Talk:Bitis arietans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Bitis arietans has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
Contents |
[edit] Habitat
To 84.177.221.84: If you find it irritating that I keep removing your edits, I apologize. However, Mehrtens (1987), Living Snakes of the World in Color, clearly states that Bitis arietans is not found in rain forests or true deserts. Therefore, this statement should not be changed. Others, such as Spawls and Branch (1995), The Dangerous Snakes of Africa, also mention that B. arietans is absent from extreme deserts.
If you've found a reference somewhere that contradicts those claims, by all means, please add to the article -- along with the reference! After all: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is why your reference would be so important in this case.
On the other hand, original research -- and that includes personal experiences -- are not added to Wikipedia. This is a basic rule. After all, since there's no way to check the veracity of such statements, there's no reason why anyone should believe them. For example, even if you explain your experience in the article, there would still be questions that nobody can check up on: what was the exact location where your daughter was bitten? How far is that from what would be considered acceptable habitat for B. arietans? Was it really B. arietans? Several Bitis species are found in the Namib, so this is quite possibly a case of misidentification. And who is 84.177.221.84 anyway?
Finally, even if everyone knew who you were, you had pictures to prove that it was B. arietans and GPS coordinates for the location, one lost specimen does not equal a trend. For instance, Spawls and Branch (1995) includes lots of distribution maps with areas showing the general ranges of certain species, along with occasional dots outside those areas indicating where individual specimens were found. Your case, if true, could be in that last category.
Anyway, sorry for being so hard on you, but it's tough to write accurate articles. And in the case of Wikipedia, it's sometimes hard to keep them that way! --Jwinius 16:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] not found in true deserts
Sorry, sorry, sorry....
I live in the Namib parttime and I have to apologize for not having had the time to take a picture of the snake. Getting the venom out was just too important besides organizing the SOS Rescue by plane. I agree to scientific ways of retrieving data but then the text should also give reference to the exceptions that you stated. The way it was written it seems 100% and no other point of view acceptable. This is what bothered me as I have the evidence of a 12 year old child who just made it. I have no problem with your open and straight way of discussing the issue and I must admit to have made mistakes in my approach to Wikipedia but after all it serves as an information for a general public and only because something had been quoted and printed at least 10 years ago does not mean that things do not change. Nothing is as rare as the status quo.
- That's quite all right. These articles are here so that people can learn; in the case of Wikipedia, I suppose that includes learning how to write them as well. I'm glad your daughter survived; I was bitten by a viper too once, and it was not a pleasant experience. Luckily, mine was more like what is described in Bitis schneideri -- the smallest Bitis species. Anything larger can only be much worse. I hope there was no lasting tissue damage.
- As for the way the article is written, as I was saying, I'm only quoting from the books that I own, and that's the way they are written. But, that's not to say that habitat information (or info related to other fuzzy subjects, like geographic range, behavior, feeding, reproduction and even venom) should always be taken as absolute fact; only as a general indication. There are always exceptions to such rules.
- Regarding the age of some of my sources, some things don't change that much. That bit of habitat info from Mehrtens (1987) is also quoted in Mallow et al. (2003). Indeed, Mehrtens may very well have acquired it from a much older source. However, it is still accepted because nobody since has found any real reason to doubt it. If there was, such as if a viable population of Bitis arietans were to be discovered tomorrow in the middle of the Namib, then you can bet that there would soon be a new paper out there describing it. If it sounded convincing enough, everybody would soon be quoting it and part of Mehrten's statement would henceforth have to be ignored. In this way, science builds continuously on the works of the past and it's not uncommon to see modern articles quoting from others that are over 100 years older. This is rather different from, say, politics, where in 10 years time things will have changed quite a lot (and hopefully for the better). --Jwinius 22:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA pass
- 1. Well written? Pass
- 2. Factually accurate? Pass
- 3. Broad in coverage? Pass
- 4. Neutral point of view? Pass
- 5. Article stability? Pass
- 6. Images? Pass
Additional comments: Excellent article overall. Some technical terms are not defined (supralabials, suborbitals, circumorbital ring). Overuse of may, can, primarly, mainly and often - makes text sound a little 'woolly'. More external links would also be an improvement. TimVickers 01:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
