To suggest that paralysed people are not alive because they can neither move nor react to conditions is clearly a nonsense. I've taken it out. Similar goes for mules, but I'm going to have a think about it before I make more edits. —This unsigned comment was added by X2qat se (talk • contribs) .

My mistake, didn't read the preceeding line - reverted back. But still not clear I think. —This unsigned comment was added by X2qat se (talk • contribs) .

It must be more clear and to the point.

The opening sentence of the page uses several terms that those with limited knowledge of English are unlikely to be familiar with. Is there a way to explain the idea presented in that sentence in a simple manner? - Sir Beluga (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed this comment on another talk page and copied it here:

The simple:Life article begins with a list of qualities that living things possess, then immediately starts listing exceptions to the criteria provided, to narrow the definition. Using strawman arguments to construct a definition is not conceptually simple, even if the language of the text is restricted to simple english words. An adult trying to learn a second language might be comfortable with this kind of logical grammar, but I doubt it is appropriate for a user with learning disabilities. I would think that the mere fact that the simple english wikipedia is not sufficiently focused in its purpose will lead to articles being written with different intention. 66.69.246.143 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)