- Norleucine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
I think there are a number of problems with this decision not to move Norleucine, boiling down mainly to a Wikipedia policy that is either being misapplied here, or perhaps, doesn't apply. Scientists have gotten together to decide how to systematically name compounds. Having done so, they have specifically recognized that commonly used names should be retained where appropriate. Thus, the 20 common amino acids as one example, retain their naming in practice. Scientists have, in the case of amino acids, defined the term nor as a prefix for a common amino acid name indicating that the nor version is one methylene group shorter than the normal version of the amino acid. Unfortunately, norleucine and norvaline, two previously used terms, now become misnomers. The scientists were certainly aware of this at the time. If they had wanted to make an exception for these compounds, they would have. They didn't. I was the only argument for moving the article, a number of others weighed in to the contrary. As best as I can tell, most of their arguments against were "just because". The only argument that seemed to hold any sway with the editor who rejected the move request was the idea that one can search google scholar, count the scientific articles that still use norleucine, and use this as a proxy for how "common" that term is. Unfortunately, this argument, made by someone claming to teach chemistry, I believe, is entirely specious. This contributor no doubt took as motivation, recent efforts to roughly quantify the "consensus" around global warming by counting articles published confirming the phenomena, and those contesting it. Of course, in that case, one is counting articles that even by their titles, can instantly be seen to be landing on one side of an argument or the other. In addition, these articles are each directly addressing the argument being measured by this proxy. None of the articles using norleucine is discussing the topic norleucine. None of them are addressing the naming convention. They are merely articles about experiments where the compound was used for some purpose. Counting these articles as though they are in support of or against using the term, would be the equivalent of counting all articles using the term climate change and deciding that since they outnumber those using the term global warming that climate change is the more appropriate term. This of course is pseudo-scientific reasoning, as there is no reason to believe any of these articles are intending to address the issue of what to name climate disruption. Ooops...I created another. See how easy that is? As I pointed out repeatedly, apparently to deaf ears, norleucine as a term can only find its way into peer reviewed articles solely by mistake. If the issue is noticed and addressed in review, the term would have to be changed to the systematic name. Thus, the use of norleucine is not, in any way, an effort to maintain the use of a preferred common name. It is not in any way a conscious choice by anyone to use that name in preference to the systematic name. Nobody searching norleucine will be in any way disrupted. They will land on the same page and see "redirected from norleucine". Why the histrionics then? Go read some of what stands for argument on the talk page. Either the substance of the argument matters, or sheer numbers do. When I addressed this with the editor who closed it, they all but admitted that a weight of numbers puts a higher burden on me. In other words, the argument doesn't matter. As long as you are well outnumbered, and nobody else cares enough to weigh in on your side, you will almost always lose. Good luck improving wikipedia with that attitude. If you question my arguments, by all means, email the editors of a few prominent biochemistry journals and ask them if an author would be allowed to keep using norleucine if the appropriate naming convention was pointed out during the review process (I provided the appropriate reference source to the rule in the original debate). If they say yes, then wiki can keep to its rigid, immovable bureaucracy, I will go away and weep for science. I certainly won't waste any more of my time trying to improve this site knowing that the substance of an argument will almost always take a back seat to a community of like minded nitpickers and contrarians with transparent feelings of ownership over this site guiding their behavior. Life is too short to spend hour upon hour arguing minutae with people who have no intention of ever being swayed by any argument.
- Many chemical compounds have strange names, and some of these names are misnomers or could be readily misinterpreted. The question at hand is whether Wikipedia is the appropriate forum to be doctrinaire and "right great wrongs" (not that the isoleucine issue is a particularly great wrong).
- You seem to be mischaracterising my arguments as some Quixotic quest to right a great wrong. That amounts to not much more than a clever version of a naked ad hominem. Please read the original debate. I made great pains to point out that even if ignoring IUPAC might be the norm, in this particular case we are dealing with an actual MISNOMER. Nor actually has a definition, for the same compounds (amino acids), that is not consistent with norleucine and norvaline. If you tell me in your materials and methods you used norleucine, and you don't list where the compound was purchased (not uncommon, I can provide an example), then I have no immediate idea what you actually used. I can assume, but then we scientists aren't supposed to do that, are we? This is not about "enforcing" the nomenclature, as so many responses continually assert. It is solely about precision and accuracy. If Wikipedia cannot rise to that low bar, then you people will never be taken seriously as a resource. Please explain to me how anyone ignorant of this topic would even recognize that it is a misnomer and that nor means something else? Indeed, I added a small edit about this in the body of the text, it was obliterated. How is Wikipedia destroyed by readers learning something by being redirected to the appropriate, short, systematic name? Finally, as a chemist, perhaps you are unaware that in biochemistry, "common" names are more often than not, actually defined. IUPAC specifically considered which common names should remain and which (like Norleucine) should go. The Wikipedia policy on common names may work for the humanities. It may even work for the vast majority of the time in the sciences. It does not work in this instance. We are literally arguing over whether a page that will be discovered by anyone searching Norleucine or the systematic name should be called by one or the other? The difference being, the status quo leaves the reader with zero understanding of the naming; that it is a misnomer; that nor actually has a meaning for amino acid names; etc. etc. while in the opposite case, they are immediately, and succinctly advised of all these issues and can choose whether they wish to further educate themselves on any or all parts of it. Hmmm...Wiki is this...Wiki should do that...Wiki shouldn't do this...very common in replies to me on this topic. Here's mine: Wikipedia, if it claims to be an encyclopedia, should actually inform accurately on a topic as succinctly and precisely as possible before anything else. Everything else is window dressing and style. As I've just pointed out, the typical style in this case, obliterates the commitment to accuracy and precision.46.126.90.193 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- About the comment " this argument, made by someone claming to teach chemistry, I believe, is entirely specious" The Chemistry project is a relatively active project, populated by many editors, some of whom are professional chemists or know a lot about the area, and some in fact are teachers/professors.
- I don't understand why you wrote this? Is it meant to be an admonishment of some sort because I question the credentials of another? Please address the argument I made about why it is specious. I thought it was clear, perhaps not. I am a biochemist with over 20 years experience. I'm trying not to take offense at the repeated innuendo that I should demure to people who claim to be experts in the field, whose credentials I now question, not out of naked self interest, but because they have demonstrated a seeming lack of rigour in their supposed field of expertise.46.126.90.193 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- About the comment "Scientists have gotten together to decide how to systematically name compounds." First of all the project routinely does not follow recommendations of IUPAC, a respected international organization that advises on nomenclature. We often go with the prevailing nomenclature for reasons of accessibility and common usage. Isoleucine and isovaline are routinely used terms (in a fairly narrow area), with precise meanings (see structures on their pages. Yes, the nomenclature is slightly strange, as it is for myriad other chemical entities.. Experience shows that occasionally editors do get very exercised about nomenclature. Some might think that we chemists are or should be highly attentive to systematic nomenclature. That view is very naive. There is a lot of culture and tradition at work, for good or for worse.
- I've addressed at length that what you say above is incorrect in the case of norleucine and norvaline (those are the compounds you meant?). This is not about scientists choosing to use a common term they prefer. It is sloppiness in the peer review process, and ignorance among those who use these terms, almost invariably not experts in chemistry or biochemistry. Further, Nle is currently named in the article as the abbreviation. No such abbreviation exists. I'm sure various authors in papers have used Nle as an abbreviation they've defined themselves. That hardly makes it the equivalent of defined abbreviations like Ala or Gly. That is the impression given at the moment though. Considering what you've written here as a chemistry expert, should I expect to get argument on changing this as well? The article is worse off now than before as people apparently are taking all opportunity to solidify Norleucine as some common term in use. Not the case. The person using the compound, ignorant of the naming conventions writes down what was on the label from Sigma. Simple as that. And then, I might add, forgets to name the supplier in the Materials and Methods compounding their error. Unless it is challenged in peer review, which it should be, it doesn't get changed. I would have to disgree with you that any of this amounts to a collective movement to maintain a cherished common name.46.126.90.193 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of behavior, editors are routinely conceding points to others (i.e. losing small battles) for the sake of the core mission. So if the aggrieved editor above is really keen to not "waste any more of my time", then one suggestion is that he/she focus on content vs getting hung up on nomenclature. Also, sometimes it is a good idea just to walk away from a topic that gets into one's crawl.
- I don't like your characterization of me and my approach. Hopefully I won't give offense by suggesting you take your own advice and focus on the substance of my arguments rather than your incorrect perceptions of me? It is my hope to contribute to this site. As I've pointed out, quite strongly I believe...if you and yours want to focus on minutae and immovable bureaucracy supported by a like-minded internet community with feelings of ownership here, you are creating exactly the scenario you just outlined. Less concern for content, more for the wrapper. Ironic then that you are so quick to focus solely on how you read me to be "aggrieved". From my perspective, it is you that is focused on, and indeed, wedded to the nomenclature, incapable of moving, no matter the SUBSTANCE (pardon the emphasis) of the argument. It matters not to me whether a common name or systematic name is used, except in the rare instance where an overt misunderstanding occurs from use of the common. This is one of those thankfully rare instances. And yet, I'm stuck in endless argument. If some of that frustration shows through, it isn't my commitment to the minutae of nomenclature. It is dismay that I am becoming increasingly convinced that despite having some science expertise to commit to improving the site, I cannot spare literally months to this type of insanity. If I seem devoted to this cause, it is because I believe this instance has shown a flaw in the bureaucracy (all bureaucracies have them). If reasonable argument cannot overcome the inertia of the possessive internet community underlying this site, on what I see as a topic that should cause almost no argument at all, then I think I have a right to feel frustrated. If you find that offensive, I 'm sorry, but I like the idea of Wikipedia. I'm not sure the reality exists in the same universe as the ideal though.46.126.90.193 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Smokefoot (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I opposed at the RM. The IP may be right, but arguments cross the Wikipedia:No original research line. This amino acid is called by this name, and if it was called wrong, secondary sources supporting that need to be provided. This is not a website for correcting the real world. Wikipedia reproduces what is reported in the real world. Someone in the real world publishing a criticism of of a misnaming would be very interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Let Norleucine stand. The term norleucine appears in the titles or abstracts of about 100 publication since 2013, per a search of Chemical Abstracts today. It is mentioned in 194 publications in this time frame. End of story. The second sentence of norleucine gives a completely normal (unused though) name. If this editor is so wound up by this pin prick, then it is just as well that they are not contributing content. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I returned to the original debate once I realized you had been the one making egregious edits on the Norleucine page. I had thought originally that you were new to the debate. I now realize it was in fact you who took "issue" with my responses to the other supposed expert, Chemnerd, and decided that my views were less important than a common contributer like your little buddy. You sir are pathetic. I hope for the youth of the nation that you are not in some sort of teaching position as your complete and utter lack of intellectual and scientific rigor is frightening considering your profession of knowledge in these areas. Congratulations. You win. Your odious troll behavior is not worth my spending a single moment more on this site. I assure you sir, your smile at that thought could not possibly surpass mine at this moment, so don't over-excite yourself.46.126.91.147 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to like to judge people without any justification for your views. Looking at your user page makes it clear that you have convinced yourself that you are the arbiter of all that is good and holy re: editing. I suspect that you immediately pigeon-holed me into one of your disliked categories of editors, thus your voluminous string of straw-man arguments posted above. Arguments that I took a considerable amount of time doing my best to politely respond to. I asked you previously not to attribute an emotional response to me, and you repeat the offense, and in my opinion, show that you are the one who feels pricked. No wonder considering your embarrassing lack of intellectual rigor. You appear to be a scientist of some sort. Am I to understand that you didn't understand the argument I made to your previous comments on searching abstracts for the word norleucine? Are you claiming these abstracts are addressing the naming of the compound? I attempted to follow my own advice even though I find your approach off-putting. It would have been nice if you could have done me the same courtesy. For your information, I made the effort to familiarize myself with your procedures before responding at each stage. I was also told I could initiate this review by the fellow (unlike you, respectful and helpful) who originally closed the move request. If this is how you behave toward new people on the site with whom you disagree, it is no wonder I can't win an argument. We have a self selecting population here as you weed out the unbelievers quicker than the Tea Party can conjure the mythical image of Reagan to vanquish the "RINOs". If you don't want people coming here with expertise that can improve the site and making every effort to follow your procedures in good faith, you might want to save yourselves the trouble and state that up-front. For full disclosure since you hold my contributions in such contempt, might I suggest you undo my correction of the completely incorrect description of anomeric configuration here? Now that you have proven to me that I have nothing worthwhile to contribute and I'm just a nitpicker, feel free to reverse everything I've contributed. I'm sure that in your mind you are far more expert in each instance.46.126.91.147 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. consensus was clear. Mostly !voting to say that if the name is a misnomer and that can be sourced / cited it seems that it should be mentioned in the article itself and not just a reference as is currently done. It's possible that is a wiki-text coding error and the <ref> is at the wrong place. PaleAqua (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially added a line in the article about the misnomer, which I thought was a reasonable approach given the extraordinary lack of intellectual rigor in the arguments from those opposed (suggesting strongly that there would be no move). New to the site, I decide to first assume that I might be misunderstanding the procedures somehow when confronted with what I deemed to be illogical behavior/procedures. The result was that those who opposed me edited the line out (indeed, I think our chemistry "expert" above may have been the culprit, something I've only now realized). It was replaced with the moronic and out-of the blue reference to the systematic name which serves absolutely no purpose. I would agree that addressing it in the article is certainly appropriate. Seems like the longer harder route compared to what I proposed, but it is clear that you cannot swim up-stream against those with an emotional attachment to the positions they've taken in arguments over minutae. Thus we are here in a move review, as I have tried two separate ways to fix this problem, neither of which have been accepted by those who think they are bigger experts. Now I get to be dismissed as worthless to your project by a self-appointed king of chemistry who is so expert he cannot even remember the term we are arguing about even though I now realize he's been editing the page for the worse. Since you are the only person who has made an intelligent, reasoned statement in the entire process, I'll attempt to encourage you to make the required edits. I would suggest removing the reference to the abbreviation being Nle as well. It is even more misleading than the term norleucine itself. Amino acid abbreviations are rigidly defined. When one uses Nle in a paper, it is not being used as a standard abbreviation, but as a user-defined abbreviation. In other words, for that paper only. It is a natural abbreviation to choose, so authors repeatedly use the same abbreviation in paper after paper, but that does not make it a standard abbreviation. It remains a user-defined, that paper only abbreviation in each instance. I attempted to address this with Smokefoot before he decided to write his last pissy comment because he appeared to be a scientist and I assumed that he would intuitively understand the difference. The edits have not been made and I doubt his great expert interest in this topic extends beyond spitting at me to actually fixing the article for the better. I will not do it because I see no purpose to continuing. You are one of the few who wasn't originally involved in the debate to comment here. Seems redundant if the original people weigh in on a move review but I'm done trying to deal with this bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Good luck.46.126.91.147 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I iniated it because there were zero arguments addressing the points I had made justifying moving it. Just straw-men. You people can't get past the "six agains" "one for" part. Perhaps you should read the part about how the quality and content of the argument is supposed to count, not just the herd behavior of...people like you? It is no surprise to me that you would preach at me from an indefensible position. That seems to be the modus operandi around here. Thanks for the helpful contribution.46.126.91.147 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
