Two things bother me about this article.

One is that the entire contents of the article after the introduction para discuss the opposite of the topic indicated by the title.

Two is that the title seems to be pejorative and therefore NPOV. It also smacks of neologism.

I don't know enough regarding these concerns to feel comfortable putting it up for RFC or VFD.

- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think a better title would be Non-carbon based lifeform. User:Ben Standeven 16:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about Non-carbon-based biochemistry? --PuzzletChung 09:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice so far. Personally I feel that the suggested names so far are a bit unwieldy. Is there no accepted term in the field? - Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 19:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Why not just Carbon-based organism? There's no article for it, and it seems the most neutral defining term for what the article is (not) about. That such a term would exist (and it does exist) implies the question of whether there's any such thing as a non-carbon-based organism. A carbon-based organism is, as far as we know, "all life." That aside, the article should move on to discussing possible non-carbon-based organisms. But there's that problem, above, that the title is not what the article is about. I think we're just gonna be stuck with a sort of long title, but it should be the best possible neutral, descriptive title (and all the other possibilities could redirect there). -- Wapcaplet 20:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Carbon Chauvinism" appears to be a lead-in to a general discussion on non-carbon based life forms. I know an appropriate title might be a little unwieldly but that should be an issue if you're linked to from other articles (or even get "Featured Article" status). My vote is for "Non-carbon biology". -- 17:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)