitle'.  And I interpret it as meaning science articles should be written for people with a university-level education. 
 
I would then like to stick with '''Life''' and add the permitted disambiguation '(biology)'.  I do not prefer "Living systems" as title in part because that's 'life'.  Having 'Biology' and 'life' articles should allow comprehensive coverage, since each has plenty of subdivisions that can be called upon. 
 
I guess someone could write an article entitled 'Life explained to elementary school students' or 'Biology explained to elementary school students'.
 
Could we go with '''Life (biology)'''?  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 20:16, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:::I would very strongly suggest keeping the single word title, which is a very close description of the contents of the article. To the extent that there are other meanings, and they should be qualified as needed, such as , Life (philosophy). Biology is self-evidently the root concept, and the level of the  article is suitable for general readers. This is in a sense CZs benchmark article, and I'd keep the title as direct as possible. [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 23:01, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 
This article is a systems biology definition of life, and I do not believe that it is suitable for the unqualified title. If no qualification is allowed, which is apparently the case, then I believe the entire title should be changed to Living system or Living systems. There should be room in Citizendium for another article that actually discusses Life as a biological concept from every view, rather than the systems view alone.    This article is worthwhile and a fine piece of scholarship, but it is ''not'' Life, it ''is'' Living systems. It is fully appropriate for the second title but is too technical, scholarly and arcane for the first - rather than being an easily comprehensible university level general article, it is at an advanced level, rather than ''entry level'' college biology it represents a specialized view within biology- eg -systems biology, that requires a university level understanding of biology to follow, it is therefore at a graduate or at least upper division level. Yet Life is an entry or benchmark level article. With a title change to Living systems it flies. With the title Life, it will have to be entirely rewritten into easily accesible language and include all views, biologically, of life and not strictly a systems view. We can do that, but it would mean a loss of all this work. My opinion - change the title and save the article. with respect. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 12:55, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 
:Nancy, as you feel strongly that the article lacks discussions of Life as a biological concept from views not covered in the article, then perhaps we could resolve the issue by identifying those other views and begin incorporating them in the article.
 
:I would gladly work with the group to identify other views to present (I have some ideas of my own), and would appreciate knowing what thoughts you had in mind.  I would gladly draft the text for those other views, and integrate them in the article.  I would gladly rewrite the introduction to the article to indicate the full scope of the article.
 
:Since you feel the article is too technical/arcane, then I will gladly rewrite the text with careful attention to target it at a general audience with a university level education, rendering it less technical/arcane.  I offer this despite the fact that I agree with David Goodman that the level of the article is suitable for the general reader.  Writing is rewriting in my philosophy.
 
:Incidentally, a truly technical version of this article would contain a discussion, if not demonstration, of sophisticated mathematical tools, an enormous array of which are being used by interdisciplinary biologists to explain how life works.  It would also include discussions of attempts to translate the processes of living into the language of mathematics.  Many believe mathematics is the language of nature, and therefore the language of life.  Without the mathematical perspective, its not a very technical article.
 
:With those proposals the article would not need a title change to save it. 
 
:In my opinion, CZ could not have a different Life article without discussing the thermodynamic principles foundational to life, without discussing how living things differ from other entities (tornados, whirlpools, lasers, candle flames) that enjoy the benefits of free-energy-driven nonequilibrium thermodynamics; without discussing how self-organization occurs; without discussing how that self-organization manifests as an overlay of networks and how networks enable homeostasis, information processing and autonomy; without discussing emergent behaviors; and without discussing how natural selection weaves into that tapestry.  A different article titled Life would have to incorporate all that and more that the current article contains—otherwise it wouldn’t approach the age-old question, “What is Life?”.
 
:The current article describes fundamental principles that enable and characterize living things.  It aims to explain the approach being taken by interdisciplinary biology to answer the age-old question, “What is Life?”  Anything more could be built around the core.
 
:You feel, “This article is a systems biology definition of life, and I do not believe that it is suitable for the unqualified title.”.  I cannot consider the article aiming at “a definition of life”, since I was persuaded by the first section that we shouldn’t fuss about defining life, but focus on discovering how to explain the processes that underlie what we recognize as living in entities about us and ourselves.  The curiosity we have encapsulates itself in the persisting question, “What is life?  It appears that to answer that question one has to study the whole living organism, the smallest being a single cell.  That necessarily entails systems thinking, but that is not the focus, just the background music.  The focus is how do we as living things explain how we live in a non-living world.  You need open-system non-equilibrium thermodynamics to explain that, and of course, much more.  So you can’t avoid some physics, you just have to find a way to explain it, and more, to poets and economists.  If we must characterize the result as a “definition” of life, I think of it more as a scientific definition not specifically as a system biological definition.
 
:If the proposals I made do not meet with the group’s approval, then I would suggest changing the title to “What is life?”, as that has always been a  universal fundamental question for Homo sapiens, and it counts as a specific sub-topic of “Life”, just as “Origin of life”, “Synthetic life”, “Artificial life” do.
 
:I recognize that we need to discuss more about what constitutes living than what enables living.  What enables living also then enables marine living, underground living, symbiotic living, and living consciously.  We should probably discuss the major different ways living things make (perform) their living, in a bioscience context.  Fuller descriptions of marine living, symbiosis, etc., would require separate articles.  CZ should end up with more biology articles than any other type, since living things have more complexity. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:14, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 
==A fork in the road==
 
IMHO there are two ways to go:
1. Scholarly, with a name change ( I think Nancy's suggestion of Living systems is good.) The article is an extension of Systems biology.
 
2. Introductory. A complete rewrite to make it conform to the guideline for an introduction. I think the article reaches too far to be a readable introduction to Life.
 
 
I thus question whether the the article meets CZ criteria for an introduction to life, but it does fit perhaps as an introduction to systems approaches and scholarly views about living systems.
 
To quote from [[CZ:Article Mechanics]]
 
== The nature or purpose of an encyclopedia article ==
 
While the ''Citizendium'' may not (yet) call itself an encyclopedia, its aim is to build up a body of articles that serve as encyclopedia articles.  Therefore, the purpose of every article (as distinguished from lists and other supplementary material) in the ''Citizendium'' is to ''introduce the topic named in its title.''  Introductions differ from mere summaries or lists of information.  An introduction is an extended, connected piece of prose, meant to be read all the way through.  It is not merely a list of facts.  It places what facts it presents into a context that makes them meaningful to someone who presumably ''needs'' an introduction.  Indeed, the very notion of an introduction carries in it the idea that the topic introduced is new to its ideal reader.
 
Introductory articles, to be read and used by their intended audience, must be somewhat selective and simplified in the information they present.  If an article contains information presented too densely, or in too abstract a way, it becomes merely a catalog or record of what experts know--of some interest to experts, perhaps, but not to people who actually need an introduction.  This does not mean that an introduction must be ''brief,'' but that it spend the space needed to make whatever it does say clear to a university-level audience that is prepared to receive an entree to the topic.  In other words, a ''Citizendium'' article is an opportunity to show off not your erudition but your ability to make the difficult seem easy.
 
* How well does this advice gel with "Life" as a title [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 19:01, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 
:: I heartily agree with your advisory criteria for CZ introductory articles.  Why write if not to inform, and to learn the limits of one's own knowledge and explanatory skill--in order to improve them.  When it comes to "What is life?", the underpinning question of the article [[Life]], my contributions provided no opportunity to "show off" erudition, as I asserted from the beginning that I wrote to learn, expecting that in teaching myself others too could learn.  As I wrote in response to Tom Kelly, collaborative articles evolve.  I expect [[Life]] to evolve as contributors see holes and vistas, but I expect it to evolve as an article about [[Life]], since it is about what is life.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:38, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== what about Life (scientific) ==
 
Life (scientific definition)
 
Life (scientific explanation)
 
Life (scientific basis of)
 
I don't know, just thought I'd throw some titles out there to see if they worked. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 19:21, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 
:Tom, you missed Larry Sanger's post above, which nixes such parenthetic subtitles. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 19:23, 1 April 2007 (CDT) I am copying it here:
As to the proposed title change, the first title implies that there might be "Life" articles within the main namespace that are written at other reader levels--which is not the case. Moreover, all articles, particularly about such "universal" topics as "Life," should be written at the university student level, i.e., they should be accessible to a university-educated person who is unfamiliar with biologists' approach to the topic of life. As to having "general principles" and "principles of living systems" as subtitles, CZ articles don't have subtitles. They can have disambiguating phrases in their titles, however. So, for example, we might have life (biology) and life (game), but not Life (general principles) --Larry Sanger 08:54, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
:ah, yes. Well... shoot. It's a darn good article. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 19:28, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 
::Tom, perhaps it's pretty good, but it could be much better.  In the collaborative world, narratives of explanation evolve.  [[Life]] I trust will evolve as contributors see misconceptions, incompletely developed conceptions, and new conceptions.  Still, I expect it to evolve as an article about "Life", about that question of questions, "What is life?", still a major topic of biology in the 21st century.  Nancy has questioned whether the general university-educated reader can access the article cognitively.  I take that questioning seriously and plan to focus on that question in re-examining the text.  It must be accessible, and more than that, it must inculcate and stimulate.  "Life" offers CZ the opportunity to evolve better answers to the perennial question, "What is life?"  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:24, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== Summary of the main issues as of April 01, 2007 ==
 
Please list/summarize the main issues that need to be addressed for the Life article so users do not have to troll the entire talk page, in a somewhat concise form, if possible. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 19:32, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 
 
==Title==
First, I think this is an outstanding article, and I am ready to approve. As to the title, the issue of other articles is at present a hypothetical one. Let's disambiguate if and when we need to, and keep this as Life for now. I don't object to doing otherwise, just stating my preference, to solve problems when they arise, when the right answer might be obvious, not before we need to.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:56, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 
: So be it. Let there be Life (or was that ''light''?) Let's just lighten it up-in the sense of making it ''easy to read'', without dumbing it down. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 06:19, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 
Agree. I've run through the article again now trying to simplify where I can without loss of content, especially some of the longer and most complex sentences.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 06:47, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 
::Gareth, some of the sentences definitely needed some enzymatic disassembling and reassembling.  Nancy, I'll try harder to make it easier to read without dumbing down, a challenge to keep the reader challenged just enough to make her active in the learning process.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:23, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== Problem sentences & phrases==
 
I am submitting sentences that I have trouble following. In other words, that I really don't understand clearly even when I think about them a lot. Can these be made into simpler declarative sentences, perhaps long sentences broken into more than one such sentence?
 
'''Biologists use the term life to refer to the processes comprising the activity of living, to the entities that embody those processes, and to the interrelations and interactions among them, that together, form complex adaptive self-reproducing systems.'''
 
:A bit much, I agree.  It should be enough to write:  '''Biologists use the term life to refer to the processes that comprise the activity of living, to the entities that embody those processes, and to the interrelations and interactions among those entities.'''  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:07, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 
===phrases===
I am submitting phrases that either don't make sense to me, or sound very odd to me in the context used. Can these phrases be restated in simple declarative sentences or other phrases? Perhaps, where theromodynamics is concerned, we can state things in equations as well as words? I'd have an easier time with the actual equations with each term defined. I am going in order through the article. One problem is that the "summary" is presented before the explanation.


:Nancy, possibly that is the ''main'' problem, "that the "summary" is presented before the explanation".  Yet, that's like the Abstract of an article printed before the text.  You get a summary, but you may have to read the article to ''learn'' what the Abstract's really saying.  Some people like see upfront what they're going to learn about when they read the article.  Then they go back and read the Abstract for the bird's eye view.  Let's consider whether we want such an Abstract.  It would be hard to really simplify the summary &mdash; life's not that simple. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:07, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
::Anthony, if you want to go ahead and make the changes that you see I will incorporate them into the re-approved version tonight as long as they are not 'content' edits.  Spelling and linking are definitely allowed.  I'll just make a note of them on the Approval page.  --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 15:09, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


'''information-poor energy'''
:::Thanks, Matt. I made five history-page-recorded edit series since 21:00, after Gareth updated the version number for approval; all corrections of typos or additions of wikilinks.  I appreciate your offer to "incorporate them into the re-approved version tonight", but if that means your inserting the edits yourself manually, that seems too much.  I'm happy to edit the re-approved version after its up, tomorrow say, assuming I have authorization to do such a thing, and assuming an approved version once up is editable by an editor.  If so, you can monitor my edits afterwards.  Save you the work.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 16:35, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


'''disorganized state of the equilibrium of randomness'''
::::Hi Anthony, [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life%2FDraft&diff=100284752&oldid=100284190 those edits] are all copyedits, so I will just copy the current draft page over to the approved version with those edits with it.  That is no harder than copying the other version, so no problem.  You can still make copyedits afterward, too, as the nominating editor.  And as always, I look out for anyone changing the approved versions, as you pay me to do ;-) --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 17:00, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


:Understandable in the context of the article. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:07, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
:::::Thanks again, Matt. I'll stop worrying (and copyediting). I always learn something communicating with you. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 17:05, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


'''the flow of energy and matter through living systems enables them to organize and maintain their fully-functioning system, given the basic (genetic) information that generates their structural components'''
==APPROVED Version 1.2==


:That's the concept that a large section of the article discusses.  The 'summary' is not intended not so as much to explain as to presage the conclusions of the main sections. Perhaps we should put it back after the 'perspectives' sections, where I had it originally.
It appears that we have 3 to 4 approving editors with no significant outstanding issues that were not handled.  This approval can move forward.
<div class="usermessage plainlinks">Discussion for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life/Draft&oldid=100284752 Version 1.2] stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break. </div>


'''how did they acquire information banks?''' This is a basic question about cells, and I honestly find it odd to place the phrase "information bank" here. Had I not read this article already, I would have no clue to what is meant by that. Maybe I'm just dumb (not blonde, unfortunately).
Looking better every version!  I created a third archive as well.  If you need to bring anything back, just cut and paste.  --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:11, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


'''this information, in the form of nucleic acid macromolecules, encodes many different types of proteins that interact with themselves and with their encoding macromolecules, and thereby assemble an organization that can import energy, matter, and information from the local environment, and export waste;''' this seems to assume that the details of molecular biology are old news to the reader. Is this fair to assume?
== looks beautiful. ==


:Again, in the summary that should tell the reader what she'll be reading about if she reads on.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:07, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
wow.  I really enjoy the layout. [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 00:37, 11 March 2008 (CDT)


'''physicochemical''' ???
== Article of the Week - March 11, 2008 ==
This article was voted "Article of the Week" on March 11, 2008.  Congratulations to all of the authors and editors for hashing out this fine article. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 13:50, 11 March 2008 (CDT)


'''those laws and inherited information enable a self-organizing system that can work autonomously for survival and reproduction, and enable properties, functions and behaviors to emerge that could not be anticipated from those of the system's components alone;''' this is stated before systems are discussed as if the individual has already carefully read the article. We can't assume that a reader is going to read through once, having no idea what such phrases mean until they get towards the end, and then re-read the article again so that they might understand what they had muddled through initially, can we?
== old pictures ==


:That relates to the question whether we should relocate the summary.  Otherwise its like reading the abstract of an article.  You get the summary, but you've got to read the article to understand the full meaning.  Then having the abstract gives you a more bird's eye view, and a take-home message.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:07, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
There are some images from older versions that are not in the current version.  Do you think we could put the images in to a gallery subpage so that we can still easily find the images.  The one that comes to mind was a picture of a man holding his hands out, I think he was an "evolutionist." [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 21:52, 1 June 2008 (CDT)


'''this robustness and adaptability derive from the properties, functions and behaviors of a hierarchical network of subnetworks of molecular circuits;'''
== Tiny typo ==


Perhaps we can work on these, and then I'll go on. If everybody finds these phrases obvious and clear and it's just me-please don't be bashful- just tell me. It's ok.
This paragraph in the Molecules paragraph contains a weird fragment: "For the possibility of extraterrestrial life based on inorganic matter see novel proposal of physicists Tsytovich et al. A mass of charged particles — like a swarm of bees — exhibiting features similar to Earth-type living systems". Is this the right way to bring attention to this? [[User:Joshua Choi|Joshua Choi]] 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


[[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 07:22, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
== Approved? ==


:Nancy, I want to emphasize that the phrases you noted cannot be obvious and clear to a naive reader until she reads on past the summary and gets into the various sections they try to encapsulate. Do you think we should move the summary to the end?  Eliminate it?  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:07, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
Citation 35 seems improperly formatted, it shows up as
:"<nowiki>Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named darwin1859</nowiki>"


== Level of text ==
It is from the section titled "Evolutionary aspects of 'living'". [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 11:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


:If we are to argue that this is a college level text, rather than a graduate level text, I think we need to change the following:
Thanks, fixed[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
:'''When biologists try to define what constitutes a living system, they often focus on one particular perspective; for example, undergraduate textbooks tend to define ‘life’ in terms of metabolism, reproduction and evolution. In this article, we will 'unpack' those terms, and detail the several ways that biologists view living systems.'''
:We need to ''explain'' how "undergraduate textbooks" define life rather than assume that the reader of the Citizendium article [[Life]] is fully familiar with what metabolism, reproduction, and evolution are all about, and just how these are typically presented in the undergraduate course and just how they are typically used to define life. After all, college level means at the level of those entering college, and not at the level of those entering graduate school or upper division science classes, or at the level of the person who has'' taught'' undergraduate biology courses multiple times in different institutions over the years.  Or am I wrong? (wouldn't be the first time) Or perhaps I am wrong to think that this text should try to introduce the question "What is Life" to an intelligent lay reader who has a college level of reading comprehension in a manner that pulls them through from beginning to end. We are really laying down the principles of Citizendium articles at this early stage, and I am willing to admit I may have misunderstood what I think we have agreed on. I am also willing to admit that the article is tremendously thought provoking and interesting as it is- to the reader who can follow it.  [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 07:27, 2 April 2007 (CDT)


This is inescapably a challenging article, as you say, interesting and thought provoking. I think "college level" in fact embraces a wide enough range to include this, though I think we should here as everywhere do our best to make it as accessible as possible. I think the challenge for us is to make difficult themes accessible, not to exclude those themes that we suspect will be too tough for many.
== Definition discussion ==
There is a problem of course in that there must always be presumptions of knowledge, otherwise we will have to define everything again in every article on a highly complex topic; in a sense this article rests on othe Citizendium articles (on metabolism homeostasis etc) that are not yet written.


However, I don't see this article as a gateway to everything about Life, but as a select and high level gateway to a number of themes at the forefront of modern biology; it's an introduction, but an introduction to the edge.
An article on definitions of life. [http://www.jbsdonline.com/product-p18287.html] [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 01:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


I agree that the Summary was hard to make sense of at the beginning; I've tried to make it a bit simpler as suits its place in the article. I also agree with Nancy that we should keep looking at the very complex sentences that say more than they really need to in context, and which because of their complexity might lose readers. Better to simplify by focusing sentences on their primary purpose, and keep the reader through the flow.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:44, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
:Great find, Sandy. I found the 20 comments on the Trifonov article even more interesting.


:Nancy and Gareth, you both make excellent points, and I feel lucky to have such wise people to collaborate with.  I agree with you Nancy that the article needs to do a better job to fit the  salient features of the concepts of metabolism, reproduction and evolution.  In fact the last few days I've be thinking about how to develop the concept of 'metabolism' in the article &mdash; the salient features, since we already have [[Metabolism]].  Gareth, I originally had the 'Summary' at the end, but it seem like it the reader needed a summary of what was coming, since there were a lot of perspectives to write about. Your simplifying it helps. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:19, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
:What thoughts do you have re 'defining life'?


I'm not saying it has to be for this draft, but I'd love to see a discussion of carbon-the orbitals, how the variety of bonds and shapes are conducive to building structure and gradations of energy release, water and hydrolysis- I understand there are sulphur based metabolism organisms in the deep sea- and how other molecules-like silicone-might have the life conducive properties of carbon. Also I really do think the delta G equations should be here, and things not just discussed in words. Both ways.Meanwhile "mentionables" has to go [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 01:53, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
:Intriguing: "Living entities can be viewed as bounded, informed autocatalytic cycles feeding off matter/energy gradients, exhibiting agency, capable of growth, reproduction, and evolution." (Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2010 Apr;40(2):221-9. Epub 2010 Feb 19. What is life? Defining life in the context of emergent complexity. Weber BH.)


I agree; the section below doesn't really gel with the rest of the article and perhaps it's better as the stub for aother new article. For now I've put it below.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 04:45, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
:I keep thinking: Because living systems hasten the pace to maximizing the entropy of the universe, whenever/wherever energy-matter conditions permit, living systems perforce will emerge.  Systems that generate more disorder in the system plus surroundings than the order they generate in themselves.  The universe longs for its 'heat death'. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 04:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


===Textbook mentionables===
::Also see ref 35 in the current [[Life/Draft]]. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 04:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
From the several different perspectives on what constitutes a living system, discussed in this article, one can derive the list of features that biology textbooks often ascribe to living systems:
#'''[[Organism|Organization]]''': A temporary organization of interrelated, coordinated, dynamically interacting hierarchy of molecular components within cells, of cellular components within organs and organisms, of organisms within species, and of species within ecosystems—each importing energy and matter, and using it to build, grow and sustain its structural organization for performing the functional activities needed to maintain that organization for reproducing itself.  
#'''[[Metabolism]]''': Conversion of imported energy into any or all of the various forms of energy (e.g., chemical, electrical, mechanical, thermal), needed to utilize imported matter.
#'''Growth''': At certain stages of its life-cycle, cells, organs, and organisms maintain a higher rate of synthesis (anabolism) than breakdown (catabolism) of structure and increase in organizational complexity. Growth occurs largely according to a 'plan' for survival and reproduction. Species tend to increase in numbers of individuals as resources and other factors permit.
#'''Reproduction''': The ability to reproduce itself, for example, the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexual reproduction, from a single parent organism, or sexual reproduction from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
#'''Gain of New Inheritable Traits''': Inheritable diversity, whether adaptive, neutral or disadvantageous, is a common feature of living things, and the starting point for natural selection.  (See also:<ref name=jablonka05>Jablonka E, Lamb MJ (2005) ''Evolution in Four Dimension: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life.'' Cambridge: The MIT Press</ref>) 
#'''Adaptation''': At the species level, the ability to gain traits through evolutionary processes<ref name=jablonka05/> that improve the members of the species chance for reproductive success; at the individual organism level, the ability to change (e.g., through learning) in ways that improve the individual's chances for reproductive success; at the cellular level, the ability maintain a near steady-state in response to perturbations and to change functionality in response to changes in environmental conditions;
#'''Response to stimuli''': A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun, an animal chasing its prey, or neuronal action potentials traveling down nerve fibres during thought. 
#'''Homeostasis''': Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a near-constant state in response to perturbations; for example, sweating to cool off.


===Rewrote introduction-plus need to object to the "great man" apsect of the article===
== Disambiguation, or whatever ==


As always- I will retract any of this according to reasoned discussion. I rewrote the first paragraph, it's still not smooth but it is less deadly, I hope. I think it contains every one of the ideas, at least that was my intent. In reading through the article, it so relies on the "voice of authority" in a way that I think is an anaethema to critical thinking. It is not that I am opposed to citing and giving respect to major thinkers, it is just that the ideas should be foremost and not the people, we are not disciples nor do we want to encourage that kind of precedent in science articles. My, as usual, outspoken opinion. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 14:29, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
This is obviously the primary topic for this title, but I was wondering how to deal with the game. Then I can't find an article here under Games, Mathematics or Computers. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 06:01, 1 November 2022 (CDT)


I'd disagree, gently, because I see quotes very differently, I see them giving a more human face to knowledge and understanding, reminding us that science is about ideas - people's ideas, more than cold facts. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 14:41, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
:Yes, there needs to be a disambiguation page--but, what to name this one?  I'll look at Wikipedia and mull options.  Any ideas? [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 08:29, 1 November 2022 (CDT)


I'm suggesting de-emphasizing Ernest Mahr (picture etc.) Not the quotes- the excess. Your call. It brings up the whole Galen thing in my mind. It's the reverence rather than the quotes, and it seems to be a style through much of the article. Why not branch out and devote whole articles to these people, but make full reference to their ideas here? That's really an opinion. But -althugh we are not strict about byte limits, we are a bit off topic and expensive in terms of space and bytes with such inclusions. You ('''plural''')  are also welcome to revert intro. again-it's all just a suggestion.[[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 14:44, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
::I have begun [[Life (disambiguation)]]; it needs a lot of work.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 09:02, 1 November 2022 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 08:02, 1 November 2022

This article has a Citable Version.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Gallery [?]
Signed Articles [?]
Addendum [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Living systems, of which biologists seek the commonalities distinguishing them from non-living systems. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Biology [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive:  1, 2, 3  English language variant:  American English

Approval

OK, I've updated the version number, and don't see any dissent from approval, so at the end of today, this article will be approved unless there is a last minute objection.Gareth Leng 06:05, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Thank you, Gareth. In the new version number, I still see a typo or two, and a few wikilinks needed, but I will not edit the current version, so you will not have to update the version number again today. I understand an editor can make minor copyedits to an approved version, but I'll check policy on that if I decide such edits necessary after today's (hopefully) approval. The curse of the perfectionist. --Anthony.Sebastian 14:20, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Anthony, if you want to go ahead and make the changes that you see I will incorporate them into the re-approved version tonight as long as they are not 'content' edits. Spelling and linking are definitely allowed. I'll just make a note of them on the Approval page. --D. Matt Innis 15:09, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Thanks, Matt. I made five history-page-recorded edit series since 21:00, after Gareth updated the version number for approval; all corrections of typos or additions of wikilinks. I appreciate your offer to "incorporate them into the re-approved version tonight", but if that means your inserting the edits yourself manually, that seems too much. I'm happy to edit the re-approved version after its up, tomorrow say, assuming I have authorization to do such a thing, and assuming an approved version once up is editable by an editor. If so, you can monitor my edits afterwards. Save you the work. --Anthony.Sebastian 16:35, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Hi Anthony, those edits are all copyedits, so I will just copy the current draft page over to the approved version with those edits with it. That is no harder than copying the other version, so no problem. You can still make copyedits afterward, too, as the nominating editor. And as always, I look out for anyone changing the approved versions, as you pay me to do ;-) --D. Matt Innis 17:00, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Thanks again, Matt. I'll stop worrying (and copyediting). I always learn something communicating with you. --Anthony.Sebastian 17:05, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.2

It appears that we have 3 to 4 approving editors with no significant outstanding issues that were not handled. This approval can move forward.

Discussion for Version 1.2 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Looking better every version! I created a third archive as well. If you need to bring anything back, just cut and paste. --D. Matt Innis 22:11, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

looks beautiful.

wow. I really enjoy the layout. Tom Kelly 00:37, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

Article of the Week - March 11, 2008

This article was voted "Article of the Week" on March 11, 2008. Congratulations to all of the authors and editors for hashing out this fine article. David E. Volk 13:50, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

old pictures

There are some images from older versions that are not in the current version. Do you think we could put the images in to a gallery subpage so that we can still easily find the images. The one that comes to mind was a picture of a man holding his hands out, I think he was an "evolutionist." Tom Kelly 21:52, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Tiny typo

This paragraph in the Molecules paragraph contains a weird fragment: "For the possibility of extraterrestrial life based on inorganic matter see novel proposal of physicists Tsytovich et al. A mass of charged particles — like a swarm of bees — exhibiting features similar to Earth-type living systems". Is this the right way to bring attention to this? Joshua Choi 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved?

Citation 35 seems improperly formatted, it shows up as

"Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named darwin1859"

It is from the section titled "Evolutionary aspects of 'living'". David Finn 11:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixedGareth Leng 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Definition discussion

An article on definitions of life. [1] Sandy Harris 01:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Great find, Sandy. I found the 20 comments on the Trifonov article even more interesting.
What thoughts do you have re 'defining life'?
Intriguing: "Living entities can be viewed as bounded, informed autocatalytic cycles feeding off matter/energy gradients, exhibiting agency, capable of growth, reproduction, and evolution." (Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2010 Apr;40(2):221-9. Epub 2010 Feb 19. What is life? Defining life in the context of emergent complexity. Weber BH.)
I keep thinking: Because living systems hasten the pace to maximizing the entropy of the universe, whenever/wherever energy-matter conditions permit, living systems perforce will emerge. Systems that generate more disorder in the system plus surroundings than the order they generate in themselves. The universe longs for its 'heat death'. Anthony.Sebastian 04:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Also see ref 35 in the current Life/Draft. Anthony.Sebastian 04:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation, or whatever

This is obviously the primary topic for this title, but I was wondering how to deal with the game. Then I can't find an article here under Games, Mathematics or Computers. Peter Jackson (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2022 (CDT)

Yes, there needs to be a disambiguation page--but, what to name this one? I'll look at Wikipedia and mull options. Any ideas? Pat Palmer (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2022 (CDT)
I have begun Life (disambiguation); it needs a lot of work.Pat Palmer (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2022 (CDT)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Life/Draft&oldid=873966"