Talk:Life/Draft

Formating decisions

Citation style as per Help:Citation style 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? 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. --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. --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. Chris Day (Talk) 02:01, 5 February 2007 (CST)

• Chris: Will take your suggestion and try additional tacks to shorten Intro. Thanks. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:25, 5 February 2007 (CST)

• Chris: Shortened Intro, moved thermodynamic perspective to separate section. --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.

--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. --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. 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'. 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. 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. 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. 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 dieGareth Leng 10:02, 14 February 2007 (CST)

• • Yes. Needs work. Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)

• • Re flu: get well soon. 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? --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. Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 23:02, 16 February 2007 (CST)
• Larry: Moved one section with a long list to an Appendix. Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 12:32, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Opening

Anthony, I think the article could gain from a simpler opening few sentences. cheers 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). 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. --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. 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.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. ???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. --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.--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?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."

--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 21:57, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Pictures

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: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: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:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040160

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:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030102

This section is designed to discuss if / which pictures should go in this article. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:26, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Tom, I hope several. Suggestions? --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? 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.-Tom 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.....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. 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. --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? Chris Day (Talk) 22:31, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

I agree, and will remove statement. Need more knowledge of prions. --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?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.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.

--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. :::--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? --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! Stephen Ewen 02:23, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Stephen: Thanks for your complimentary remarks. I plan to work on the Glossary soon. --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 How to Edit CZ page. Below is a sample of what that page has to offer. Chris Day (Talk) 17:33, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Diacritical marks: À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö Ø Ù Ú Û Ü ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ñ ò ó ô œ õ ö ø ù ú û ü ÿ	À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö Ø Ù Ú Û Ü ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ñ ò ó ô œ õ ö ø ù ú û ü ÿ
Punctuation: ¿ ¡ § † ‡ • – — ‹ › « » ‘ ’ “ ”	¿ ¡ § ¶ † ‡ • – — ‹ › « » ‘ ’ “ ”
Commercial symbols: ™ © ® ¢ € ¥ £ ¤	™ © ® ¢ € ¥ £ ¤
Greek characters: α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ Π Σ Φ Ψ Ω	α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ Π Σ Φ Ψ Ω

Thanks, David. --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. --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. --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. --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.--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." 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." --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.Gareth Leng 05:56, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Gareth: Reasonable. Will try another approach. --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.Gareth Leng 07:13, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Copyediting much appreciated. You've given me the em dash — thanks. --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.Gareth Leng 09:14, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Article flows better now. Thanks again. --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 — 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." --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. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:24, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Problem related to server work today. Fix in progress. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 23:31, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Appears fixed. -- 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 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. --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. 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 --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 doesGareth Leng 12:13, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

I'll look at those carefully and get back to you. I did intend the crescendo effect. --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... -Tom 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?-Tom Kelly (Talk) 21:47, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Tom: I agree, pic not integrated with text. I removed it. --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. --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. --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. -- 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. --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 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. --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? 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. --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.:-) 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. --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.. 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. --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. David Tribe 16:19, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Approval

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?

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. 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. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 18:47, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Anthony, I think one photo you want may be here on Wiki Commons [1]Gareth Leng 09:08, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Also in commons [2]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. 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. 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. 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. --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. 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 — 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'.) --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. 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' — the noun — but about 'living' — 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? --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. 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 — 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. --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 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 — so to speak. :-) Anthony --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:59, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Good call on the qualification to the title. Cheers! -Tom 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). 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 "—" (see wiki-code) the text should show the em dash symbol. --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. --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. 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

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

The ability to remain for a time as an organized, functioning system, in which factors that tend to disturb the system’s disorganization meet offsetting 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'), 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 "disorganization" 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

The ability to remain for a time as a self-organized, functioning system, in which factors that tending to disturb the system’s disorganizeation the system meet offsetting, built-in self-correcting mechanisms fueled by external energy and matter, and facilitated by production and exportation of waste(disorder), always operating from an organizationally enabling far-from- an ever-approaching equilibrium state (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.

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

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 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 from an organizationally enabling exploiting its situation far from equilibrium state, 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.

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

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 situation 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

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. 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? Chris Day (Talk) 15:21, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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. --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. 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? --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. Chris Day (Talk) 17:02, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

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.--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. Chris Day (Talk) 23:02, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

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

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. --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) 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. 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. 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. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:30, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Damn, my ribs hurt. :) Chris Day (Talk) 23:06, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

As they most certainly should! (unfortunately, so does my elbow.:) ) 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. -Tom 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? --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. David Tribe 01:00, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

&mdash

Nancy, found a few &mdash's where I left off the semicolon — fixed them. Dash it all. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 16:24, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Title change notices

Someone added the following to the top of the article:

Template:Possible title change: Life (college-level)

Template:Possible title change: Life (general principles)

Template: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) --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). --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. 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. 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? --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. Nancy Sculerati 15:42, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Rgarding 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)? --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. 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. Nancy Sculerati 12:55, 1 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 actually question whether the the article meet 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.

• The question I am asking is how well do fit this advice with "Life" as a title David Tribe 19:01, 1 April 2007 (CDT)