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)

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)

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 it's 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)