Content deleted Content added
BarrelProof (talk | contribs) →Python reticulatus length: Indentation |
|||
Line 497:
:::Great, Now you are making personal attacks against me? I make sure to bring this up If you try to make an emotion block request against me. Also can you care to explain why Guinness has accepted the 32 foot long snake when 49 snakes have been brought up--[[Special:Contributions/76.107.252.227|76.107.252.227]] ([[User talk:76.107.252.227|talk]]) 22:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Since Guinness is not a scientific journal and don't publish there methods, I have no idea. That's what makes them unreliable and unsuitable for a topic like this. They have unknown, unverified, undocumented methodology which is as much tabloid as source. [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
It may also be worth keeping in mind that the maximum length is really not such useful information. If someone looks for the maximum height and maximum weight for ''[[homo sapiens]]'', they would find a few extremely large outliers, but those outliers are unhealthy people who aren't really proper representatives of their species. [[List of the heaviest people|Very heavy]] and [[List of tallest people|very tall]] people have serious health problems and generally achieve that status ''because'' some part of their metabolic system is not functioning properly. A more reasonable and interesting question, from the perspective of encyclopedic knowledge, is what is an estimated length for the 90th or 95th or 99th percentile (if it is possible to obtain an answer to that question) – not just what is the most freakishly huge single individual that has ever been encountered. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Line 505 ⟶ 507:
:::Also you are going against [[WP:ONUS]] which states, "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article". The amount of policies you have broken on Wikipedia is Astounding--[[User:Fruitloop11|Fruitloop11]] ([[User talk:Fruitloop11|talk]]) 23:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
::My previous comments notwithstanding, I agree that a discussion of typical and maximum length/size is of keen interest to readers and should be included in the article. I just think we need to strive to provide the most realistic and useful information that we can, add all appropriate caveats, and be careful to avoid tabloid-level reliance on dubious unverifiable reports that stretch the bounds of credulity. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 06:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
:::I find it highly ironic that you call me out for refusing to accept Guinness, yet I will bet a $20 donation to WP foundation that, as of the timestamp of this posting, you have read *neither* of the sources provided on this page and indicated by me which refute this record. Tell me the first word of on the 3rd page of the relevant chapter of the Murphy book to prove you have it or have access via a library, and I'll fire off $20 to WP. And you do not get to unilaterally declare this discussion over. [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
| |||