Talk:Animal

insult

Under portrait of Carl Linnaeus is wrote: Carl Linnaeus, an animal himself, is known as the father of modern taxonomy. Anybody who has permission to edit the article, please remove the insult.Inloopas (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Deli nk (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(However, we are all animals, and pointing out that Linnaeus is an animal need not be regarded as an "insult". --Epipelagic (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC))

Content removal and lead degradation

@IiKkEe: why are you altering and removing good content (particularly in regards to the lead, and images) from this very well written and put together article? I can see one or maybe two of your points about the lead, but the lead in this version prior to your edits flows better. This article is a very broad topic, so the images as they were are likely pertinent. – Rhinopias (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@IiKkEe: I have reverted to a reasonably correct version of the lead. "Vertebrates" and "invertebrates" are not subphyla; "invertebrates" are a totally informal group. You need to stop making so many changes, or else suggest a revised version here first, so others can comment. I don't get the impression you completely understand the subject. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead

I am happy to discuss my edits. Let's start with the first paragraph of the Lead:

An Animal' is an organism which is classified by taxonomy to the kingdom Animalia, based on the following characteristics. Animals are multicellular, and during development these cells differentiate into specialized tissues and organs. They are eukaryotic: their chromosomes are contained within a distinct nucleus. They are motile: they move spontaneously and independently. They are heterotrophs: they ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance. They use sexual reproduction (with some exceptions) to perpetuate their species, and during early embryonic development they pass through a stage called a blastocyst.

Comments: Sentence 1 - 1) I changed "any member of a group of biological organisms" to "an organism". The extra words don't seem to me to be necessary for the definition of animal. 2)I changed "certain shared characteristics" to "the following characteristics" to emphasize the characteristics that they are specific and about to be enumerated.

Sentence 2 - 1) I added that cells "differentiate into specialized and tissues and organs" because I understand that is one of the defining characteristics of animals 2) I gave a short definition of "eukaryotic", just as editors who came before me gave short definitions of "motile" and "heterophiles" just after this. Seems to be appropriate addition. 3) I added "sexual reproduction" and "blastocyst" to the list because I understand those too are defining characteristics of animals.

Please give me feedback on any of these 5 edits you don't agree with and why.

Regards!

IiKkEe (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For the first sentence, something closer to the version before any of your edits is better, e.g. {{An animal is an organism in the kingdom Animalia}}; "classified by taxonomy" is redundant – what else would it be classified by? It's not necessarily classified "by" the following characteristics; these days placement into a taxon is often based on molecular phylogenetic evidence rather than overt characteristics. So I would simply continue as the original did: An animal is multicellular .... Peter coxhead (talk)

@(talk) Thanks - your explanation is very helpful. The problem I am still having is with the word "certain": aren't the characteristics that define animals generally agreed upon by taxonomists? If so, shouldn't they be elucidated here?

Any thoughts about the 4 edits I made in sentence 2 which were deleted? They still seem to be useful additions to me. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC).

An explanation of the characteristics may be appropriate, but this lead was impressively short (and also nicely written) for such a broad article. Your sentence about animals being multicellular contains three wikilinks to disambiguation articles, which isn't more helpful to the reader than simply linking to multicellular. All of the sentences are wordy and flow less than the original lead, which is more harmful to an article than a lead that does not briefly cover every single one of the dozens of less important topics in the article. You may have a point with sexual reproduction, but this article was clearly written and organized by someone with an understanding of the subject matter and a clear intention to write an exemplary article. A change (let alone your 97 edits in less than a week) that prompts any sort of disagreement should be discussed.

I will continue discussing this, but I am confused as to why you are placing any of your edits back into the article. I think that this edit, for example, isn't clarifying anything but adds irrelevant detail that breaks up the flow of the section. If you really wanted to include the word "mitosis" in the article's body text, for example, it could be better served two paragraphs down from the introduction of zygote (the sentence you edited): "A zygote initially develops via mitosis into a hollow sphere, called a blastula, …" where differentiation is already mentioned. But mitosis is also not a characteristic of just animals, so let's not discuss this specific change. – Rhinopias (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Status of first paragraph of current Lead

I starting editing the first paragraph of the Lead 5 days ago without first looking at the history of its evolution. I have now done that, and think additional edits to the current version would improve it.

To share a bit of what I've discovered, here's some excerpts from 2010:

Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa.

Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and are multicellular (although see Myxozoa), which separates them from bacteria. They have an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae (some sponges are capable of photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation. They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking rigid cell walls. All animals are motile, if only at certain life stages. In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage, which is a characteristic exclusive to animals. (end excerpt)

I would like to reinsert some of this material into the current Lead. I will do it one bit at a time with explanation, and welcome reversions with explanation if any think a reversion is warranted.

Regards IiKkEe (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I read this section after replying to the section above. I don't believe that we have reached a consensus for any of your edits. This article receives an average of 9,000 views per day, and I don't think it's logical to treat the lead like we currently are. I just edited the first sentence to reduce verbiage and fix the style of "Animalia" as this article is also the kingdom's article.

I don't think that such a detailed explanation of how animals differ from other organisms is appropriate in the lead (or at least the first paragraph) as a summary of the article, but perhaps in a current or new subsection of Characteristics or elsewhere. A list of characteristics seems more appropriate to me, but perhaps others will disagree. I do appreciate the inclusion of "mostly" or some variant prior to the characteristics beyond eukaryotic, as there are exceptions for most (or all?). The sentence about the blastula is interesting, but perhaps it can be easily mentioned along with a mention of sexual reproduction.

I can probably write up some drafts tomorrow, but I would very much prefer it if we reverted to the version on August 17 while we reach consensus because of the visibility of this article. I'm not at all saying it was perfect, but it would be more stable than the current. – Rhinopias (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright well, editing has continued but I retract my statement about reverting the lead. I incorporated ideas that were previously in the lead into the recent live version. Keeping sexual reproduction and the blastula mention is an important point. I hope that my shortening of the first paragraph length's by removing the explanations about each animal characteristic and placing the weight of that explanation into the wikilinks makes sense. Same with the mentioning of the animal groups; I made it just phyla instead of randomly chosen lower taxa in parentheses, and combined the symmetry vs. vertebrate/invertebrate paragraphs by making it one paragraph on body plan as the original lead alluded to but didn't connect to the list of animals beyond vertebrate/invertebrate. – Rhinopias (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rhinopias (talk) I apologize for continuing to edit rather than discussing your above responses to my postings: I just now noticed them, 2 days after you posted them. I assume you are OK with the current article: if I do a future edit and you don't like it, delete it and give me the reason, and we can discuss it here. And if you are OK with it, "thank" me - I'm not looking for a compliment, rather it's a great way to let me know you have read it and you're OK with it. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

.== Lead, paragraph 3 == This paragraph contains a list of around 30 animals. About six years ago, there was no list; in Aug 2013 there was a list of 5; it has grown to a complete list of all vertebrate and invertebrate groups with additional subgroups and examples. Relative to the other paragraphs, this seems overly detailed for a Lead.

What about just saying in the Lead that animals can be divided into vertebrates and invertebrates, and move the remaining details and examples to the section "Classification by vertebral type"? Anyone have a vote? I'm undecided. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Section on "Classification by body symmetry"

This section uses the term "Non-bilaterian" for "Asymmetric" and makes no mention of "radial symmetry"'. Anyone care to edit this secion? (@(talk)IiKkEe (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Homologous

please change ((homologous)) to ((Homology (biology)|homologous)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4304:e6b0:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2017‎ (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead 4th paragraph

Looking at the two sentences in this paragraph: I'm not clear on what the difference is between "The animal kingdom emerged as a clade..." and "Most known animal phyla appeared...". My guess is they are both referring to the same thing: the first appearance of animals in evolution. The first sentence is a cladistic statement, and the second is a Linnaean statement.

But should we say that animal life began as a phylum or a clade? Or that early animals are classified as a phylum or a clade?

Here's the scheme: how much of this should be included in the Lead?

.

Opisthokonta	Holomycota Fungi Opisthosporidia Cristidiscoidea Nucleariida Fonticulida Holozoa Teretosporea Mesomycetozoa Corallochytrium Filozoa Filasterea Apoikozoa Choanoflagellatea Animalia

How about this edit: "Animals appeared in the fossil record as a marine species during the Cambrian explosion about 542 million years ago. The earliest animals evolved from the Apoikozoa" (ie leave out "phylum" and and "clade" and "choanoflagellatea" without losing the main idea.)

Comments are welcomed. IiKkEe (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ctenophora basal /epitheliozoa/Eumetazoa/Parazoa

The latest research suggests ctenophora are the basalmost animals, actually with "full" support, as opposed to , which is substantially less resolved, especially in the surrounding clades. Of course this has been a discussion since the Ryan et al(2013) paper, but it really seems like ctenophora is basal. Feel free do discuss.

This leaves us with the naming of the Porifera + Parahoxozoa clade. The closest thing to this clade I know of is parazoa. Before ctenophora basal, it was already realized that the higher animals emerged within Parazoa. With this knowledge, in Cladistics you can either take the stance of rejecting parazoa as a valid clade or you can include the emerged clade (dramatically increasing the scope). This is a normal process when groups turn out to be paraphyletic stem groups. For lack of a better available name, the last option can be taken. Before ctenophora basal, including the emerged clade would have resulted in parazoa as synonymous with metazoa, rendering parazoa obsolete or superfluous. However, after ctenophora this is not the case anymore.

Also eumetazoa, now without ctenophora, which originally did not include placozoa, can be used closer to its original meaning, and become equivalent to the planulozoa rather than e.g. the Parahoxozoa/Epitheliozoa.

The Epitheliozoa hypotheses and Eumetazoa hypotheses (see placozoa) both more ore less hold true, as long as ctenophora is removed from the discussion there.

Jmv2009 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Things move fast, the above is now historic (unless ctenophora is seen as basal again).Jmv2009 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Do we need Animal#Research_using_model_organisms here?

I noticed we have a paragraph on animals as model organisms, and I do not think it makes sense in this general page about the taxon. While certainly an important part of how humans deal with animals, we do not have paragraphs about other, much more widespread uses of animals such as their use as food, for example. I think this is right, since the focus is about animals as a taxon. Plus, not all model organisms are animals. Since we have an article on model organism, I think we are safe in removing the paragraph from here. --cyclopia^speak! 22:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, there should certainly be a section on human interactions with animals, and scientific usage is a part of that. The topic of 'Animal' is broad and not purely taxonomic, so what we need here is a summary of Animals in culture (where 'culture' is in the broad sense, i.e. not just high literary culture but food, science and so forth). I note in passing that the 'History of classification' is also part of the interaction with humans section that the article needs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To save faffing about, I've boldly replaced the old section which represented a highly unbalanced (even POV) view of animals in culture, with a far broader summary from Animals in culture. Hope that suits. It's richly linked and cited, as befits a brief summary of an enormous area. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks, this makes much more sense. --cyclopia^speak! 14:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Time to make this a Good Article?

This mature article is now comprehensive and thoroughly cited. Would anyone care to join me in shepherding it through GAN? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have little time in this period for thorough editing but if there is some quick task, I can give a little hand.--cyclopia^speak! 13:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of just nominating it, any tasks would be proposed by the reviewer. If you'd like to co-nominate, that'd be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Aaah. I thought there would be a roadmap of work to do before that. I'm not at all familiar with GAN. Okay.--cyclopia^speak! 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's nothing to worry about. There are however a few statements in the article which remain uncited, so if you wanted a small task ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice idea. I'll try. --cyclopia^speak! 18:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

We have collectively cleaned up the article, illustrated, cited, tabulated, organised, formatted and punctuated until it shines like a treasured Jacobean oak dresser. I propose to nominate it at GAN now, and will be happy for anyone who wants to join me to be co-noms. Speak now ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops I missed this. I added myself! (I'll just assume Jacobean oak dressers are really shiny.) Rhinopias (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! And yes, gleaming. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Beat me to it both times, Chiswick Chap. Sorry if I inadvertently introduced any "-ize"s! Rhinopias (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, which was appreciated. Great that we made it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Table of diversity

The current "Number of living species" sections needs updating in several ways. The uncited first paragraph claims that animals can be divided into "two broad groups", but vertebrates are just one subphylum, and the invertebrates are paraphyletic, not a great start. The table claims to list "each major animal subgroup" but includes the horseshoe crabs, a single arthropod family with only 4 species. I shall rework the table with columns for phylum and class; I hope to add a few more of the larger phyla; and I propose to drop "invertebrate" altogether. I shall also make the table sortable so it is slightly more informative. Oh, and the section title should probably be "Diversity". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: yes, this is definitely needed. One point about the table, "crustaceans" are now problematic as a class, because they are paraphyletic w.r.t. insects. Maybe this doesn't matter, but the column is headed "Class". Peter coxhead (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Malacostracans it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I do not have much time but I noticed, while the article surely improved a lot, that there is something problematic in the table of diversity:

1 I notice that Crustacea has been replaced by Malacostraca, but Malacostraca are only a sub-clade of Crustacea, see phylogenetic trees in Pancrustacea for an example. There is nothing wrong in writing "Crustacea (excluding Insecta)" or something like that. Isolating Malacostraca seems totally arbitrary.

Well, since we were only illustrating classes for the Arthropods, I've removed the column. For the record, these (including Malacostraca) were among the largest classes in any taxon, but just Phyla is simpler and cleaner.

2 What are the sources for the habitat etc. columns? It seems to me a bit WP:OR. For example, why for Insecta parasitic has "many", and linking to a very specific arbitrary subset of parasitic insects? Why no mention of freshwater Cnidaria, while one of the most famous cnidarian model organisms is freshwater (Hydra (genus))?

The parasitic wasps number over 500,000 species, seems well worth mentioning, I've added a ref. Just missed off mentioning the (few) species of freshwater cnidaria, that's all. I've checked all the figures against sources, and they weren't bad; I've added a ridiculous number of refs, and documented some of the many inconsistencies between them.

3 We should perhaps have a better discussion of the number of species, which is discussed with a large range of estimates in the scientific literature (see e.g. this).

What do you think? Thanks a lot for your work!--cyclopia^speak! 12:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't really want to get into all that methodology in this kind of article, but I've mentioned it now with the PLOS ref, and illustrated some of the 'diversity' between authors in the matter of guesstimates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clarifying, and for your work.--cyclopia^speak! 16:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Listing of phyla

@Chiswick Chap: the list of phyla may be better suited for the body and just linked to from the infobox. Honestly, with #Phylogeny being so flushed out I'm not totally sure it's necessary at all. Could just all be moved to Lists of animals#By taxonomical classification (which is linked to at #Phylogeny already)? Rhinopias (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I do know it's a great deal shorter and more up to date than it was a week ago. Do people not expect to see it in the infobox? Or maybe collapse it. If we want it in the text then it should be as additional cladograms, I was considering doing that anyway, but they take up a good bit of room. And btw the Lists of animals is out of date too. @Rhinopias: do you think the Phylogeny section should be shortened further? I've already trimmed a fair bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Aha – much better idea. I added a collapse template; feel free to change the parameters. I do think that the cladogram pretty sufficiently covers the scope of the article. Any further elaboration seems more appropriate on other articles. Unless there are competing viewpoints that aren't represented? I very much like the clean look, but I suppose that notes could be added after some of the bigger lineages to clarify their contents, like after Deuterostomia putting "(includes the chordates)" or something?

There may be some slightly detailed stuff in #Phylogeny, but I think it makes sense for this to be a larger section. I can read through the section/article soon because I really haven't yet, just noticing random things in an unorganized manner! Rhinopias (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better in the infobox. Do please read Phylogeny and tell me what you think. I'll update the Proto/Deutero bit, it needs it, and I'll extend the cladogram slightly: ideally it would include the major phyla to make things a bit more recognisable, but it mustn't become too enormous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't been able to spend much time on wiki in the last few days. Your expansions and changes are great – cladogram extension was definitely necessary to show more phyla. My time should free up a little after today! Rhinopias (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we're almost there - the article reads well, covers the main points, doesn't startle me with glaring errors, does some kind of justice to a rich history, and is solidly cited. I believe it is also a great deal more approachable with simpler language, more diagrams and photographs, and more in the way of overview. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Animal traits

Section #Characteristics seems to focus on what separates animals from other organisms, but should #Structure elaborate a little on anatomy? (Discussing range of forms... probably just tie in diversity of phyla. Anatomy#Animal tissues may be a good small selection though.) And an overview section be added on physiology (besides repro/dev or that can be made a subsection)? Maybe using a few key points from Insect physiology, Fish physiology, and Human body. The physical structure of animals is just very different from the other kingdoms, and the article already focuses heavily on animals from a scientific perspective. Rhinopias (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thinking about the opening sentence of the section (Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things) I'm not sure it makes sense to include detail that is beyond defining characteristics. Maybe "Body form" could be a small subsection of #Diversity? Or we just add a sentence linking to other articles that elaborate! Rhinopias (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's very little we can properly say there, and the section should certainly be limited to defining characteristics. It's hard to see what can be said about body form that applies to sponges, starfish and arrow worms, other than going over the diversity and phylogeny again: indeed, bauplan is virtually a synonym for phylum (or superphylum). But by all means polish a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what you've added to #Bilaterian animals is great. I'm not sure how this would be expanded much more without being too much for this general of a subject. You're right, the whole of #Phylogeny should give readers an understanding of body forms – it's also visible well in the cladogram. I also hadn't read #Ecdysozoa yet which also touches on some. I had this thought very late last night... Rhinopias (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2018

AS IS POSTED: (second paragraph, forth sentence) "Most modern animal phyla became clearly established in the fossil record as marine species during the Cambrian explosion around 542 million years ago."

This statement is incorrect because the Cambrian was a period that extended from 542 million years ago to 488 million years ago - a period of 54 million years. The assertion that "most modern phyla became clearly established" is misleading. Today we recognize 33 distinct animal phyla. The Cambrian "Explosion" produced about 13 animal phyla. As stated the Cambrian was an interval of 54 million years. To say that animal phyla became established "during the Cambrian explosion around 542 million years ago." is misleading at best. There were none to almost no phyla at 542 million years ago (the base of the Cambrian). Phyla appeared at various times during the Cambrian with an especially rich appearance between 510 and 505 million years ago - an interval of 5 million years.

CHANGE TO: "A large number of modern animal phyla became clearly established in the fossil record as marine species during the "Cambrian Explosion" lasting from 542 million years ago to 488 million years ago - a period of 54 million years." OptoDave (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing

Apparently not everyone agree with my attempts to improve the phylogenetic tree. But please don't call it inaccurate, and don't visit my talk page to post numerous false accusations about edit warring and the rest of the list; "Could you please stop trying to push through your personal point-of-view, against a clear consensus, by edit-warring. This is unacceptable and disruptive."

The deuterostoms consist of two extant groups; Ambulacraria and Chordata. Click on the Chordata hyperlink, and you enter the Chordata article. Click on the Echinoderm hyperlink, and it takes you to the echinoderms article. Pupils and kids, and even some adults for that matter, may want to know what groups the chordates consist of, but unless they read the whole echinoderm article, they will miss the hemichordates. By replacing Echinodermata with Ambulacraria, it solves the problem. The effort was obviously not appreciated, possibly because it was desired that the hyperlink should reflect the image next to it for all I know.

Then I noticed the error regarding chordates. It says "Chordata and allies". Sorry, but that is wrong. Chordates don't have any allies in this context, because all chordates are actually chordates. If they have any deuterostome allies, it is the Ambulacraria, which is already located on their own branch on the tree. There is an image of a fish next to it, which is a vertebrate and sometimes all are familiar with, so to make it more accurate Chordata was replaced with Vertebrata, which also justified the "and allies" part, but the hyperlink would still take you to the previous Chordata which lists all the chordate groups. And since I was already editing, I decided to let the name Echinodermata stay, since it is something everyone is familiar with, but changed the hyperlink for the reasons mentioned above. This can be a problem if a specific group contains many subgroups, but that was not the case here.

So there you have it. I made an attempt to improve the article, and my edit was not reverted, but reweritten. An error was then noticed, I fixed it and made an attempt to make everybody happy. To separate attempts to edit, and I'm accused of edit warring, amongst other things. If you have decided this is how you want the article to look like, then so be it. But don't jump to conclusions, as there are better ways to have approach other editors. Silbad (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right about the Chordates label, which I've fixed. Echinodermata is a far more recognisable label than Ambulacraria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Animal" versus "human"

The word "animal" is used in several senses (see e.g. here). It's not "incorrect" to use one that means "non-human", just a different definition. WP:NPOV requires us to report usage, not attempt to 'correct' it.

@ATPhosphate: how WP:BRD works is that you are bold; I revert; then we discuss – you don't change it again. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Copy edit proposal

Under the ecology section, I think the spelling should be changed to categorized and that the sentences should be split into two ending before the list. Caitlin.oco (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Caitlin.oco

The article uses British spellings, including "metre" and "categorised". Dyanega (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Disputed origins, doubtful sourcing approach

The origins of the Animalia are rightly stated to be disputed, but the statement is now being supported by more and more primary research sources, not ideal: a seventh source has just joined the list. A well-known editor once said that a list of 6 refs was a sure sign of trouble. Maybe he was right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Pruning is called for. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Which animal is sister to the rest of animals is probably the most prestigious in all of animal research. Indeed strongly disputed.

I like this one best : Feuda, Roberto; Dohrmann, Martin; Pett, Walker; Philippe, Hervé; Rota-Stabelli, Omar; Lartillot, Nicolas; Wörheide, Gert; Pisani, Davide (December 2017). "Improved Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals". Current Biology. 27 (24): 3864–3870.e4. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.11.008.

As far as I recall it used the Whelan data set (Whelan had claimed Ctenophora sister), recoded it, and found Porifera-sister. But there are other articles popping up where sometimes some gene or mechanism indicates Ctenophora sister. Porifera-sister has been the traditional view, so it should be possible to find secondary sources claiming that, but that doesn't mean it's not disputed anymore. Jmv2009 (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, what we need then is a secondary source that says it's disputed, and summarizes the dispute, i.e. it does not just take one primary side or another (that's pretty much the essence of being secondary, actually, and it's what the encyclopedia always needs. We don't need primary sources that one editor "likes best". Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, I've located a recent review paper - Giribet 2016. Such papers will always be a little older than the latest primary sources, by definition - reviews need primary sources to compare. Wikipedia will always be a little older than such secondary review sources - it needs secondary sources to summarize, so it's a tertiary source. The encyclopedia is not a news feed, and is required to take a neutral point of view, so we are explicitly meant not to side with the latest opinion from the newest primary paper. Even citing primary papers is a little suspect; basically, we can use their literature review (secondary) but should avoid their primary research content. I've therefore replaced the seven refs with one citation to Giribet 2016. When a newer review appears in a year or two, of course we can use that. Hope this is clear and agreeable to everyone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A lot to agree with, but not all. There is indeed little value with going with the latest article when/as this strategy proves to gives random, unstable results. On the other hand, neutrality can not be maintained in the face of preponderance of literature pointing one way. I think most scientists feel the Diploblasts(granting Triploblasts)/Eumetazoa is the more likely scenario at this point. Eumetazoa is still strongly present in the literature/has not been stripped from the literature, despite the uncertainties. This is what the current paragraphs are suggesting. [1]. The question is probably more, at what point do favor one side? How often do you accept being "ultimately" wrong? 30-70? 51-49? 10-90%? Probably most proposed groupings have been proven ultimately factually wrong, but still provided value in describing the predominant view of the time. One can discuss about the types of secondary sources (newspaper, secondary articles accompanying the primary articles, review articles). Using only classification review papers in an inflexible classification system also can result in retardation of showing the predominant point of view, as having it wrong has created havoc later. E.g. homo "genus" emerging in Australopithecus "genus"... Land plants "divisions" emerging in Charophyta "divisions". I think when there is strong contention, there is also value to showing the strongest primary sources on both sides. In any case, is there a preponderance here?

@Jmv2009: you are still not taking Wikipedia policies seriously enough. We are not discussing how we would write an article if we were completely free to write it how we liked. We are discussing how best to write an article within the constraints of WP:RS, WP:PSTS, etc. There's no problem in using primary sources to supplement reliable secondary sources. There is a problem in using primary sources instead of secondary sources.

Yes, WP policies can result in retardation of showing the predominant point of view. But Wikipedia is not news; it does not aim to be the most up-to-date, but to summarize established knowledge. I find the constraints frustrating sometimes, but we must follow policies. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The key point, which seems still not to have been taken fully on board, is that we are working on an encyclopedia, not on a scientific paper, and we are governed by Wikipedia policy, not by research principles. There is some overlap (both editors and scientists are bound to write verifiable statements, for instance) but the whole direction is different. Scientists intend to innovate, it's their job. We intend not to. They are keenly interested in the latest research findings, even if those are wrong. We are suspicious of those findings and shouldn't use them until confirmed and discussed by later scientists.

Talk of being ultimately right is wholly misguided: we never know that (and nor, actually, do scientists, though of course being wrong is easy enough). Wikipedia policy on verifiability is quite clear on this: we write not "truth" (whatever that is, see Hume, Berkeley, Kant, etc) but what can be verified. Please go and spend some time thinking about this: you will see that verifiability is exactly the right criterion for an encyclopedia, objective truth being unavailable to mere mortals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

"Animals range in length from 8.5 millionths of a metre to 33.6 metres (110 ft)" is wrong

Actually the longest animal in modern history on record is the The bootlace worm (Lineus longissimus) http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-animal/