Talk:Black mamba/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion

I have listed all the most well known LD₅₀ ratings for the black mamba. It is right there in the article, anyone can see that I listed Ernst & Zug et all value of 0.05mg/kg, I listed Dr. Fry's value of 0.32mg/kg, Brown's 0.12mg/kg, and the 0.28mg/kg value which was reported by (Minton) amd Spawls & Branch. I've given a full range of median lethal dose values, which is part of the WP:NPOV policy - to be neutral. Why on earth would we cherry-pick one or two toxinology studies or toxicity values listed for this species and disregard and not mention any of the other well known lethality rates? That would be a violation of WP:NPOV, especially for a GA status article. You cannot simply pick and choose what you want, just because - I don't know this IP editors motives, but I suspect he's bitter and angry with me for figuring out that he had plagiarized nearly the entire Inland taipan article a few months back. So he has been after me over every little thing, very petty behavior and just plain immature. I will take out the statement "fourth-most-venomous snake" because it is unencyclopedic and venom toxicity/lethality varies tremendously even within a single species due to many factors including diet, geographical location, age-dependent, gender-dependent, and even weather. The list can go on and on. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 22:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't read your own citations, and have made a big mess:

• the only sources citing specifically Subcutaneous LD50 are : Spawls & Branch, Minton & Minton, Fry, reptile magazine. all around 0.30mg/kg. this is the standard comparative LD50 used in lists.
• the 0.12mg/kg is Subcutaneous but only for Purified toxin from the venom. in brown's book 0.12 talks about testing specific organ reaction "liver (0.12); spleen (0.16); diaphragm (0.12); heart (0.10); skeletal muscles (0.05); in testines (0.17); brain (0.92).". this is the only mention of "0.12" in the book.
• the 0.05 in Ernst & Zug doesn't say anything about if it is subcutaneous, Intravenous etc.. as explained in Black mamba LD50 quote is incorrect. they made a big error in the book mixing different testing methodologies. it is very evident with other snakes on their list (especially 1-3). that list is unreliable do to its ambiguity.
• You cite 0.01 mg/kg IP from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004101018890219X, but they talk about Eastern green mamba and testing pure Dendrotoxin and not the venom as a whole.
• i could not find your quote of 0.02 mg/kg IV.
• The only person listing clearly all modes of injection is Dr. Brian Fry : 0.32 subcutaneous, 0.25 intravenous, 0.941 intraperitoneal (he mentions that he averages all published data in each mode)

The black mamba is a very dangerous snake. perhaps the most. but it's LD50 in mice is 0.30mg/kg+- SC 79.180.57.209 (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I hope I can be of some help here, I am an uninvolved editor who came via the RfC on the Africa topic page. I think I find both people's reasoning problematic. DendroNaja is wrong that including one or two scientific studies would be cherry picking and a violation of NPOV. Wikipedia should have the best information, not the average information. IP79 claims that a lot of the data is faulty and that he produces better sources. I find this also to be lacking. Fry seems legit, but Zug and Ernst numbers appear to be used in other RSs, so they are certainly quality. I appreciate the points made by IP79 and think that the editor is on the right track. He is certainly free to publish his criticism of Zug and Ernst and other authors and then come and edit the book. However, at this point, the decision made by DendroNaja is right for the page. Putting a range of LD50 with sources seems an appropriate response to this problem. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The work of Ernst & Zug is absolutely not an "amateur list" that was just made up out of thin air. The particular book, Snakes in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book is a piece of work that is cited and referenced in hundreds of other technnical/text-books and journalistic studies and research. The list compiled used the most effective method of extracting the venom in tact with all its componenets. It is a highly regarded piece of work and no matter how much you don't like it, it is just too bad for you. If it's good enough to be cited and referenced in scientific research, then it's good enough to be used as a source here. I also have to clue you in on a thing - Jean-Philippe Chippaux, Carl Ernst, and George R. Zug are the foremost experts on snake venom toxicity and variation. Venom, even within a single species, can vary and range tremendously depending on diet, geographical location, age-dependent, gender-dependent, weather, altitude and the list can go on and on. So these "lists of most venomous" are meaningless when it pertains to humans because how do you ascertain the amount of venom injected in a bite? Your psychological reaction, your resistence, and so many other factors play a role. I'd also like to remind you all that this is a GA status article. This means it has to be broad in its coverage and neutral in that it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. I also want to add something regarding mambas. The phylogenetic relationships of the genus Dendroaspis are still a bit of a mystery. First, members of the genus Dendroaspis have venom components which are synergistic, with absolutely no anti-complmentary components in the composition of mamba venoms. This is not the case in the majority of other elapids. The vast majority, or even all, have anti-complmentary components within the composition of their venoms that retard, to a certain degree, the more toxic components. Second, Mamba venom contains unique pre-synaptic dendrotoxins, which are not only the most rapid-acting snake venom toxins known, but they are virulent and devastating in their effects. Mambas are distinct from other elapids, like cobras (Naja spp, coral snakes, Australian elapids, kraits and all other elapids). The fangs of the members of the genus Dendroaspis are longer than any other elapid species and are positioned at the very front of the maxillary bone (which isn't the case for other elapids), add to that the fact that their fangs are semi-hinged (sort of like vipers and pit-vipers who have fully hinged fangs while all other elapids have very fixed immovable fangs), and along with their venom delivery apparatus, which is far more advanced than any venomous snake species and you get something quite deadly. Phylogentic studies done have shown preliminary evidence that they are most closely related to the genus Bungarus, genus Hemibungarus, and some studies suggest a close link to the genus Pseudohaje but nothing is conclusive. This is where the problem is, IP79 - you are evidently an amateur (and I do not mean that in a bad or patronizing way). Your knowledge on this subject matter and your understanding of the concepts are very, very limited and basic. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 05:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This sentence is simply not true and made up by the editor :

Using 0.1% bovine serum albumin chromatography, the final precipitate (98% of the solidified crude venom) is 98% purified albumin, the median lethal dose results for the black mamba was 0.05 mg/kg SC. Due to the 98% purity of the dried crude venom produced in this process (compare to 40-60% purity of dried crude venom when 0.1 saline solution is used), the toxicity (LD50) values of the venom is nearly exactly accurate and represents the true lethality of the venom. The black mamba is one of the most venomous snakes in the world,[52]

Ernst & Zug book simply lists 10 snakes without telling anything about what method of injection (huge difference) and if saline solution or 0.1 bovine serum albomin.

How can you quote it as Subcutaneous , when the Purified toxin from the venom has an LD50 of only 0.12mg/kg Subcutaneous ? total nonsense.

We have solid multiple sources all explicitly saying 0.30mg/kg+- SC79.180.57.209 (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Again and again, you are showing your very limited understanding of the concepts surrounding snake venom, snake venom composition, toxicity variation, methodologies used in determining LD₅₀ ratings, and venom variation. You seem to be completely out of your league here. First, in regards to the 0.12 mg/kg SC value is attributed to (Brown, 1973). The link you have is to some study on a component of a venom done by a Daniel J. Strydom. I will repeat: Ernst & Zug et al, 1996 is a highly regarded source and is cited in hundreds of peer-reviewed journalistic work. The fact that you don't like it, is not anyone's problem but yours. It stays in the article because one of the criteria for a GA status article is neutrality = represent viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Not only are you over your head with regard to the sunbject matter, but you don't even seem to care or want to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 06:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You keep on inventing stuff. not even 1 citation of this book in pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Snakes+in+Question%3A+The+Smithsonian+Answer+Book

Brown book lists 0.12mg/kg when testing on specific isolated organs. you have got to stop fabricating data 79.180.57.209 (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are now accusing me of fabricating data? I take that very seriously - it's libelous and if you continue to accuse me of fabricating false data, I will take the proper course of action. You are an amateur with a level of knowledge on this subject that is less than basic. I have taken advanced ophiology courses at a high university level. This is where the problem is - you think you know what you are talking about, but you don't know any of the basic concepts relating to the subject. You just google things and copy and paste. It's getting tiresome. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 06:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are fabricating data when you describe 0.05mg/kg from Ernst & Zug book as being Subcutaneous (SC) done via Bovine serum albumin. and then depicting this number "the toxicity (LD50) values of the venom is nearly exactly accurate and represents the true lethality of the venom" that is a pure lie you made this paragraph up regarding the book.

Then you list other sources which are in fact SC such as Spawls & Branch, Minton & Minton and Australian Venom and Toxin database - these are correct and explicit. and so does reptiles magazine.

Brown 0.12 is not testing LD50 on a mouse. but is a test for specific organs.

You are giving WP:undue to one book which has been shown to mix up modes of injection in their list. while 4 WP:RS all say clearly SC is 0.28/0.32. If you can find a peer reviewd study showing LD50 Subcutaneous in bovine serum albumin. you are most welcome to bring it.

As Fry said - you are mixing apples and rocks. and you not doing it on good faith. You should feel ashamed of yourself for fabricating information like that, but you are willing to lie to promote your favorite snake. You are no professional, as i have demonstrated with your deliberate misrepresentation of multiple citations. (same ip editor)109.65.184.69 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The hypothetical debate is over

I have a direct quote from Ernst & Zug book, page 120 regarding their most venomous snake list: "also, the LD50 values are mixed data, derivd from different studies using different sites of venom injection (intermascular, intraperitoneal and subcutaneous)". http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=iidDU6TqKqKv4AT_wIDQBg&hl=iw&id=TuY5AQAAIAAJ&dq=Snakes+in+question%3A+the+Smithsonian+answer+book&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=Subcutaneous

On the other hand, Minton book does exactly what is needed for accurate citation, he has a table of modes of injection. for the black mamba it's 0.32 SC and 0.25 IV. Here you can see the head of the table : http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=m4JeU4PTMMa1yAPU1YD4BA&hl=iw&id=aEtrAAAAMAAJ&dq=black+mamba+ld50&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=ld50 And here the black mamba quotation: http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=m4JeU4PTMMa1yAPU1YD4BA&hl=iw&id=aEtrAAAAMAAJ&dq=black+mamba+ld50&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=%22black+mamba%22+0.32

We also have a clear quotation for intraperitoneal injection "The IP murine LD50 averaging 0.30mg/kg" taken from "Venomous” Bites from Non-Venomous Snakes: A Critical Analysis of Risk and Management of "Colubrid” Snake Bites... by Scott A Weinstein, David A. Warrell, Julian White and Daniel E Keyler (Jul 1, 2011) page 246 http://books.google.co.il/books?id=tjDQnbmJu0kC&pg=PA246&dq=black+mamba+ld50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D4FeU8HlIKLq4gSLuoF4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&nfpr=1&q=black%20mamba%20ld50&f=false

As i said before , User Talk:DendroNaja has deliberately lied in the article . Ernst & Zug did not do the venom studies themselves. Ernst & Zug did not note differnce if Saline or Bovine serum albomin, Ernst & Zug never say that the quote for the black mamba is subcutaneous, which it's clearly not.109.65.184.69 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion: all sources cite similar LD50 subcutaneous (SC) for the black mamba:

• Brian Fry (Australian Venom and Toxin Database) - 0.32mg/kg SC

http://web.archive.org/web/20120413182323/http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html

• Spawls & Branch - 0.28mg/kg SC

http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=Zf1eU8zDOMLAPO3AgUA&hl=iw&id=FIJFAQAAIAAJ&dq=black+mamba+ld50&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=mamba+ld50 and *

• Minton - 0.32mg/kg SC

http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=m4JeU4PTMMa1yAPU1YD4BA&hl=iw&id=aEtrAAAAMAAJ&dq=black+mamba+ld50&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=%22black+mamba%22+0.32

• Encyclopedia of toxicology - 0.32mg/kg SC

http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=Zf1eU8zDOMLAPO3AgUA&hl=iw&id=oNs6AQAAIAAJ&dq=black+mamba+ld50&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=mamba+0.32

• Reptile Magazine - 0.28mg/kg SC

http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Snakes/Wild-Snakes/The-Worlds-Deadliest-Snakes/ (same ip editor) 79.181.34.15 (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

IP79, could you please stop adding headings for every comment. It is unnecessary and makes it very difficult to follow and respond to the discussion. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• IP79: Your repeated use of the same references again and again is yelling and is bordering at this point on disruptive behavior. I'd like to encourage you to relax and let the inputs of uninvolved editors evolve a little bit and see where it goes. We can often reach the right solution if given the opportunity to talk about it. You have been heard, your evidence has been entered in the record. Let the slow process of deliberation begin. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

AbstractIllusions, thank you for your comment. I agree with you, and have finished presenting my case. Since the matter of fraudulent scientific citation has become evident, and not simply a dispute between legitimate data the matter has been brought to the attention of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive.2C_authoritarian_editor_in_Snake_articles (P.S I reverted one of the headline changes, because it broke one of my links there). (same ip editor) 79.180.139.200 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Due to an ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive.2C_authoritarian_editor_in_Snake_articles., User:DendroNaja has been banned indefinitely (for the 5th time) he has a long history of misrepresentation and misinformation "for long-standing abuse of editing privileges, including insidious vandalism, misrepresentation of references, and abusing multiple accounts. " (quote from his original banned account talk page). The corruption of this article by his hands will be amended soon (same ip editor) 79.179.106.114 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry, been away. Only here (again) for the RfC. FAIK my comment is by now redundant. Let's FTLOM hope that now the whole thing can go to bed and sane spirits can get back to work. I agree with the likes of AbstractIllusions, but do not pretend to have gone too deeply into all the pros and cons; my digestion can take just so much. As a result my remarks are bitty and debatably on-topic.

• One of the least cogent and most distasteful aspects has been the series of claims to authority on ophiology, as if that entailed unanswerability and licence to categorical assertion. It is an uncomfortable sign when a real authority makes such statements on matters of categorical fact, but it also is a definite danger signal, suggesting false authority, when concerning matters of multiple physiological, quantitative and behavioural variables such as toxicology, administration in laboratory and in the wild, separated components, predation, and susceptibility to predation.
• It is worse still when such topics surface in the lede as well as in the body of the article.
• It is questionable to what extent the concept of the "toxicity of black mamba venom" even is worth defining in an article such as this. It might be worth including a note in a suitable passage in the body of the article, remarking that various claims for LD(x, y, or z) had appeared in the literature (string of refs), with a trend towards M in mice and C in chameleons, just because readers often like such states even when they don't understand them. But for my part I would not cry if the topic were omitted.
• The choice of accepted authorities for citation is NOT purely to be justified by the respectability of the publications; context, errors and accidents all could produce nonsense. Where authorities differ, one might exclude the lot, exclude a particular school, or include an discussion; where we cannot justify one choice rather than another, we are no compelled to include any; our job is to write sense, not legalistically justified drivel.
• Personally I would reject any flat claim along the lines that say "black mambas don't have any predators that regularly prey on them". Such claims are vacuous by virtue of vagueness (Whose opinion counts as evidence? What is "regular"? How does regularity of predation differ from multiple "irregular" predators? What does the predation have to do with the venom rather than say, mambas' rarity and mobility? In my experience the typical mature and hungry Varunus niloticus or albigularis or Mellivora would snack very handily on any mamba of any size that did not make itself scarce. Same for some large birds of prey. Events of any one such type might be rare, but in combination, that sounds like predation to me... And there are other such ad-hoc qualifications... )
• Collectively we survivors muster a fair amount of experience in writing WP articles, and at a guess also in biology. I reckon our best move is to get back to the drawing board, possibly put a lock on the topic till further notice, and tidy up the mess. Then watch the result and mind who gets let in to look after the candy. Some subjects simply attract sabotage and pollution. As I said before, if someone would like me to assist, I'll do my best, but not till then; it's not really my field. JonRichfield (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

I am drawn to this article by its listing at the copyright problems board. I'm afraid that this article has a serious problem - it seems that User:DendroNaja may have copied from multiple sources, and this version of the article is likely to be hopelessly corrupt.

Looking at some of the first substantial edit this contributor made, I found copying from [1] - see [2] (much of which came from this edit, most likely). We already knew that she or he had copied from [3]. With this edit, I did a text match on the sentence "This way, the substances support muscular paralysis, either at a central level or by exhausting neuromuscular junctions by super-threshold stimulation." and found a verbatim hit on this forum which led me to this PDF. Here a search for the first phrase that caught my eye - "Oddly, the Asian king cobra (Ophiophagus hannah), was not part of this clade" - took me to [4]. Duplication detector report.

It seems like the last clean version of this article is [5]. I found copying beginning in the very next edit.

In these cases, we generally have two options, as supported by Wikipedia:Copyright violations - we can revert to the last version before the article became corrupt, or interested editors can carefully rewrite content added by this user. Rewrites do have to be done carefully, as plagiarism may be a concern in addition to copyright infringement - in this case, there's evidence that this person copied from sources and cited their sources instead of acknowledging where he or she actually acquired the text. There are suggestions for rewriting in the template now blocking the article.

I am tremendously sorry for those editors who have been working on this article in good faith, unaware of the corruption that User:DendroNaja introduced. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Just as an update, after further investigation I have opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DendroNaja. Please be aware that this person has copied from print sources as well as online. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the history, this is going to be a nightmare and needs a complete rewrite. Its an important species too. Dont worry I agree with what you have done @Moonriddengirl, I guess we will need to fix it. How long can the history text be available? Its a large document to go through. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 15:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The usual term is a minimum of seven days, [User:Faendalimas]], but as long as there's work going on we can certainly go well beyond that. We could also temporarily roll it back so that there is some article for our readers while the content is being rebuilt. I haven't looked to see if any of the other socks edited this article, but there may be older content in history that's problematic, too. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a very important and widely known species. We shouldn't be putting the entire article under blanket copyright block when doubtlessly many people want or need the information in it. Also, many/most Wikipedia readers have no idea how to navigate the page history and no inclination to do so. I realize that User:DendroNaja has filled the article with copy-written material, but please let something resembling a Wiki article be visible publicly without having to go into page history, even if it is a limited article. 207.62.154.130 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fair. I've reverted it back - although I've had to go considerably further. User:DendroNaja unfortunately focused heavily on this article with one of his or her prior socks (User:Sebastian80). The content remains in history at least for now so it can be properly rewritten, although I realize this is a major task. :( With a combination of copyright infringement and from what I've read false information, though, I hope that any new content will be better than it was. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok thats good, this is indeed a very important species we need to have something there. I looked at some of the other articles earlier as well. I got the impression the vast majority of infringements seemed to focus on his take on Venom, though I accept that is also a generalisation. This has caught me at at a really bad moment for me to spend lots of time on it. I will do my best but in a few days I will have more time. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 00:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I've long thought my long drawn out dispute with Sebastian80 some years ago at this article was a low point or "blot" on my otherwise generally uneventful edit history. With this revelation I feel relieved, or even vindicated, that I was clearly "on the good guys' side". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am the IP editor (IP 79.) that exposed him, got him banned indefinitely (in his current reincarnation) in ANI, and worked on the article after his "departure". I will put back in the article parts i know to be true, and not copywrited. feel free to revert my reinstallation of material if they violate any wikipedia policy that i don't know of. 109.67.139.116 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok go for it, I will help as I can, I mostly write turtle articles though I am familiar with this species. If you need help ping me. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 12:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Excessive external links

The WP:LINKFARM in the External links section needs to be weeded, imho more than three links is excessive unless each link can be properly motivated/justified. We should only link scientifically responsible high quality comprehensive sources, not fancruft or "cool facts" pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I would suggest keeping the Toxinology one and the Reptile Database. The rest could go. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 10:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Exhaustive details in the lead

I suppose the lead is a precise and concise summary but the one here appears to be tedious with excessive and repeated description about the animals' danger. That's like "promoting" its "level of killing capacity". There ought to be more about its biology. Biodangerous Talk October 15, 2014 07:18:34 (UTC)

Unjustified ENGVAR change

Why was this article suddenly changed to American English when it has been stable in Commonwealth English for years? Many of the countries where this snake occurs even have a Commonwealth variety of English as an official language, no such connection at all exists to American English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:ENGVAR and the original version [6]. I haven't checked the preference for English variety in the habitat range of black mamba - this might be a valid argument for UK spelling, but it needs a proper analysis. Materialscientist (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to standardizing on British usage and would be happy to make the changes. When I edited the article recently, I noticed that there were both American and British/Commonwealth English usages the article. (American "endeavor", "savanna", "gray", and compass direction styles.) I don't recall why I picked American and have no real preference in this case. The areas where the black mamba lives do have a greater connection with British influence than American influence, so that is a point in favor of British English. SchreiberBike talk 20:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the template to indicate that British English is to be used and have edited the article to use British English. SchreiberBike talk 07:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"Elephant-killing" myth?

Sorry but I can't really find the story of a black mamba killing an elephant (so-called "Eleanor" in the article) from this source, nor is it present in all the rest of the websites provided in Paragraph 4 of the case report section. They're just some news articles describing the behavior of elephants towards their peers' death, nothing about the culprit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.198.201.56 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to remove such a claim since it has been days after I posted the above issue. The so-called supportive sources are as follow:

• Elephants with broken hearts
• Dying Elephant Elicits Compassion
• Scientists see depth of elephant feelings
• Portraits of snake charm worth elephant-killing bite

As seen, none of the above directly supports the claim of a black mamba biting and eventually killing an elephant, nor are they scientific reports giving formal and reliable analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.68.165 (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Clean up

I was sad to see this article is a pale shadow of its sister articles, containing a large amount of hackish commentary. I've removed or rewritten some of the more outstanding examples and I've expanded parts of the article. I'd like to see it regain GA status and will be carrying out further work on sourcing and copy editing the text to give a more scientific tone. Any help would be gratefully received. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 00:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

True. The current one sells hard the "virulence" of the snake. Not sure whether "the most dangerous" is an objective claim with academic reports from different experts - same as the case of the sister page, list of dangerous snakes. Just leave the opinion to readers. I mean everyone has a ranking list of dangerous snakes and what we need here are some objective facts (e.g. toxicity & mortality data).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.68.165 (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm slowly working my way through the article and have just purchased some cheap copies of the more academics books covering the subject. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Renominated for GA Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 GAR

• Talk:Black mamba/GA5

Mark Laita story

The wiki article says Mark Laita was bitten in 2013. However, the story goes back to at least 2011. There are other aspects that appear inconsistent or unusual medically. Spencer4Hire (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it was reported in 2013 because of his book that debuted in February of that year. No sources give the exact date so I removed it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black mamba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140504001452/http://www.biodiversityexplorer.org/reptiles/squamata/serpentes/colubridae/mehelya_capensis.htm to http://www.biodiversityexplorer.org/reptiles/squamata/serpentes/colubridae/mehelya_capensis.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029190702/http://www.toxinology.com/fusebox.cfm?fuseaction=main.snakes.display&id=SN0170 to http://www.toxinology.com/fusebox.cfm?fuseaction=main.snakes.display&id=SN0170

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Zulu

The word "mamba" seems to be in Zulu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The word "imamba" means mamba in Zulu. The plural is "izimamba".

See https://zu.oxforddictionaries.com/translate/isizulu-english/imamba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Aha, thanks/interesting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Should this core page be a disambiguous?

Black Mamba is also the name for the most common bike in Africa - Roadster (bicycle)Zanes44 (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Nah. It's not the whole article that's referred to as black mamba, just a regional name for the article subject. But even if it were, Black mamba gets an average of 2,000 daily views while Roadster (bicycle) gets 77 so this article would probably be the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The hatnote here directs to a disambiguation page (Black mamba (disambiguation)), to which I just added a line for Roadster (bicycle). Rhinopias (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The bike is obviously named after the snake, so the snake is the primary topic. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That's… also a good point. Rhinopias (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Speed of snake discussed in article is not consistent, and uses incorrect units in one place; needs correction - but I'm not sure of correct answer

"The black mamba's reputed speed has also been exaggerated. It can slither at no more than 16 km (9.9 mi).[14]" The quoted sentence at the end of the 'Behaviour and ecology' section of the article uses incorrect units of measurement for speed. Speed is distance per unit time; this sentence uses Km and mi(kilometers and miles), which are units for distance not speed. Presumably the unit time is "hour", giving speed units of kilometers per hour and miles per hour, as in "The black mamba's reputed speed has also been exaggerated. It can slither at no more than 16 km/h (9.9 mph).[14]"

However, such a speed would be different than the quoted speed in the introductory paragraphs: " Over suitable surfaces, it is possibly the fastest species of snake, capable of at least 11 km/h (6.8 mph) over short distances. ."

That was a formatting error (wrong units). Fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what the right numbers are for the top speed of this type of snake. Perhaps use the range "11-16 km/hr"? SuperNuc (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Bookmark

• this and this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Check this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Range map

Was about to nominate after closing peer review and realised it needs a sourced and more accurate range map. Will have a look around... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Venom Potency

It's hard to believe this a featured article, when even the units of measurements was inaccurate. I corrected the Units used. The scientific papers cited used micrograms, the wiki article had them in milligrams. As can be seen in this screenshot: https://ibb.co/4tdtwqJ Pincotti4 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pincotti4: The source uses μg/g. Our article uses mg/kg. 1 μg/g = 1 mg/kg. Please read the sources carefully before introducing errors in a featured article (or any other article, really). Best, RetiredDuke (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: Is snakedatabase.org a reliable source? It wasn't there at time of promotion, obviously (and it's formatted as an ugly url, that's why I noticed it in the first place). Can you please check? Thanks, RetiredDuke (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pincotti4: try to submit an appeal from one of the original accounts next time and it can be opened for a community discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: Woah, I see this got you involved in a bit of a cleanup job. I went ahead and removed the sentence sourced to the website above, looked fishy to me. Just a heads up. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke: not sure about snakedatabase.org as all people listed are admin/tech type people not researchers/scientists. However, the best use would be their use of references as a gateway to pee-reviewed literature. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Why “black”?

The (current) article doesn’t explain the name. I checked archives (but not history).

Why “black”? “Grey” not scary enough?

“Green” named earlier or later?

Who named it?

MBG02 (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

From the colour of the mouth. I've added the info. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Popular culture

Many similar articles have a section on human relations, cultural depictions, in popular culture, or the like, where human relations with the animal, cultural depictions, myths and legends, parts in stories (films, books, etc.) throughout human history are discussed. I expected this animal to have that as well, and I expected to find a name-drop for Kill Bill in there. Seeing as this is an FA, I have to ask, has this particular animal never caught the imagination of any humans other than Tarantino, or what? Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes!!! John Godey, who wrote "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three", also wrote a book called "The Snake", which funnily enough, is a story about a Black Mamba that gets loose in New York City. It is a terrifying and very exciting read. But there isnt really enough "meat" in the book to make a movie out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E414:3A01:38DF:E8CB:50A1:9ADC (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Excessive describers in the lead

"A large, extremely venomous" is excessive in my opinion because there is no clear threshold for any snake article to indicate the "extremity" in the lead unless we define "extremely" to be scientific (say, the LD50 value standard). Otherwise, we should delete such words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalRover (talk • contribs) 11:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

O-kay, I replaced with "highly" - agree "extremely" is possibly excessive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021

Change "humans within 45 minutes or less" to "humans within 45 minutes". "or less" is redundant. Darney76 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)