This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Adventure of the Speckled Band article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from The Adventure of the Speckled Band appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 February 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
It might be worth noting that a snake couldn't hear a whistle.
i think this book is lame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.145.128 ( talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheetahs were present in India until they became extinct in 1950's tamalhazra 10:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The whistle wasn't used to signal the snake to attack, it was used to signal the snake to return. The sound that Watson heard was a hiss. I'm changing the article accordingly. 24.199.113.126 23:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The snake/deaf thing has been removed 3 times, eventhough the whole debacle was cited in the link. Just so this thing won't be removed again, here's the quote hosted on San Diego Natural History museum: "But these discrepancies in the choice of some specific snake are immaterial compared with the basic fact that the culprit could not, by any possibility, have been a snake at all. Consider these obvious absurdities: The creature lives on milk, not the natural food of any snake, and one that it will accept only rarely as a substitute for water, if the latter be unobtainable. [b]It is recalled to the doctor's room by a whistle: how could this be when it is well known that snakes are quite deaf? It is true that they are extraordinarily sensitive to vibrations of the substratum upon which they rest, so they often appear to hear sounds of sufficient magnitude to affect such a vibrator as a box in which they may be kept; but this could not be the case with a snake clinging tenuously to a flimsy bell-rope[\b]. Finally, while admitting that a snake might slide down a bell-rope, it could certainly not climb up one, particularly with the lower end swinging loose above the fatal bed. For snakes do not climb -- as many think -- by twining themselves around an object; they climb by wedging their bodies into any crannies and interstices, taking advantage of every irregularity or protrusion upon which a loop of body may be hooked. It is by this method that they progress rapidly up the rough bark of branching trees or the tangled skein of a vine. And, to add to the difficulty of the Roylott snake, it is required to climb on a cold night, for one tragedy took place when the "wind was howling outside, and the rain was beating and splashing against the windows" and the other when there was "a chill wind blowing in our faces." Central heating, of course, was unheard of then; and we know that no grate fire[10] was burning in either room at the time of the final fatality because Holmes insisted "We must sit without a light. He [Roylott] would see it through the ventilator"; and after midnight, when the doctor's stealthy activities began, there was a "momentary gleam of light up in the direction of the ventilator." So we have a creature performing the -- for it -- impossible feat of climbing a loose bell-rope at a temperature at which an ectothermic animal, such as a snake, would be practically comatose. There are eleven other reasons, evident to any beginner in ophiology, why the theory of a snake having caused either death is untenable, but I shall not labor the subject. A small work of my own upon the principles involved can be seen at the British Museum." [ [1]] Suredeath 22:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
But this article is not about "ophiology" is it? You should stick to your museum work and natural sciences. This is about literature.
Snakes aren't deaf. They have ears, just not external ones. If you're going to discuss the merits and flaws of a story on the basis of science, get your science straight.
http://pet-snakes.com/how-snakes-hear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.143.194 ( talk) 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I hate that article. It puts all the blame on poor, innocent John Watson and completely ignores Sherlock Holmes's part in the inaccuracies. Holmes was the one who perpetuated the bizarre story of the Indian swamp adder and it was he who should have checked Dr. Watson's report for any misunderstandings or inaccuracies. The article so conveniently neglects to mention his part and instead foists a crazy, insulting theory upon the reader. While it is academically sound, I find that its total lack of objectivity with regards to the results of Watson's and Holmes's mistakes is downright shameful.
Ummmmmm, you do realise that both Holmes and Watson are fictional characters, don't you?
Notwithstanding that the Klauber article is published in what looks like a reputable source, I think it's clearly a joke (and the lowest form, in that it's a pun). I wonder if Wikipedia should be citing it as factual. The comments on this page that appear to be playing along with the joke, aren't helping. 129.97.79.144 18:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don`t agree, that's why I deleted it. The discussion about the very emotional reception of the characters Holmes and Watson, and the confusion of fact and fiction should be the topic of another article, don`t you think? Although I admit it is an important part of the reader`s reception but this rather belongs to "reception of the story" or sth. like that. This does not have anything to do with sound interpretation.
ps. no, the scientific accuracy of the story is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.186.26 ( talk) 10:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
but then, at least, shouldn`t it be under a new header like "reception of the story"? I think the way it is now, one might think this is actually an important fact to the story itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.148.50 ( talk) 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Should the whole article on the Swamp Adder be included on this page? I think thats kind of off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.88.240 ( talk) 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn`t this snake be a good guess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.11.146 ( talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not really understand the discussion about the snake, the question is whether the story as piece of literature has anything to do with the fact that a certain snake could have existed in reality? I think this fact is not important for the interpretation of the story as a piece of literature... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.186.26 ( talk) 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the discussion of the snake relates to a common misunderstanding of literature as a scientific report whereas in literature such positivist confirmation (as: is it this or that snake for real?) are only of minor importance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.186.26 ( talk) 09:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Since all my proposals to changes are "rejected", I give up, because this is childish to me. This is not even a semi-scientific discussion, it seems to me people just want to push their ego here... Just another reason why not to use wikipedia.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.148.50 ( talk) 07:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
After Helen leaves, Dr. Roylott comes to visit Holmes, having traced his stepdaughter. He demands to know what Helen has said to Holmes, but Holmes refuses to say. Dr. Roylott bends an iron poker into a curve in an attempt to intimidate Holmes, but Holmes is unaffected as he maintains a rather jovial demeanor during the encounter. After Roylott leaves, Holmes straightens the poker out again, "thus showing that he is just as strong as the doctor." The part in quotes is wrong, last time I checked it is harder to unbend an object than to bend it. So it should be mentioned that Holmes is stronger than the Doctor. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.76.75 ( talk) 23:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Adventure of the Speckled Band/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
this does not tell you about any of the characters like dr. roylott and helen stoner it only says the story and when it was published. |
Last edited at 16:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Adventure of the Speckled Band article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from The Adventure of the Speckled Band appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 February 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
It might be worth noting that a snake couldn't hear a whistle.
i think this book is lame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.145.128 ( talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheetahs were present in India until they became extinct in 1950's tamalhazra 10:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The whistle wasn't used to signal the snake to attack, it was used to signal the snake to return. The sound that Watson heard was a hiss. I'm changing the article accordingly. 24.199.113.126 23:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The snake/deaf thing has been removed 3 times, eventhough the whole debacle was cited in the link. Just so this thing won't be removed again, here's the quote hosted on San Diego Natural History museum: "But these discrepancies in the choice of some specific snake are immaterial compared with the basic fact that the culprit could not, by any possibility, have been a snake at all. Consider these obvious absurdities: The creature lives on milk, not the natural food of any snake, and one that it will accept only rarely as a substitute for water, if the latter be unobtainable. [b]It is recalled to the doctor's room by a whistle: how could this be when it is well known that snakes are quite deaf? It is true that they are extraordinarily sensitive to vibrations of the substratum upon which they rest, so they often appear to hear sounds of sufficient magnitude to affect such a vibrator as a box in which they may be kept; but this could not be the case with a snake clinging tenuously to a flimsy bell-rope[\b]. Finally, while admitting that a snake might slide down a bell-rope, it could certainly not climb up one, particularly with the lower end swinging loose above the fatal bed. For snakes do not climb -- as many think -- by twining themselves around an object; they climb by wedging their bodies into any crannies and interstices, taking advantage of every irregularity or protrusion upon which a loop of body may be hooked. It is by this method that they progress rapidly up the rough bark of branching trees or the tangled skein of a vine. And, to add to the difficulty of the Roylott snake, it is required to climb on a cold night, for one tragedy took place when the "wind was howling outside, and the rain was beating and splashing against the windows" and the other when there was "a chill wind blowing in our faces." Central heating, of course, was unheard of then; and we know that no grate fire[10] was burning in either room at the time of the final fatality because Holmes insisted "We must sit without a light. He [Roylott] would see it through the ventilator"; and after midnight, when the doctor's stealthy activities began, there was a "momentary gleam of light up in the direction of the ventilator." So we have a creature performing the -- for it -- impossible feat of climbing a loose bell-rope at a temperature at which an ectothermic animal, such as a snake, would be practically comatose. There are eleven other reasons, evident to any beginner in ophiology, why the theory of a snake having caused either death is untenable, but I shall not labor the subject. A small work of my own upon the principles involved can be seen at the British Museum." [ [1]] Suredeath 22:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
But this article is not about "ophiology" is it? You should stick to your museum work and natural sciences. This is about literature.
Snakes aren't deaf. They have ears, just not external ones. If you're going to discuss the merits and flaws of a story on the basis of science, get your science straight.
http://pet-snakes.com/how-snakes-hear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.143.194 ( talk) 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I hate that article. It puts all the blame on poor, innocent John Watson and completely ignores Sherlock Holmes's part in the inaccuracies. Holmes was the one who perpetuated the bizarre story of the Indian swamp adder and it was he who should have checked Dr. Watson's report for any misunderstandings or inaccuracies. The article so conveniently neglects to mention his part and instead foists a crazy, insulting theory upon the reader. While it is academically sound, I find that its total lack of objectivity with regards to the results of Watson's and Holmes's mistakes is downright shameful.
Ummmmmm, you do realise that both Holmes and Watson are fictional characters, don't you?
Notwithstanding that the Klauber article is published in what looks like a reputable source, I think it's clearly a joke (and the lowest form, in that it's a pun). I wonder if Wikipedia should be citing it as factual. The comments on this page that appear to be playing along with the joke, aren't helping. 129.97.79.144 18:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don`t agree, that's why I deleted it. The discussion about the very emotional reception of the characters Holmes and Watson, and the confusion of fact and fiction should be the topic of another article, don`t you think? Although I admit it is an important part of the reader`s reception but this rather belongs to "reception of the story" or sth. like that. This does not have anything to do with sound interpretation.
ps. no, the scientific accuracy of the story is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.186.26 ( talk) 10:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
but then, at least, shouldn`t it be under a new header like "reception of the story"? I think the way it is now, one might think this is actually an important fact to the story itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.148.50 ( talk) 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Should the whole article on the Swamp Adder be included on this page? I think thats kind of off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.88.240 ( talk) 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn`t this snake be a good guess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.11.146 ( talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not really understand the discussion about the snake, the question is whether the story as piece of literature has anything to do with the fact that a certain snake could have existed in reality? I think this fact is not important for the interpretation of the story as a piece of literature... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.186.26 ( talk) 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the discussion of the snake relates to a common misunderstanding of literature as a scientific report whereas in literature such positivist confirmation (as: is it this or that snake for real?) are only of minor importance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.186.26 ( talk) 09:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Since all my proposals to changes are "rejected", I give up, because this is childish to me. This is not even a semi-scientific discussion, it seems to me people just want to push their ego here... Just another reason why not to use wikipedia.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.148.50 ( talk) 07:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
After Helen leaves, Dr. Roylott comes to visit Holmes, having traced his stepdaughter. He demands to know what Helen has said to Holmes, but Holmes refuses to say. Dr. Roylott bends an iron poker into a curve in an attempt to intimidate Holmes, but Holmes is unaffected as he maintains a rather jovial demeanor during the encounter. After Roylott leaves, Holmes straightens the poker out again, "thus showing that he is just as strong as the doctor." The part in quotes is wrong, last time I checked it is harder to unbend an object than to bend it. So it should be mentioned that Holmes is stronger than the Doctor. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.76.75 ( talk) 23:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Adventure of the Speckled Band/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
this does not tell you about any of the characters like dr. roylott and helen stoner it only says the story and when it was published. |
Last edited at 16:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)