File talk:Flagellum base diagram-en.svg

Filament

Tatsächlich ein exzellentes Bild. Aber die Darstellung des Flagellum-Filaments sollte korrigiert werden: Bakterienflagellen (a) sind wendelförmig, nicht wie eine Peitschenschnur zufällig geformt (sie wirken ungefähr wie ein Propeller!) (b) haben bis auf wenige Ausnahmen vom Haken bis zum Ende einen gleichen Durchmesser und enden stumpf, sie laufen nicht spitz zu. -- Brudersohn (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In mehr als zwei Jahren hat niemand zu meinem Einwand Stellung genommen oder gar das Bild korrigiert. Verwunderlich! Es wird unter anderen Publikationen die von Gebremichael, Ayton und Voth, Biophysical Journal 91, 2006, p. 3640-3652 zitiert. Aus der geht hervor, dass das Filament wendelförmig ist, und es wird dessen Hydrodynamik dargelegt. Warum wird hier nach wie vor eine nicht zutreffende Form des Filaments beibehalten? -- Brudersohn (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Translating this in English would be much more efficient if you want an answer (thank you google). Triton (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

From Google translate, Brudersohn seems to object to the shape of the filament. If he is objecting to the tapering in the diagram, I assume the artist drew the filament with exaggerated foreshortening. In other words, the tip is far away in the distance and the filament is more consistent in diameter then one might think. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Brudersohn states something like (not native speaker here) : "Actually an excellent picture. However, the depiction of the Flagellum filament should be corrected : (a) Bacterialflagellum are coil-shaped, not randomly as like a whip (they function akin to a propellor). (b) have up to several hook-protrusions at the end, with the same dimater and a stump end - they do not run to a tip." 129.67.86.87 17:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue raised by this editor are substantial, about the matter of the helicity of the flagellum in particular, which changes as a result of rotor rotational frequency. More damning is the fact that this appears to be WP:OR—it is not simply a rendering of a recent published structure-based cartoon of this biological macromolecular assembly. It is an original artistic rendering that selectively includes or leaves out features, and just as selectively re-visualizes the shapes of the component proteins, in their places, based on an artistic sensibility. Note, for instance, the disconnections in content and appearance vs. this latest PNAS illustration: [1]. As troublesome is that in following the citations, there is not a single source that can be followed that is reliable and verifiable. Some images appear that are derived from unpublished origins/creationist web materials, others are cribbed from publications but the citation for the original does not appear, and others still are dead links. In short, this image should not remain, and should not be used in wikipedia. I concur with the original objection. It is web artwork, with science content unverifiable, and is fanciful but non-rigourous, and so not encyclopedic. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As of the time of writing this comment, this "dispute" has sat mouldering here for over 10 years. It is over six years since the last dubious comments were made from a from a now indefinitely blocked user. No reliable counter-sources have been provided. The image has held up well over time. It is widely used around the web, as well as in textbooks and in scholarly articles. As a schematic image, it sits well with other generally accepted schematic images. Accordingly, I have removed the "disputed" tag from the image. The tag can of course be reinstated if significant errors can be clearly demonstrated and supported with reliable sources. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)