Content deleted Content added
BarrelProof (talk | contribs) →Python reticulatus length: Moving my last comment, since what looks like a reply to me is not. |
|||
Line 482:
:Also, snakes seem to go for island dwarfism in all the cases I know, including retics. You can go online and buy "dwarf retics" and "super-dwarf retics" with positively tiny adult sizes (6 feet in males), naturally occurring, collected from small islands. Same thing for boa constrictors. [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 00:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
:{{edit conflict}} (I haven't yet read the above replies.) My understanding is that no one really knows the maximum length with certainty, so no particular estimate or measurement should be stated as an unquestioned fact. Snakes are hard to measure, and measurements are prone to exaggeration, and skins stretch, and most specimens have only been measured once – often in the field, with only one specialist present (or none), and perhaps only by "eyeball" rather than tape measure. Ideally, on such matters, there would be a big snake that is living somewhere that could be measured independently by a dozen different teams of herpetologists and the entire measuring process could be videotaped for posterity and posted on the web. But that basically does not happen. The article should simply acknowledge that a diversity of different estimates and alleged measurements exist, and should report some of them. There was edit warring today about a measurement from more than 100 years ago that was reported in a sensationalistic "book of world records". 100 years is a long time in science. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 00:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Line 506 ⟶ 507:
:::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)
:::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 have read your source. but I'm not telling the first word of the 3rd page, because you are trying your hardest to humiliate me, and it's not gonna work. I've dealt with a lot of people like you. Your source is still there I just removed it from the lead, which makes sense cause the size should be in the description not the lead. I've also found out that snake experts at the [[University of Michigan]] accepts the 32 foot 9 1/2 inch record (http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Python_reticulatus/). It's funny you have this big PH.D, but you still don't know how to compromise. You keep stating the same silliness over and over again without making any changes to the article, and at the same time trying to belittle me for not agreeing with your source or wanting a better source.--[[User:Fruitloop11|Fruitloop11]] ([[User talk:Fruitloop11|talk]]) 23:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Line 516 ⟶ 515:
::::::"Disclaimer: The Animal Diversity Web is an educational resource written largely by and for college students. ADW doesn't cover all species in the world, nor does it include all the latest scientific information about organisms we describe. Though we edit our accounts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee all information in those accounts. While ADW staff and contributors provide references to books and websites that we believe are reputable, we cannot necessarily endorse the contents of references beyond our control."
:::::Look, I'll make this simple: You claim to have read Murphy's book, including the section discussing this specific record. In light of that, what justification do you have for the 32 foot record? What makes you think Murphy & Henderson's conclusion is wrong? Do you have a specimen you can point to? Some significant documentation? Something other than "A lot of people say it, so it must be true"? I've explained that, due to the prevalence of "big fish" stories about these snakes, we can't just accept every claimed report (otherwise the maximum size would be 150 feet long), so what actual evidence makes you think the 32 foot report is real? [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 16:10, 2 September 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)
| |||