Talk:Daboia palaestinae

message: The link to the Arabic page of this article keeps disappearing ... hmmm I wonder why ??   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkewan (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic Page

message: I will repeat for what feels like the hundredth time: it does not make sense to say that this snake is found in both Israel and "Palestine". If the author of that source said "Palestine" as in the geographic region, then it includes Israel and is superfluous. It is not encyclopedic of us to blindly follow his error and have misleading, erroneous wording in our article. If the author meant Palestinian territories when he said "Palestine", then we should choose the terminology that is not confusing and ambiguous, and say "Palestinian territories". Another source in this article lists the region as "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", and I even went so far as to include the unnecessary qualifier of Occupied in this article, quoted, and sourced. Now user Nomosked has come back and attempted to refuel the edit war, going back to the erroneous terminology contrary to the recommendation of most people at the OR noticeboard. Several people there commented that if there is another source that uses better terminology, we should use it. Breein1007 (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Darling, I understand it is hard for some Israelis to accept the notion that there is a place called Palestine, but your personal difficulties do not amount to an "error" on the part of others.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree w/ Nomoskedasticity. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Thius is so simple, I can't believe there is any dispute. We quote the source, it's not our job to say the source is wrong. That would unambiguously be original research. If another reliable source contradicts the first source, by all means quote it; but we rely on what the sources say, not our own interpretation of them. RolandR (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is exactly what we have done. Quoted the other reliable source. Thanks for the support. Breein1007 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It is indeed simple. When a source says the snake is a major cause of snakebite in "Israel and Palestine", it's pretty obvious that a wikilink to Palestine is incorrect. When we have another source that says "Palestinian Territories, Occupied" is becomes even more obvious what the region we're talking about is. I believe we are allowed to use some common sense and that the goal here is to provide the reader with as accurate information as possible. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Palestine" 

message: Congratulations guys, you've made it onto Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars! (here.) Hopefully the content of the talk page above won't be archived, as it's a shining example of Wikipedia at its most ridiculous. Robofish (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely deserved. NickCT (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LAME]] 

message: Could someone who knows more about this snake than I do add some info (preferably a new section) the preferred habitat of this snake?  The geographic range really doesn't cover it, and habitat preference is definitely one of the most important properties of any type of wildlife. Mia229 (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habitat (Not Edit-War Related!) 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn – after commentary that appears to indicate that the name that is actually the most common for this topic in English-language reliable sources may be "Vipera palaestinae".   —BarrelProof (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Vipera palaestinae →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA. Anything with "Palestine" in its name is probably somewhat controversial (and this article has already been enshrined in WP:Lamest edit wars), but it seems clear that this snake has a well-established and unambiguous common name in English, which is "Palestine viper". The Latin name (which is the current article title) is simply an obviously Latinized form of that name. The IUCN Red List lists that as its common name. So does the only book that is cited in the article that has an online link. So does The Completely Illustrated Atlas of Reptiles and Amphibians for the Terrarium, by Obst, J., K. Richter, and U. Jacob (1988), which I happen to have handy. The Youtube video in the External links section of the article also uses that common name as the primary title on its opening screen shot and in its sound track. A web search readily confirms this as well. There is a different snake that is sometimes called the "Palestine saw-scaled viper", but this seems to be the only one that is called the "Palestine viper", and that seems to be its only (or at least its clearly dominant) common name in English. The target name already redirects here, and always has since it was created nine years ago. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The page was moved against the decision here without further discussion. This is simply wrong. As  pointed out (and it's still true), the scientific name is the most common. Unless a good reason for disregarding the previous consensus is forthcoming, it should be moved back. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Agree, it doesn't appear this was warranted. Suggest moving back. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move it back....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 August 2015 

message: I added this paragraph:
Some modern scholar and commentators have identified the צפע (pronounced Tsefa/Zefa) snake in the Hebrew Bible as this snake species. The name given to this snake in modern Hebrew is צפע מצוי (common Tsefa).
It should be noted that in one of the sources there is a typo, and it says Zerfa instead of Zefa. This error is obvious to any Hebrew speaker. Correcting it is not OR. see Wikipedia:These are not original research#Typos and proofing errors. Vegan416 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification as the Biblical Tsefa/Zefa