Talk:Reticulated python

message: A number on interesting things have been done with reticulated pythons over the past couple of 10 years in the field of herpetoculture . A variety of new strains have developed through the selective breeding efforts of private breeders producing snakes for the pet trade.
It is unfortunate, however,  that this article has more information about keeping reticulated pythons in captivity rather than it does about the animal in the wild. --Bezbaq 01:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herpetoculture vs. Herpetology 

message: If a person is ever attacked there are a few easy things that you can do to ward off the snake. The first one is to get alcohol and pour it over the wound and into the snakes mouth, causing it to release almost immediately. The next thing you can do is get warm to hot water and pour it over the snake and this should also make it let go almost immediately. The final thing to do only works on the family Boidae, take the tail about 4-5 inches up and bend it backwards, causing it to let go.
I removed the above text from the article.  It is very interesting and probably true but it is hard to verify.  Furthermore, is there a liability issue involved?   Please advise.
Comatose51 01:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No liability issue - every single page of Wikipedia has a link to Wikipedia:General_disclaimer at the bottom. True and/or verifiable? I don't know. I think you did the right thing to move it here. FreplySpang (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopping an attack 

message: Reptile enthusiasts are quick to note, however, that there are far more human deaths each year caused by dogs than by large constrictors.
THe above is an absurd statement. Of course there are more deaths attributed to dogs than snakes: one could say there are more deaths per year because of dogs than of unicorns. I removed it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.56.32 (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fatalities" 

message: As a herpetologist myself, I have *never* seen a single, verifiable report of any snake eating a person, ever.  Killing, yes, but not eating.  Snakes simply can't distend their jaws far enough to get their mouth around human shoulders.  Although it is possible that at some point, a small child has been eaten by a snake, I have removed that section from the article as this is a popular misconception I'd like to not see spread still further.  If someone feels that this is important, factual information, please cite a reliable source.  69.92.141.242 02:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think if I were bitten by a thirty-foot python I might be able to go get some alcohol, I could probably first reach some other foul-tasting brew.  After getting rid of the snake, I'd go drink some alcohol, then pour some warm water over myself.  But to report such techniques WP:V requires sourced material.  (SEWilco 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eating People 

message: The Green Anaconda article says that it grows up to 10 meters, but is the second longest species to the Reticulated Python, which - according to this article - only grows up to 9 meters.  Now granted, my metric is a bit rusty, but if the Retic only grows to 9 meters, and the Green Anaconda grows to 10, wouldn't the anaconda be the largest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.85.200 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it was not, Your so called "Forty-nine foot snake" was actually just 24 feet long upon quick further investigation. you really should try to look for a reliable up to date source outside the article before you repeat what everyone else has been falling for. Were all so gullible to believe that a living species of snake could be 49.7 feet long (14.85 meters long). whoever wrote that is clearly a cryptozoologist. No snake today could get that big though two Paleocene species, Giganthopis garstini and Madtsoia could grow to be 60 feet long (18 meters long). But they died out a long time ago. Any claims of living snakes that gargantuan are quickly discredited and mocked through critical evaluation and scrutiny. --Jj. hoaakkey 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: True the fact that it was only 22 feet shows just how blown out of proportions things can get although honestly a 30 foot anaconda wouldn't surprise me that much and 34 feet may be possible but I do agree though a 50 foot snake is generally regarded as unlikely and probably erroneous although let me remind you that no species of extinct snake from what we know ever reached 60 feet long although due to the high temperatures and available food sources it certainly could have happened at those times however there have been a few articles that have said that anacondas 40-50 feet may be found in the "future" and although I still have doubts on it there is one thing about that statement future that caught my attention because our earth's temperature is rising and this is the same reason the polar ice caps are melting away it could come to a point were some really enormous snakes could once again make an appearance on this earth the only reason that I would have a bit of doubt on it is because even if the tempratures get right the only place that seems to have enough large prey to support superlarge snakes is Africa and maybe South America even though it is rich in mostly small too medium sized animals the only large animals really being crocodiles, caimans, tapirs and jagaurs. Another claim of two alleged 55 foot snakes have come from China in which the workers accidnetly kille done of the snakes while the other one crawled away. There are two reasons I doubt this claim One a photograph has emerged all over the internet reportedly showing the huge snake on a crane and photos can be doctored and Two if the snake was dead there is no excuse for the men to have not brought the body back using the crane as far as I can see this is the worst giant snake report I have come across here is the link to the article if anyone is intrested in reading it:http://zuzutop.com/2009/11/photo-of-huge-55ft-snake-shocks-world/    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Although I do agree with you on the high temperatures but Asia has a population of elephants, rhino's,tigers and huge crocodiles so I don't see how a large serpent couldn't feed on those animals which are just as big as some of the large fauna that the prehistoric supergiant snakes fed on and another thing pythons found in Asia as well as pythons found everywhere that inhabit very wooded areas are that they tend to hide in burrows a lot of the time or even in caves which would mean a large snake probably wouldn't be seen so easily it is true pythons tend too enjoy hiding under ground a lot of the time during the day time hours the only other really good point you made that they would probably seen when basking in order to warm their bodies.
More about that "49 foot snake"
I think I'm the user who originally posted the article on the "49 foot snake" on Wikipedia(not the comment just above though) but it was Java (a major island in Indonesia), not Thailand, and as you said, the creature inexplicably "shrank" when examined by a journalist. See the next article just below it about this "shrinkage" which I also posted at the same time. I had intended my comment on the first article to indicate it was unreliable, but didn't want to go so far as to use words like "lie" "false report" "mendacious" etc. One cannot really be sure of anything at a distance, but clearly the zookeeper had a potential for financial gain in claiming to have the world's largest captive snake if anyone believed him, and reports of his behavior suggest he was not unaware of this. 
I was intrigued by the two Paleocene species you mentioned above and wondered if you could write articles on them. FurnaldHall 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is longer? 

message: Can anybody add the range of the wild python to the article? Casual users will probably want to know where these pythons live. The article focuses too much on the aspect of petkeeping and warnings and not enough biological information. Thanks!--Chicbicyclist 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dysmorodrepanis 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range 

message: This page has obviously been heavily vandalized. While often hilarious, it still needs to be cleaned up. 
FurnaldHall replies:
Hope you don't meen me! Am I outside Wikipedia guidelines, particularly with the humour? If so, I don't mean to be. Clarify if necessary....--FurnaldHall (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality

message: I found some pretty convincing pictures of a human found inside a reticulated python, although I'm not sure whether this is a child or a really small adult. This could be the 1998 Mangyan case. See the link   --24.132.210.122 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures (dubious or not)

message: Look this part's not important as a lot of biologists don't recognise subspecies, BUT, the page needs updating to reflect the genus Broghammerus Hoser 2004, as confirmed by Rawlings and others in 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.148.186 (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoser's a joke.  I wouldn't wipe my ass with his papers.  That aside, we only recognize taxonomy from the ITIS database - it prevents us from having to change pages with every new paper. Mokele (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your basis for only recognising ITIS database? Is there a Wikipedia policy I can refer to that specifies ITIS? --Pakbelang (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

text: This depends completely on the taxonomy you use. For these snake articles, the taxonomy available through ITIS is used, which does not (yet) recognize jampeanus and saputrai. Others, such as the taxonomy available through the New Reptile Database, do recognize these subspecies. However, the NRDB is more bleeding edge (often making mistakes), while ITIS is more conservative. That's good for Wikipedia too, since it means we don't have to keep updating our articles all the time. --Jwinius 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subspecies 

message: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3845750 
a63 ----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A63 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This case is already mentioned in the article: Description section, second paragraph. The animal turned out to be only half as long. This is a good example of why it's not smart to rely on the mainstream media for this kind of information; they have a long, long history of exaggerating the facts. --Jwinius (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but in the article all it said was the villagers were claiming the snake was that size. Then said if confirmed would be the world record. Landon1980 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article "Stay still, will you?", published by The Guardian on 5 January 2004. The animal turned out to be less than half as long as the villagers thought it was. --Jwinius (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The maximum largest length noted in the article has been surpassed, by A LOT! 

message: "Adults grow to more than 32 feet (9.75 m) in length and are probably the world's longest living snakes, but are certainly not the most heavily built."
This is similar to writing "Humans adults grow to more than 8 foot in height..." 
A less misleading sentence would be:
"Adult males typically reach a length of up to 15 feet (4.57 m) and 20 feet (6.09 m) for females, with one known example at a record 32 feet~ (9.75 m) and are probably the world's longest living snakes, but are certainly not the most heavily built."
Or to keep it shorter I would like to use:
"Adults typically reach a length of up to 20 feet (6.09 m), with one known example at a record 32 feet~ (9.75 m) and are probably the world's longest living snakes, but are certainly not the most heavily built."
I would like some experienced input before implementing this. Perhaps some wiki editors could offer their advice on structuring the sentence. Thanks for your time.Nudles (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that look any better? It would not be safe to assume that there is only a single record for specimens over 32 feet in length. Also, I don't have any good references for the average adult length. I know we could probably quote a web page, but those almost always make really poor references. --Jwinius (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can both agree this statement needs to be replaced "Adults grow to more than 32 feet (9.75 m) in length...". How about "Adults have been recorded up to a maximum of 32 feet (9.75 m) in length...". Very neutral, non controversial and not claiming anything unverified.Nudles (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can put maximum in there, but all of these measurements were recorded and reported at some time. For statements such as these, including a reliable reference is enough. --Jwinius (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro is misleading 

message: I don't see why "it is almost certain that it would not have succeeded". The major problem with snakes swallowing human beings is the size of the shoulders, and the article says the she was swallowed up to her waist (!). If it's true, it would be very possible for the snake to swallow her body whole.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.96.141 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've removed the offending paragraph on the grounds that the source (Associated Press) is not reliable and the exact species unknown (it could have been P. molurus). I also find it difficult to believe that a mere 10-foot python was capable of swallowing a person. --Jwinius (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bangladeshi woman that was swallowed by a snake 

message: The article mentions twice that they have reached 32 feet.  However, that's merely a report from the field, without an actual specimen to back it up.  Given the long and lurid history of exaggerating this snake's size, I strongly suggest that we omit any mention of the 32 foot 'record', and instead report the longest *confirmed* length, which is 28.5 feet for Colossus, a retic held in the pittsburg zoo in the 50's.  Accepting a claim without evidence is nothing but mere heresay, and does not belong on WP.  Mokele (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think there's reason to doubt the 32' claim, that 28.5' is the most reliable maximum measurement, and you have a good reference for this, then I'm all for it. And don't forget to edit the Pythonidae and Snake articles as well! However, in this article I do think that a mention of the 32' claim and its reference should be retained -- along with the reason why it is not believed to be accurate -- if only to prevent others from trying to "correct" things again later on. I've done the same thing already in articles such as Boa constrictor. --Jwinius (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we actually confirm 32 feet? 

message: Just wondering, is this claim really authentic? I've heard that claims from Zoo's should not be taken too serious. How is this claim verified, is there any convincing proof? --24.132.210.122 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen one of her head being held by a keeper, and a putative one of her being force-fed once (though I suspect that one is another snake), both in books I don't have and can't recall the names of, sorry. Mokele (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: So Colossus wasn't this giant snake after all? Even smaller than recent giants like Fluffy or the Indonesian specimen? This certainly improves the unique status of these other large specimens and it will also change the general consensus on maximum length. The Anaconda may now even be the longest snake after all. The downside is that you can't even rely anymore on the word of an herpetologist. I suppose this will shake things up quite a bit... --24.132.213.61 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Colossus

message: *Did I, as you say, "admit the articles are unreliable"?  No, I agreed pythons are difficult to measure.  The Milky Way is difficult to measure too but that doesn't mean we forbid mention of its size in an article.  When something merits discussion, such as the Age of the Earth , we discuss it. 
*No one has determined that the reports made by world-class zoos such as the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium and the Bronx Zoo are inaccurate.  I have cited their claims.  You have cited nothing that refutes their claims.
* This is not an article solely about the physiology of P. reticulatus.  It is an article about that species which has room for several topics.  One of those topics is captive specimens and their supposed lengths.  That is encyclopedic information.
*There is no misinformation presented here.  In each case, it is a verified fact that a claim was made.  Again, you have presented no contrary evidence other than your own opinion and/or experience.  Please review guidelines regarding original research for a discussion of why this is not appropriate.
*Most importantly, please refer to the opening lines of Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of the most basic guidelines we have.  Quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."  (Bold emphasis is in original text, not added) The news reports used are reliable sources for the information given. --Boston (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Mokele. Boston, you are twisting the truth around in order to prove your point. Yes, the opening line in WP:V says that the threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth," but that only applies to the content. The same sentence goes on to say that the information (whether true of not) should come from "a reliable source." Your links, as well as Fox News, are all dime-a-dozen unreliable sources. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a summary of knowledge -- not of misinformation. There's plenty of that on the web already, and our task is not to summarize it here. --Jwinius (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

text: *Mokele, your opinion that "we should stick to peer-reviewed scientific journal sources ONLY"  is directly contrary to our guidelines.   Since you don't "give a crap" about our guidelines, perhaps we'd all be happier if you spent your energies elsewhere.  By the way, please again be reminded of WP:civility.  It is also one of our most important policies which you choose to disregard.  Both you and Jwinius are so clearly determined to operate contrary both to the spirit and the letter of our policies, I'm done talking to you.  If you have a problem with this content, take it to arbitration.  --Boston (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Cy me a river.  I see absolutely no reason to listen to a mere amateur.  Come back when you have a graduate degree in herpetology.  Until then, stop wasting our time. Mokele (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Firstly, you are aware that 'compromise' does not mean that you simply be more persistent than everyone else, right?  Second, if they aren't billed as the biggest, why is the reference there?  Should we list every 20+ foot retic in captivity, because there's several hundred?  If this section is talking about the claimed biggest, remove the listings of the others.  Finally, an article should not contain every single scrap of information from the entire internet - I see absolutely no reason why the in-text stuff cannot simply be removed and left as references as I did in the edit.  The info is still there for anyone who wants to click it, without cluttering up the page.  There's no worthwhile reason to simply repeat what the links say. Mokele (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

text: *Mokele, to clarify further, I think your sentence "For this reason, scientists do not accept the validity of length measurements unless performed on a dead or anaesthetized snake which is later preserved in a museum collection" is possibly a good addition to the article, but it needs to be referenced.  Don't forget, also, that dead snakes are not necessarily immune to exaggerated claims and that the hides from which some post-mortem specimens have been measured may be stretched considerably past the actual length of the once-living snake. Jwinius, calling another editor "petulant" is a personal attack (click and read what that means) and as long as that is your frequency I'm not discussing specific points with you.--Boston (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got an excellent ref that covers Colossus, the problems with hides, and why we need to use dead snakes to measure, but I'm loathe to make any more edits lest the effort get lost in the flurry of reverts over this unencyclopedic crap.  I've got much more important things to do (namely a peer review that should have been done a month ago), so when you're ready to make a good-faith effort at compromise, let me know. Mokele (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Someone requested a third opinion at WP:3O. Because there are more than two editors involved, I have removed the request. Please consider alternative routes of dispute resolution, if needed. Thanks! (EhJJ)TALK 20:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I too was asked for an opinion (who hasn't been?); it is here: . To add: scientific sources are to be preferred; newspapers are very often unreliable William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]]

message: I have been asked to give a view on this dispute. This I could do, but there seems little point unless there is some agreement that the opinion is unbiased and may have some value. I do admit that I have spoken to Boston before. Are others interested in my view. I am an admin with a fair scientific knowledge but with no particular interest in snakes. Victuallers (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please, for the love of all that is holy put an end to this.  I'm 100% convinced that nothing good will come of this until someone steps in, for reasons amply laid out elsewhere.  At this point, I don't even care what the resulting decision is, I just want it to freaking end. Mokele (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration

message: Thank you for the welcome. I hope to read all the stuff tomorrow... and yes I will only manage most of it. Hopefully I can then put forward a view. Although I'm not a wikilawyer so you will get a mixture of my understanding of wikiprocedures and common sense. Any last comments? Victuallers (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would be appreciated, but it seems to have burned itself out.  Boston has gone off to edit other pages and left our current version alone. Mokele (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: thx for the welcome

message: I was going to propose that there are 1.7 million articles and that this particular snake whilst important is not pivotal to wikipedia. Some of the name calling as you will appreciate has been silly. Some very famous scientists did not have degrees and some very silly ones had first and second degrees. The newspaper v. academic sources needs a bit of discussion. In my view I would expect the Loch Ness article to mention all the wildlife including some that has been reported in newspapers.(for example, Nessie) It is interesting that there is a man who is eight feet tall and maybe even that there were reports in the 1500's of a man being "ten feet tall" (I made that up). A graph showing the upper and lower quartiles (for instance) throws these ideas into perspective. i.e. maybe there has been a ten foot man .... but its doubtful. I will leave this on hold as it could be that some people have sensibly gone off and found a new place in wikipedia to contribute, until this is resolved. If so then I will return, otherwise I still thank you for your welcome and maybe we will meet again. Victuallers (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh ... well ...

message: I'm curious as to how the Python captured in Indonesia some years ago is doing these days. I believe it was captured in 2003 and was later carefully measured by a journalist as being close to 23 feet. If this snake is still alive, how long would it be right now? The almost mythical "Colossus" was captured when he was 22 feet and grew to 28 feet in only a couple of years. So I'm really wondering how large the Indonesian specimen is right now, if it's still alive in the first place. Does anyone know?
Here's some information taken from a topic above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jan/05/animalwelfare.indonesia
--24.132.210.98 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesian giant 

message: Just a story you might want to keep an eye on a possible 49ft Retic http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3845750/ns/world_news/t/-foot-python-captured-indonesia/#.T6rGOOuZ3k8
QueenAlexandria (talk) 20:39, 09 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that one's come and gone - when someone went out there with a tape measure, it wasn't even 20 feet, IIRC, and certainly nowhere near 50 feet.  Exactly why media reports are not reliable sources for this topic. HCA (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Report of 49-foot retic

message: Apparantly Guinness has recognised a python named Medusa as the longest in captivity, measuring 25 feet in lenght, which is impressive if it's a reliable measurement.
Guinness page
Here's a good picture of the snake:
click
It definitely looks to be over 20 feet in lenght. --95.96.192.45 (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of funny how much drama was on this page five years back, and now it's a ghost-town. Added information from Guinness to substantiate the claim on Medusa. --Sennsationalist (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest specimen in captivity 

message: Updated info for largest python
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-snake-ever-(captivity)
173.247.200.247 (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, we already mentioned the world record in the article. Altamel (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015 

message: I wasn't so surprised that my mentioning the recent well-publicized biting of a chap's privates by a retic from his toilet 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? Batternut (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Thai toilet attack 

message: so I removed that language in the bit where it says a 130 pound reticulated python couldn't swallow a normal human.  In a lot of its territory, it sure could.  citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.38.204 (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "normal" adult varies by region.  

message: The introduction states "It is among the three heaviest snakes. Like all pythons, it is a non-venomous constrictor. Adult humans have been claimed to have been killed (and in at least two reported cases, eaten) by reticulated pythons.[6][7][8] However, this is false as their mouths cannot stretch to a human's width."
Then, there is a whole "Danger to humans" section that is not aligned.
This should be corrected, but I am not in the position to do so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.160.117 (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: The article mentions that the snake is often found "Even in busy parts of Bangkok" why is this the only city in SE Asia mentioned, the snake is often found in other busy cities in the region like Ho Chi Minh, Jakarta even Singapore. Is there any significance to just mentioning BKK? 2001:FB1:11A:2200:84F9:EB5D:3525:53C0 (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangkok?