Talk:Kingfisher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Kingfisher is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:

Bright blue kingfisher feathers were used in jewelry in early China since the T'ang Dynasty (AD 618-907). The birds, the water kingfisher (Alcedinidae) and the wood kingfisher (Halcyonidae), were common in China until demand for their feathers may have caused their extinction.


 Sorry, forgot to sign in before the edit adding the Mythology
 section title. I needed this information, so if anyone has expertise,
 please add some info in! Or, replace it with an appropriate 'info
 wanted' Wiki bit... Jekteir 11:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingfisher Eyes

Your article on kingfisher mentions that a kingfisher's eye lens has evolved into an egg-shape. Here is the excerpt:

"They are able to see well both in air and under water. To do this, their eyes have evolved an egg-shaped lens able to focus in the two different environments."

This seems to counter Wikipedia's NPOV least in regards to evolution vs. creation. I think the above statement would need to be verified in order to stay in Wikipedia. Or, perhaps take the evolution assumption out entirely and edit the statement to read:

"They are able to see well both in air and under water. To do this, their eyes have an egg-shaped lens able to focus in the two different environments.

This would express a more neutral point of view. Is there any agreement? 224329 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No. This is a global scientific article which is entitled to quote established scientific theory. There is no way that American quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo has any place in any biological article, let alone to have equal status. Jimfbleak 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Taken to its logical conclusion everyone of the thousands of taxoboxes for animal and plant species would go, since they assume that species are related, whereas the creationists have them created distinctly. Jimfbleak 06:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)