Talk:Sea snake

Stub?

Is this really a stub? It needs more expanding of course, but I don't think it qualifies as stub anymore. If there are no objections I'll get rid of it. Classical Esther 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since you expanded it you can get rid of it. Nifky^{^} 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for telling me.:) I'm a beginner here, so I'm always nervous about changing stuff around. Classical Esther 08:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple problems

There are multiple problems with this page.

1. A creationist reference appears to be used as an advertisement for a religious point of view. This is especially offensive on a biology page. Such a use violates NPOV (wp:Neutral point of view) "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia"; and COI (wp:Conflict of interest) "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest"; and NOT wp:What Wikipedia is not "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise". The contributor in question has made no secret of her affiliations.

2. Many of the statements with regard to venom are wildly overstated, and read like sensational journalism, such as "One drop of its venom can kill five adult men, and it has enough of this powerful venom that if it was all released, it could kill 53 grown men". No such statement is made in the enWP article, which is a model of carefully written scientific prose. The repeated reference to the creationist book is not a reliable reference in WP terms and so does not establish the claimed fact. wp:Verifiability: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source". The reference in question is not a secondary reference; it is a tertiary reference.

3. What should be done? The offending reference should be removed, and the text brought in line with page on enWP. That page has some excellent and appropriate references, and suitably cautious wording on the topic in question. We are directed to take enWP as a starting point, and what would not be accepted there should not be accepted here.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a few of the references from the EnWP article. Simplicity may have suffered though. ( mostly tried to replace or append the "creationist" reference). A priori, science has nothing to do with a belief in god; To make "biology" interesting to young readers however, the "most poisonus snake" etc. are often used. Taking the creatioinist viewpoint however, this is not about "finding a way to regulate the salt level in the blood", because an omniscient creator would have overcome such problems - Unfortunately this article is about sea snakes, and not about religion, though. --Eptalon (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Making the article better

This is just a "run up" of the potential problems of the article; I don't say they need to be fixed for DYK, or for removal of the disputed hook. All I say is that they should be addressed:

• All references to "Fulbright, Jeannie K. (2006). Exploring Creation with Zoology 2: Swimming Creatures of the Fifth Day. 1106 Meridian Plaza, Suite 220, Anderson, IN 46016: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.." should be backed up with better sources; once this is done, this publication can be removed.
• The poison section needs a rewrite; IMO this should talk about how the snakes use their poison (for hunting), perhaps comparing the poisons of different snakes. How humans are affected by bites should be a subsection at best, and not make up half the current article.
• The sensationalist tone needs to go. This is supposed to be a scientific article, in easier to understand language; not a bigger-better-faster article, that is unencyclopedic, as well as unscientific.
• We need images of the snakes mentioned; and articles about them (please use their common name, not the scientific one, where you can). Since this is not my mother tongue I am unable to help there.
• We need to make a clear difference between a "sea snake", and other snakes that also live or hunt in the water, but that are neither poisonous, nor related to elapids. I am thinking of Python reticulatus and Eunectes murinus here. Both are constricting snakes, non-poisonous ones, and very good swimmers. The second is commonly referred to as Anaconda, the first is the largest Python known.

These are just my ideas though. --Eptalon (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)