Content deleted Content added
ClemRutter (talk | contribs) →Python reticulatus length: this story will be around for some time |
→The Thai toilet attack: new section |
||
Line 537:
::::I think that since Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTNEWS]], we don't need to put something in the article just because some new vague, brief, and unreliable report showed up in recent news. The article already says that numerous unproven and unreliable reports of especially large specimens have been made. Also, a [http://www.canada.com/news/world/98snakes+drop+dead+malaysia+says+captured+eight+foot+python/11846684/story.html more recent report] has appeared in which it was reported that when the unfortunate snake's dead body was measured, it was only 7.5 metres long, whereas "Medusa" was reported as being 7.67 m long in 2011 (specifically, {{convert|17|cm|in|abbr=off}} longer), and thus there is no longer a claim that the Malaysian snake was the world's longest. Further straining the credibility of the government spokesperson, we also now have this tidbit: {{"'}}Maybe she committed suicide', Mustapha said. 'Maybe she felt threatened so she killed herself.{{'"}} Snakes, of course, do not commit suicide (as is pointed out in that report). So although it now seems clear that the idea of this snake being a record-holder in length has been withdrawn, I still have my doubts that even the more recently reported shorter length is accurate. [http://www.worldtechtoday.com/2016/04/14/29516/selfie-craze-may-have-claimed-another-life-giant-python-dies-shortly-after-capture.html Another new report] says "It will be impossible to investigate the death of the giant python since the body was incinerated." This gives me further reason to doubt everything reported about that snake. No real expert apparently had access to it, and the people in possession of it apparently decided to destroy the evidence. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 16:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I disagree about not mentioning the claim, because in the target 'general readers' mind- there is in now a long snake, and there is an enquiry . Readers may wish at a future date to discover/refer to a this dubious claim- so the wording has to be better than I could achieve. Maybe we should be more specific in explaining why we are dismissing it. You alerted me to your scepticism- and my instincts had already been triggered by the a snake being exactly 8.00 metres long, and the incineration of the remains really does clinch it. As the world tech reference says ''"the Penang government has requested that the Wildlife and National Parks Department produce a report on the matter"'', it seems this story will be around for some time. My thoughts are with the poor python. --[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 19:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
== The Thai toilet attack ==
I wasn't so surprised that my mentioning the recent well-publicized biting of a chap's privates by a retic from his toilet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reticulated_python&type=revision&diff=722409505&oldid=722097431 oldid=722409505] was reverted; the comment being that the incident was "not really sufficiently important". Clearly [[WP:NOTEVERYTHING]] and probably [[WP:DUE]] are relevant here. But as well as giving the snake a little infamy, does it not reveal something of the snakes behaviour? And perhaps the anecdote adds a little [[frisson]] to the article? [[User:Batternut|Batternut]] ([[User talk:Batternut|talk]]) 22:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
| |||