Difference between revisions of "Talk:Animal kingdom"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: Ways to improve this article: *Not focused. The subject is "animal kingdom" but most of the text describes the other kingdoms. It doesn't describe what makes animals unlike other organism...) |
Brainwalker (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
*Contradictory. The article purports that protists are a distinct kingdom, but that it contains "weird animals." It also makes the assertion that "everything else" in God's Creation belongs in the protist kingdom -- should be "other organisms." | *Contradictory. The article purports that protists are a distinct kingdom, but that it contains "weird animals." It also makes the assertion that "everything else" in God's Creation belongs in the protist kingdom -- should be "other organisms." | ||
--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT) | --[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | TylerD-- | ||
| + | I thank you for continuing to try and improve Conservapedia, however this is a scientific article, not theological. Therefore there is no place for religious viewpoints. | ||
| + | --[[User:Brainwalker|Brainwalker]] 14:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:46, May 14, 2007
Ways to improve this article:
- Not focused. The subject is "animal kingdom" but most of the text describes the other kingdoms. It doesn't describe what makes animals unlike other organisms.
- Not accurate. There is dissension on whether there are five kingdoms or six; i.e. whether the archaea occupy their own kingdom.
- Not sourced. The only link in the article goes to a discussion forum.
- Contradictory. The article purports that protists are a distinct kingdom, but that it contains "weird animals." It also makes the assertion that "everything else" in God's Creation belongs in the protist kingdom -- should be "other organisms."
--All Fish Welcome 17:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
TylerD-- I thank you for continuing to try and improve Conservapedia, however this is a scientific article, not theological. Therefore there is no place for religious viewpoints. --Brainwalker 14:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)