Talk:Biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Biology as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese or Spanish language Wikipedias.
This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.


Good article A Wikipedian removed Biology from the good article list after consensus was reached to do so. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B Biology has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.
To-do list for Biology: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Currently rewriting this article at Talk:Biology/Temp. --Lexor|Talk 13:22, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Done, still needs some work and copyediting. --Lexor|Talk 16:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UT)
  • I believe this has all been completed, and the new page moved over as the new biology?
  • Find a lot more references.
Priority 1 (top)

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Delisted GA

This article has been removed from the GA list due to lack of references. Tarret 17:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropism

Does anyone know who coined the term tropism or was the first to use it? Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution as the only key to Biology?

There is some serious POV here, as none of the other views are even introduced throughout this section. Would someone please expand this by adding the other POVs, please. (I am NOT suggesting deleting the existing section.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diez2 (talk • contribs) .

(Above is unsigned comment 04:44, 27 September 2006 by user Diez2?). The word "key" is not used in the Biology article, and evolution is discussed as the central principle of biology, not "the only key to Biology." "Central" implies other things, so it can't be "the only." Maybe you meant to post this on some other page? Maybe I'm too new to Wikipedia to find out where "only key" is used in the Biology article. Please point it out to me if this is the case. KP Botany 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Diez2, exactly what other views would you like to see included along-side evolution? Because if you're thinking of creationism, that's theology, not biology. IronChris | (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlike Other Things

Parts of this article are really poorly written. Why not say what biology is, instead of saying how it differs from physics? Why say how biology is different from physics instead of how it is different from chemistry or earth science or engineering or math or the moon and its harsh mistress? Does anyone have a vested interest in why an article on biology MUST differentiate itself from physics? And can you clearly articulate this to the Wikipedia community? Biologists use physics, and math, and chemistry, and physicists and chemists need math, and chemists need physics, but the fundamental principles of a science should be introduced in their own right, not explained by how they differ from the fundamental principles of a much more fundamental science. KP Botany 20:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there are no comments or concerns about this I will edit it out. KP Botany 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and Biology

I added a small summary of the religious point of view of evolution. I wonder, however, if there should be both sides of this story in this section. Both concepts have has a lot of debate with eachother and should be compared somehow. I personally am of the Christian faith but I believe evolution occurs on a smaller scale then being the explaination for how all life transformed into their own kingdoms, phylums, and such. --Eiyuu Kou 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The summary was removed but my request remains --Eiyuu Kou 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's very easy for religious discussions to become a part of every article on biology, since evolution is central to every aspect of the science, every organism, etc. But this isn't the place - we could bring up a debate on every page that even mentions evolution. The best way to deal with it is to discuss it in the article evolution and related articles that go into more detail like creation-evolution controversy and leave the biology (and other articles like horse) out of the debate, unless there is some material very specific to that article that is controversial. As I see it evolution is the only assertion in biology that remains controversial among the general public, so mentioning it again here is unnecessary.
If you would like to read more on evolution on the macro level the article evidence of evolution provides a good background, while The Origin of Species by Darwin is an excellent book for anyone to read. Richard001 07:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agrement

I am also Christian and belive this persons statments

*CORECT (well done richard001)

[edit] LEAD cleanup

Please see WP:LEAD and consider the following points.

  • long unstructured leads are confusing.
  • leads with tons of technical jargon in them that cannot be understood easily
  • lead sentences with multiple names, titles, translations, different scripts, transliterations, pronunciation guides, dates, disputed dates, audio links, multiple commas, semi colons, colons, dashes, parentheses and parenthetical remarks, multiple subordinant clauses and asides, etc.

and so on.

The lead of an article is very important. It should not be a garbage dump. frummer 19:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to some some cleanup in the first two paragraphs. I left a sentence in that doesn't really seem to contribute to the article, however. Specificially, it states that all concepts in biology must obey other branches of science. I think I know what the author was trying to say. That is, that scientific theories must be consistent with the laws of nature. But that goes without saying, doesn't it? I'd like to remove the sentence. Somebody else can revert it if it is necessary, but if they do, I think it should be reworded. StudyAndBeWise 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, the article claims that anthropology is a branch of biology, but when I checked the anthropology page, no such statement could be found. I will leave this because on some level it makes sense, but I thought anthropology was a social science, like political science. StudyAndBeWise 04:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma

Shouldn't 'Λoγοσ' be 'Λoγος'?

Oh, probably. KP Botany 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CZ-sourced text

It seems some of the text from your first paragraph was sourced from the Citizendium article (available by PDF from the CZ front page). If so, please give us proper credit, as we give our WP sources proper credit. --Larry Sanger 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note... I thought you weren't "progessive forking" Wikipedia now. -- Zanimum 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The text has been reverted. -- Zanimum 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request for comment

Would people who regularly watch this page please consider commenting here [1]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNA graph

The double helix DNA model in this page was very crude and inaccurate : for instance, the two grooves looked identical and the periodicity of the helix was wrong (there should be 10 base pairs per turn). Hence, I suggest someone replace it with the more accurate image found in the article on DNA (I don't know how to do it myself) or with any other error free diagram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3DScience_DNA_structure_labeled_Angstroms.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.77.193.92 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/o/Talk%7EBiology_4cd9.html"