Jump to content

Talk:Daboia palaestinae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arabic Page

[edit]

The link to the Arabic page of this article keeps disappearing ... hmmm I wonder why ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkewan (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical range

[edit]

I noticed this dispute over the terminology of the geographical range of this creature. Looking at the cited source, it does clearly say "Western Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and northwest Jordan".[1] It's unclear whether the author is using "Palestine" in the political sense or as a geographical designator, or perhaps even in the neutral sense of "Israel/Palestine". However, I think changing the term to "Palestinian territories" is a bad idea for two reasons: it falsifies the cited source, and it risks being inaccurate if the author is referring to geographical Palestine, which is not the same territory as political Palestine. It's safer all round to stick to what the source says. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. The source goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Therefore, since we are intelligent beings, we are capable of realizing the mistake and fixing it, rather than being robots and copying/pasting text including errors. The source lists Israel AND Palestine. If the author meant to reference the geographical region of Palestine, it would make no sense to include Israel in the list. This is superfluous. Clearly, the author incorrectly used the term "Palestine" interchangeably with "Palestinian territories". The error should not carry through to our article here. And it does not risk being inaccurate. Geographical Palestine is the same territory as political Israel and the Palestinian territories. You are unfortunately mistaken. Breein1007 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the approach which you're suggesting is that you are substituting one description - "Palestinian territories" - for the terminology which, as you're not disputing, is used by the author. This is a big no-no; it misrepresents what the cited source says. I suggest that we adjourn this discussion to one of the noticeboards to get some outside views on what to do about this. I've posted a message to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Vipera palaestinae. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there has already been some discussion on the use of the term "Palestine" in relation to the geographic area. If someone knows where it resides, could they point to it? Personally, I see no issue in using the term "Palestine" to refer to a geographic location. Furthermore I see no issue using "Israel, Palestine (in the geographic sense)" in the same sentence. If I say "This lemur is indigenous to all of Canada and the Rocky Mountains", the sentence doesn't imply the Rocky Mountains are a country. If the reader is not informed enough to know the political situation, they will likely be unable to use the reference to locate the area anyway.
Bree is clearly attempting making an attempt to eradicate all mention of the term "Palestine" to make a political statement. The attempt is not just wrong and lacking in NPOV, but also counter productive to his cause. I'd suggest he stop. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore users who have proven incapable of collaborating civilly without personal attacks. To anyone interested in maintaining an accurate and policy compliant encyclopedia, I encourage you to look at this source, already in the article. [2] It lists "Palestinian Territory" as the geographic location. I am not going to breach WP:3RR by correcting the mistake. Breein1007 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Bree. You're so noble (in-line sarcasm-tag). One of these days you'll understand that disagreement isn't incivility. If anything, running around willy nilly crying "incivility" is in itself, incivil. NickCT (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever seen such a blatant rejection of Wikipedia core policies as the statement above "The source goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Therefore, since we are intelligent beings, we are capable of realizing the mistake and fixing it". We should not be attempting to second guess what a writer may have meant, or ought to have written. That is not our role. We simply cite what a reliable source says. If you think that a writer has made such an egregious error that the source cannot be considered reliable, then this should be raised at WP:RSN; otherwise, you must accept that the writer wrote what s/he intended to write, and that this is what we cite. RolandR (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestine"

[edit]

I will repeat for what feels like the hundredth time: it does not make sense to say that this snake is found in both Israel and "Palestine". If the author of that source said "Palestine" as in the geographic region, then it includes Israel and is superfluous. It is not encyclopedic of us to blindly follow his error and have misleading, erroneous wording in our article. If the author meant Palestinian territories when he said "Palestine", then we should choose the terminology that is not confusing and ambiguous, and say "Palestinian territories". Another source in this article lists the region as "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", and I even went so far as to include the unnecessary qualifier of Occupied in this article, quoted, and sourced. Now user Nomosked has come back and attempted to refuel the edit war, going back to the erroneous terminology contrary to the recommendation of most people at the OR noticeboard. Several people there commented that if there is another source that uses better terminology, we should use it. Breein1007 (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darling, I understand it is hard for some Israelis to accept the notion that there is a place called Palestine, but your personal difficulties do not amount to an "error" on the part of others. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree w/ Nomoskedasticity. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no editor has yet made any logical or policy based argument supporting the desire to keep "Palestine" there, it is inappropriate that people are continuing to edit war it in. The consensus at the OR/N discussion was to use the other source since the terminology was not ambiguous (while "Palestine" is, as explained above), and to quote it to show that it is taken word for work from the source. Failing to WP:AGF and sarcastically accusing me of being "some Israeli" with certain political beliefs is not related to the wording in this article. Breein1007 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thius is so simple, I can't believe there is any dispute. We quote the source, it's not our job to say the source is wrong. That would unambiguously be original research. If another reliable source contradicts the first source, by all means quote it; but we rely on what the sources say, not our own interpretation of them. RolandR (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what we have done. Quoted the other reliable source. Thanks for the support. Breein1007 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed simple. When a source says the snake is a major cause of snakebite in "Israel and Palestine", it's pretty obvious that a wikilink to Palestine is incorrect. When we have another source that says "Palestinian Territories, Occupied" is becomes even more obvious what the region we're talking about is. I believe we are allowed to use some common sense and that the goal here is to provide the reader with as accurate information as possible. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit by User:No More Mr Nice Guy

[edit]

Hey No More Mr Nice Guy Next time before you edit, please take some time to read the talk page, especially if an edit summary states that a change is being made due to a discussion on the talk page. If you look above, you'll note that there are several editors who feel the edit I reverted was not appropriate. Please read WP:BRD and discuss before putting it back in. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the discussion at the RS noticeboard, there is no consensus to change Palestine. The O'Shea, Mark source uses Palestine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I do hope people will pay heed to WP:BRD and discuss this issue rather than simply edit warring. NickCT (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the other source says Palestinian Territory. Several editors at the noticeboard suggested using the other source to avoid the ambiguity. Stop the edit war, thanks. Breein1007 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus there for the change. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. Breein, can you point to the statements that you think support your position? NickCT (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I have read the discussion. I have also read the sources. It is obvious that O'Seah is not using "Palestine" in a way that overlaps Israel so wikilinking to Palestine is just plain wrong. Since some people object to using Palestinian Territories which is the most accurate and will give the user the most useful information, we're stuck with "Palestinian Territories, Occupied". This article is now an excellent example of what's wrong with wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Guy, While I can certainly respect your interpretation of the way O'Seah was using "Palestine", you've got to accept that the interpretation is subject to consensus, which is currently to take the wording literally. NickCT (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I don't see that consensus you're talking about. Second, Perhaps you'd like to share your interpretation of what the source is talking about? Particularly when he says the snake is a major cause of snakebite in "Israel and Palestine"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's done to emphasize the fact that there are a specifically high number of cases of snakebite in Israel, so by saying "Israel and Palestine" he is in fact putting double emphasis on Israel while only mentioning the Palestinian territories, which must not have as many cases of snakebite, once. (in-line sarcasm-tag). This is ridiculous, and like you said NMMNG, the fact that it came down to putting, in quotes, "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", reflects really badly on the idiotic state of I-A on Wikipedia. Even worse? People on the "other side", as Supreme Deliciousness likes to put it, still aren't happy with wording that unnecessarily emphasizes the "occupied" in a completely non-political article. Wrong indeed. Breein1007 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stupid dispute -- but I'll point out the ridiculousness of believing that the "Palestine viper" is not found in Palestine, particularly when a perfectly reliable source asserts that that is exactly where it is found. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should click on this Palestine and discover what you are actually saying. You keep linking Palestine and yet your comments make it appear as if you actually don't understand the issue, even though it has been spelled out to you by multiple people multiple times. Upon reading Palestine, it should be very obvious that Palestine is a geographical area that includes Israel. Yes, that's right, Israel. Now, when our article says that the snake exists in Israel and Palestine, we appear to be pretty stupid, or at least, careless editors. Because it doesn't make sense to say that the snake exists in both Israel and Palestine. That would be like saying that the snake exists in Israel, the Palestinian territories, and Israel. Seems stupid, right? Therefore, we should go with the second reliable source that says Palestinian Territory instead of Palestine in order to avoid being superfluous in listing both Israel and Palestine. I hope that clears up the whole confusion over Palestine for you. Hopefully we won't have to keep edit warring about Palestine anymore. Breein1007 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the argument people are making here. Perhaps you think it's ridiculous because you don't understand the argument. Linking to Palestine is like saying the European Adder can be found in France, Italy and Western Europe. Mixing countries and loosely defined regions doesn't really work, does it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it perfectly well. The problem is that depends entirely on the idea that everyone agrees there is no country/nation/state called Palestine. Plainly not everyone agrees with that idea.
What it shows is just how out of touch with common sense some people here are. Once again: the article is about the "Palestine viper". To avoid saying that it is found in Palestine, some are willing to engage in prodigious original research to assert that a reliable source is wrong. Ridiculous... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more point: if the concern here were really about the notion that "Palestine" and "Israel" are superfluous, one could resolve that dreadful difficulty by simply using "Palestine" and omitting "Israel". The fact that some are dead-set on jettisoning "Palestine" (in favor of some god-awful formulation) makes it clear what is really going on here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're projecting. You're so intent on having the word "Palestine" in the article, that you don't care that it makes the lead ambiguous and unclear. The article Palestine is not about a country called Palestine. It's about a region which had different, and often unclear, boundaries at different times during the past 2000 years. Did you even follow the wikilink you keep putting in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Deleting Israel and leaving just Palestine would solve the problem. I'm glad you have finally understood why the current wording is an issue. We are making progress. Unfortunately, as you yourself have said, it would be WP:OR to assume the author of the source meant "Palestine" in the sense of Palestine, and therefore to delete Israel ourselves. The source includes Israel and Palestinian Territory, Occupied. Therefore, we must show both. Breein1007 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it WP:OR to assume the author of the source meant "Palestine" in the sense of Palestine and not in the sense of Palestinian territories? Perhaps a viable compromise would be to simply exclude "Israel" and say only "Palestine" or, if you insist, "the region of Palestine". NickCT (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the author says it's a major cause of snakebite in "Israel and Palestine"? That would make little sense if he meant Palestine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@NMMNG - That doesn't seem so obvious to me. I mean, I can say "Canada and North America", or "the UK and Northern Europe". It strikes me that both of those are the same as saying "Israel and Palestine" and yet they don't cause the confusion.
I think you and Breein1007 are simply using this as a soapbox to have it explicity stated that Palestine is not a country. I don't really see a need or a good reason.
That said, I still wouldn't be against saying something like "the region of Palestine" as a compromise position.
Anyways, is this thing really worth all the debate? Why are all the topics surrounding I/P issues so venemous? (pun intended) NickCT (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can say "Canada and North America"? Really?
I have said nothing about whether Palestine is a country or not and you really should stop trying to read my mind. You're not very good at it. I said the article Palestine which is linked to in this article is not an article about a country called Palestine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I said the article Palestine which is linked to in this article is not an article about a country called Palestine." - I understand this point. What I don't understand is why you don't think the author actually meant Palestine. Of course you can say "Canada and North America". I can say "1,000 moose are hit by cars and in Canada and North America every month". Depending on the context, it could be entirely appropriate. It's not a contradiction. NickCT (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can say a lot of things, but when you say "1,000 moose are hit by cars and in Canada and North America every month" it sounds pretty silly. You'd more likely say "1000 moose are hit by cars in North America" or "1000 moose are hit by cars in Canada and the US". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google search "Canada and North America" = 9,260,000 hits. Enough said? NickCT (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Still sounds pretty silly to me though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re "I stand corrected" - Thank you No More Mr Nice Guy for conceding a point. If only more of us who get tangled in these I/P issues could admit error more often, we could move the debate from aimless diatribe to useful conversation.
I'd agree that it does "sound silly" to some extent. It's sorta self-redundant. I'd still be for some kind of compromise, where we'd use wording like "geographic Palestine" to clarify. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Palestine you say -- d'you suppose that's where the "Palestine viper" is found? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no consensus at the talkpage to change Palestine with "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", please don't change it to the no consensus term. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAME

[edit]

Congratulations guys, you've made it onto Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars! (here.) Hopefully the content of the talk page above won't be archived, as it's a shining example of Wikipedia at its most ridiculous. Robofish (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely deserved. NickCT (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat (Not Edit-War Related!)

[edit]

Could someone who knows more about this snake than I do add some info (preferably a new section) the preferred habitat of this snake? The geographic range really doesn't cover it, and habitat preference is definitely one of the most important properties of any type of wildlife. Mia229 (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 August 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn – after commentary that appears to indicate that the name that is actually the most common for this topic in English-language reliable sources may be "Vipera palaestinae". (non-admin closure) —BarrelProof (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Vipera palaestinae → Palestine viper – Per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA. Anything with "Palestine" in its name is probably somewhat controversial (and this article has already been enshrined in WP:Lamest edit wars), but it seems clear that this snake has a well-established and unambiguous common name in English, which is "Palestine viper". The Latin name (which is the current article title) is simply an obviously Latinized form of that name. The IUCN Red List lists that as its common name. So does the only book that is cited in the article that has an online link. So does The Completely Illustrated Atlas of Reptiles and Amphibians for the Terrarium, by Obst, J., K. Richter, and U. Jacob (1988), which I happen to have handy. The Youtube video in the External links section of the article also uses that common name as the primary title on its opening screen shot and in its sound track. A web search readily confirms this as well. There is a different snake that is sometimes called the "Palestine saw-scaled viper", but this seems to be the only one that is called the "Palestine viper", and that seems to be its only (or at least its clearly dominant) common name in English. The target name already redirects here, and always has since it was created nine years ago. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "Palestine viper" is an Anglicized form of the scientific name. "Vipera palaestinae" is not a Latinized form of an English common name. This snake doesn't occur in any English speaking countries. "Palestine viper" is a vernacular name invented by herpetologists, not a name commonly used by any English speaking people. "Palestine viper" gets 49 hits on Google Books and 1,940 in Google. "Vipera palaestinae" gets 390 hits on Google Books and 11,000 on Google. WP:COMMONNAME is about the name which is commonly used in reliable sources (e.g. books), not a mandate to use a rarely mentioned invented vernacular name over a more widely used scientific name. Plantdrew (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The page was moved against the decision here without further discussion. This is simply wrong. As Plantdrew pointed out (and it's still true), the scientific name is the most common. Unless a good reason for disregarding the previous consensus is forthcoming, it should be moved back. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it doesn't appear this was warranted. Suggest moving back. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move it back....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Identification as the Biblical Tsefa/Zefa

[edit]

I added this paragraph:

Some modern scholar and commentators have identified the צפע (pronounced Tsefa/Zefa) snake in the Hebrew Bible as this snake species. The name given to this snake in modern Hebrew is צפע מצוי (common Tsefa).

It should be noted that in one of the sources there is a typo, and it says Zerfa instead of Zefa. This error is obvious to any Hebrew speaker. Correcting it is not OR. see Wikipedia:These are not original research#Typos and proofing errors. Vegan416 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daboia_palaestinae&oldid=1262080107"