Talk:Chinese cobra

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Naja atra → Chinese cobra – per WP:COMMONNAME.relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Bastian (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, as with Cat, not Felis catus. Subnumine (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since the title Naja atra is correct and not at all misleading, I favour two redirects to this title rather than moving content, and suggest to establish these redirects from both "Chinese cobra" and "Taiwan cobra". This way both vernacular names can be listed in the introduction of Naja atra without giving preference to the one or to the other. Let's settle this debate about which vernacular name is "more correct than the other" rather than fueling it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, always known this as the Chinese cobra.

Discussion

The common name of this species used throughout the world is the "Chinese cobra" not "Taiwan cobra". Even in Taiwan, it's called the "Chinese cobra". There is an entire section under "Etymology and names" dedicated to this. Remember WP:COMMONNAME. Bastian (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That section says nothing about English vernacular names. We shouldn't be using names just because the word they are made up of are English; perhaps the most commonly used name for this species in English is Naja atra. The vast majority of known species have no well-established vernacular English name. Ucucha (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The most common name for this species in English is the "Chinese cobra", I assure you. I am well versed in this topic and know what I'm talking about here. This is called the "Chinese cobra" in every language there is: Swedish, German, English, Danish, French, Italian, Spanish, you name it. This species is called the Chinese cobra throughout the world. Bastian (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you did not read ALL the scientific articles that have been published about this cobra. Some biologists do indeed refer to it as the Taiwan cobra. See this one by Wang and Yang (1981) about its venom : Crystallographic studies ... from Taiwan cobra. --BhagyaMani (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't come here and bring me one "study" calling the snake "Taiwan cobra" and claim that that is as common as "Chinese cobra". This species is called the "Chinese cobra" in every language there is. Even in Taiwan it is called the "Chinese cobra". This has been so since the species was first described. You are making destructive edits to the intro of the article as all sources call the species "Chinese cobra". Please don't pretend to know like you know anything about this species, its history, and what it is or isn't called. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. There also seems to be a stench of politics to your stance. Leave politics out of science please. This is the "Chinese cobra" to billions of people across the world. It is NOT the "Taiwan cobra". We might aswell call it the "Laos cobra" or the "Northern Vietnam cobra". If you continue to make the destructive edits, I will have to report you for edit warring. Get a grip. Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Herpetologist Mark O'Shea calls it the "Chinese cobra" in his book "Venomous Snakes of the World" here Look under "Other common cobras". In the book "Snakes of Medical Importance" written by a group of zoologists and herpetologists in Singapore this species is called the "Chinese cobra" here Check out the left page on top (pg. 253). In this Taiwanese website here, it is also called the "Chinese cobra". Wolfgang Wuster (probably the biggest herpetologist in the world right now) calls it "Chinese cobra" here. The Reptile Database calls it "Chinese cobra" here. I can go on and on forever here. Spawls & Branch call this species the "Chinese cobra", Johan Marais does aswell, so does the well known Austen Stevens, Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry of Australia's Venom Research Unit. I can go on and on. All you have to do is google: "Chinese cobra" and then google "Taiwan cobra". Then look at the google images of "Chinese cobra" and then "Taiwan cobra" and you'll notice a world of a difference. Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 17:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Cantor himself has only used Naja atra in his first description but did not propose any vernacular name -- see : Cantor, T. E. (1842). General Features of Chusan, with remarks on the Flora and Fauna of that Island Annals and Magazine of Natural History including Zoology, Botany, and Geology IX: 482–492.
Am sure that nobody has any doubts about the name "Chinese cobra" being used by many people. But the name "Taiwan cobra" is used as well by many others for this same cobra. Therefore, I support leaving the title of this article as it is : the term Naja atra is still correct; and it is impartial as it does not give preference to any of the two nations. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Cantor didn't call it "Chinese cobra", but it has become by far the most common name(vernacular) for this species. The name "Taiwan cobra" is used much more rarely. I have not seen a single herpetologist call this species "Taiwan cobra" in English. On the other hand, however, every herpetologist in every English or German books I've ever read this species is always referred to as the "Chinese cobra". Plain and simple. Remember WP:COMMONNAME. This species has a most common English vernacular name and that name is the "Chinese cobra". You are talking about "impartial as it does not give preference to any of the two nations" - this isn't politics, this is science. Keep politics out of it. Why don't we call it the "Laos cobra" or the "Vietnam cobra" while were at it, so that it is impartial to ALL the nations where this species occurs. Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 21:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You also got to remember that Taiwan is NOT a nation. The Republic of China is a nation (still debatable; not accepted as a sovereign nation by the UN), just like the People's Republic of China is a nation. So in reality, by calling it "Chinese cobra" it is covering both the island of Taiwan (Republic of China) and mainland China (PRC). Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 21:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Look : I merely advanced my argument and reason. If you challenge a discussion you have to allow other arguments and opinions apart from your own. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I welcome debate, but I am just trying to neutralize or put into question the reasoning behind your argument - I think I've achieved this. You are looking at this scientific matter through the lenses of politics and clearly ignoring WP:COMMONNAME as a result of this. Your reasoning is clearly polluted by your political stance on an issue that has nothing to do with this species of snake. "Chinese" is both mainland China (PRC) and the island of Taiwan (Republic of China) - they both claim to be "China" and they both claim to be "Chinese". So your political argument of appeasing "both nations" (of which the statehood of one is still a matter of debate) in a scientific matter is not just mute, but it has no place in this discussion at all. The common English vernacular name for Naja atra is, was, and will always be the "Chinese cobra". Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 22:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What kind of a person are you to pretend to be able to "neutralize .. arguments" and in the same time assume "polluted .. political stance" ?
My initial arguments were that the article title Naja atra is correct and impartial. At present, Google Scholar lists more than 350 scientific articles about this cobra species; these include 137 entries using Taiwan cobra in the title and 83 entries using Chinese cobra in the title. This indicates that the members of the scientific community have not come to an agreement pro or contra any of the two vernacular names. Wikipedia authors are not supposed to take anybody's side but to remain neutral and merely document findings and ideas. Hence, I keep favouring Naja atra as article title. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm upset not because you opposed the move, I'm upset because this was really a non-issue - "Chinese cobra" is by far the most common English vernacular name, but you turned it into an issue because as you want to be "impartial" (yeah, right!) and you said it yourself: "it is impartial as it does not give preference to any of the two nations". You want to be "impartial" because you don't want to offend either nation in a scientific matter? That's your reasoning? What does that have to do with the most common English vernacular name for this species? Then you come with this "Google Scholar" pages - I can do that too watch. You can't just put "allintitle" (because something about Taiwan that's totally unrelated to this species will be counted that way), you have to put the words in quotation marks. Google Scholar has it like this: 863 for "Taiwan cobra" here and 908 for "Chinese cobra" here. If you just search google you get 38,600 hits for "Taiwan cobra" (here) and 163,000 hits for "Chinese cobra" (here). There is no question about it. The common laymen and majority of experts call this snake the "Chinese cobra". Every book worth its salt that I've read in both English and German (two languages) refer to this species as the "Chinese cobra" - not one, not a single one book I've read calls this the "Taiwan cobra". They don't even call it the "Taiwan cobra" in the island of Taiwan (Republic of China). Books by Johan Marais, Stephen Spawls, Bill Branch, Mark O'Shea, Wolfgang Wuster, Donald Broadley, Wolf-Eberhard Engelmann, Jurgen Obst, Anita Malhotra, Roger Thorpe, and the Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, England all refer to this species as the "Chinese cobra". Not to mention well known herpetologists, Austen Stevens and Donald Schultz also call this species "Chinese cobra". Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you continue to forget WP:COMMONNAME - "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." I have provided these reliable sources - all the biologists and herpetologists and the books they have written above are plenty "English-language reliable sources". Plus most laymen also refer to this species as the "Chinese cobra" in English. Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 18:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Another thing WP:COMMONNAME says is this - "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals....When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books.[5])" So Google Book results first: "Chinese cobra" got 104,000 hits (Books result) and "Taiwan cobra" got 23,200 hits (Books result). For News Archive results: "Chinese cobra" got 40 hits (News result) and "Taiwan cobra" got 8 hits (News result). Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 19:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Whichever method you use to search for the one or other vernacular name, doesn't convince me of the necessity to move the content of this article. Nor does your being upset.
The existing redirect for "Chinese cobra" will anyway take an interested user to this article.
At present, I don't think that the two of us will reach a consensus in this matter. Bye -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chinese etymology

Since the page is semi-protected, I’m starting a discussion instead of going right into edit mode.

The article gives 飯鏟頭 as “rice paddle head”. This is probably not the most helpful and is potentially wrong. It’s called 飯鏟頭 because it looks like a rice paddle, but whether it’s the whole thing or just the head that looks like a rice paddle is debatable. 頭 does not always mean “head”, and given that it’s called 飯匙倩 in Taiwan I’d say “the whole thing looks like a rice paddle” is the more probable of the two.

I don’t know if the words have different meanings in a Taiwanese dialect, but a 倩 is a dude (I am aware this doesn’t sound right in an encyclopedia but “man” doesn’t sound right either) and a 銃 is a gun.—Al12si (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese cobra. 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/20100528145850/http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~bss166/Taxa/AsNaja.htm to http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~bss166/Taxa/AsNaja.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20110310175005/http://www.snakesoftaiwan.com/Naja%20atra/species_naja_atra.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20120626091754if_/http://www.reptilia.net/articulos_ing/031.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)