Talk:Shark

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The page Sharks should be removed and redirected to here. --BillOReillyFan 19:22, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is full of misinformation, probably written by a vandal. I came across a blank page for sharks in which I created a stub. Perhaps this should be used for the basis of a better article?

The portions that are accurate (around the clever "mammal" references etc) appear also to be largely lifted out of Wikipedia, almost word-for-word. Zondergard 20:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I see no evidence of this. However, this article still needs to be dealt with.

Similarity to Wiki

From Shark: "Sharks (suborder Odontoceti) are mammals with a cartilaginous skeleton and a an aerodynamic body, partially from a covering of dermal denticles that improve their fluid dynamics as well as protect their skin from damage and parasites. Unlike most mammals they respire with the use of five to seven gill slits.[1] They have replaceable teeth. They are some of the world's most misunderstood predators, as they very rarely attack humans unless intimidated."

From Wikipedia: "Sharks (superorder Selachimorpha) are fish with a full cartilaginous skeleton[1] and a streamlined body. They respire with the use of five to seven gill slits. Sharks have a covering of dermal denticles to protect their skin from damage and parasites and to improve fluid dynamics.[1] They have replaceable teeth. They are some of the world's most misunderstood predators, as they very rarely attack humans unless intimidated."

These are substantially similar. --Mtur 21:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

All of it has to be corrected...I think this vandal liked the kangaroo so much he thought he'd imitate! Karajou 19:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


"aerodynamic" should be corrected, unless sharks start taking flight...THanks Palmd001 11:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

That caught my eye, too. I believe a better word is "streamlined". Human 20:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I blanked the page

I'm sure myself and others would correct it later, but all that wrong info just couldn't be allowed to stand. Karajou 20:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

ok...restored and better. People here work rather quickly! Karajou 20:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Vandalized again (the mammal thing); reverted to pre-mammalian version again. Human 20:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Why…

Has this article been picked by every creationist as a place to push their viewpoint in a censorious manner? --TheGoldenRatio 22:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Is Conservapedia a place where every evolutionist can push their viewpoint regardless? Karajou 22:39, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools