Talk:Monera

old taxobox

? Monera
E. coli. Escherichia coli
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Monera
Divisions
Eubacteria Archaea

Taxobox removed because this is an obsolete classification —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.45.110 (talk • contribs) 31 March 2006

The article now possess a "paraphyletic box". Some issues of formatting of this template are present however. --Squidonius (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

3 kingdom systems

Monera was never part of any three-kingdom system, and Monera has never included any Travis (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the 3 kingdom system only mentions the Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota. Animeronin 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to clear this up. It's still not perfect, but it is better than it was. --arkuat (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

References

Note: Due to Template:Biological systems, some reference names are shared with Kingdom (biology) and must be kept in sync. —Random832 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The ongoing vandalisms: to lock or not to lock?

This article seems to get more vandalism than most others either in the form of blanking or juvenile comments and something should be done — parenthetically, "Chips ahoy!" is a US biscuit unavailable elsewhere just in case anyone was wondering what the hell do pirates have to do with chips.
I'd request that the article be locked, but I do not know if any potentially good edit may be lost, in other words I do not know if this article is "finished". In wikipedian lingo this means FA or GA normally. I know that a brief section "Characteristics" describing what a bona fide moneron looks like (Haekel's lazy microscopy apart) is required and the language may require expanding where unclear ( tags welcome).

I mention FA/GA as these by definition are clear and legible and generally, in my experience, constructive IP edits deal with clarity and spelling: locking an article would bar these constructive edits.

As I see it, there should be a "history of microbiology" page (in keeping with other fields) tying this page with others in a coherent corpus of work, such a page is of importance to the content of "Monera" as it would help determine what goes where regarding history sections, namely organise and give focus (a posteriori). (Currently most history section link to Bacteria which has a short history section...)

Should the article be locked as is? Should it be fixed up to GA/FA and then locked? What needs still to be done to improve it? --Squidonius (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This page says that the five kingdom system is an obslete taxonomy system, but that is not true! The three domain system is in competition with the five kingdom system since the three domain is used by evolutionist and the five kingdom system is used by creationist. But if someone is to write an article that is meant to teach peaple that are ignorant in the subject then it should be unbiased and not biased as it is now. I hope everyone understands what I mean. :) Wikisk8er (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a biochemist/microbiologist with an interest in the history of microbiology — hence my edits here — and my education was Catholic — so I have no idea about creationism. I have changed a sentence in the lead, but marked it as unreferenced as I just learnt it here. Could someone write a new section about the two sides? This not only would make the article more complete, but it may stop the blanking! --Squidonius (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE, and being a former Catholic myself, I do not think any weight should be given to creationist stances at all. They can not and must not be discussed as if their opinion has the same weight and verifiability as scientific opinion. This article is scientific, not religious.

This is not bias, it is simply dishonest to claim that creatonist "science" has any grounds with preferring to stick with an outdated system. There is no stated reason for why they do so. In fact, I think most creationists actually reject the existence of Monera entirely, claiming Haeckel's drawings were gypsum crystals. I don't know if they realize that they're saying bacteria are mere figments of the imagination, but that seems to be the case. Their reason for attempting to retain the older scheme may simply be to still have a convenient target for their "ministries" (it wouldn't sound as convincing if they had to explain how Archaea and Bacteria are now believed to be different). I have removed all mentions of creationism in the article and I believe it should be semiprotected indefinitely.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have asked it be locked: hopefully we can go back to writing scientifically and not reverting edits! --Squidonius (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)