Misplaced Pages

Talk:Daboia palaestinae: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:41, 9 June 2010 editBreein1007 (talk | contribs)2,512 edits "Palestine": new section← Previous edit Revision as of 19:54, 9 June 2010 edit undoNomoskedasticity (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,755 edits "Palestine": "error"??Next edit →
Line 16: Line 16:


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 ] 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 "], 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. ] (]) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 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 ] 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 "], 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. ] (]) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
: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. ] (]) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:54, 9 June 2010

WikiProject iconAmphibians and Reptiles Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconDaboia palaestinae is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Misplaced Pages a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geographical range

I noticed this dispute over the terminology of the geographical range of this creature. Looking at the cited source, it does clearly say "Western Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and northwest Jordan". It's unclear whether the author is using "Palestine" in the political sense or as a geographical designator, or perhaps even in the neutral sense of "Israel/Palestine". However, I think changing the term to "Palestinian territories" is a bad idea for two reasons: it falsifies the cited source, and it risks being inaccurate if the author is referring to geographical Palestine, which is not the same territory as political Palestine. It's safer all round to stick to what the source says. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. The source goes against Misplaced Pages's NPOV policies. Therefore, since we are intelligent beings, we are capable of realizing the mistake and fixing it, rather than being robots and copying/pasting text including errors. The source lists Israel AND Palestine. If the author meant to reference the geographical region of Palestine, it would make no sense to include Israel in the list. This is superfluous. Clearly, the author incorrectly used the term "Palestine" interchangeably with "Palestinian territories". The error should not carry through to our article here. And it does not risk being inaccurate. Geographical Palestine is the same territory as political Israel and the Palestinian territories. You are unfortunately mistaken. Breein1007 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the approach which you're suggesting is that you are substituting one description - "Palestinian territories" - for the terminology which, as you're not disputing, is used by the author. This is a big no-no; it misrepresents what the cited source says. I suggest that we adjourn this discussion to one of the noticeboards to get some outside views on what to do about this. I've posted a message to Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#Vipera palaestinae. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely there has already been some discussion on the use of the term "Palestine" in relation to the geographic area. If someone knows where it resides, could they point to it? Personally, I see no issue in using the term "Palestine" to refer to a geographic location. Furthermore I see no issue using "Israel, Palestine (in the geographic sense)" in the same sentence. If I say "This lemur is indigenous to all of Canada and the Rocky Mountains", the sentence doesn't imply the Rocky Mountains are a country. If the reader is not informed enough to know the political situation, they will likely be unable to use the reference to locate the area anyway.
Bree is clearly attempting making an attempt to eradicate all mention of the term "Palestine" to make a political statement. The attempt is not just wrong and lacking in NPOV, but also counter productive to his cause. I'd suggest he stop. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore users who have proven incapable of collaborating civilly without personal attacks. To anyone interested in maintaining an accurate and policy compliant encyclopedia, I encourage you to look at this source, already in the article. It lists "Palestinian Territory" as the geographic location. I am not going to breach WP:3RR by correcting the mistake. Breein1007 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh Bree. You're so noble (in-line sarcasm-tag). One of these days you'll understand that disagreement isn't incivility. If anything, running around willy nilly crying "incivility" is in itself, incivil. NickCT (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Palestine"

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)

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)
Categories: