![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)