Talk:Eurasian water shrew

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albania Low‑importance

	Eurasian water shrew is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Mammals Mid‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Eurasian water shrew appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Eurasian water shrew produces venom that can kill a field vole?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eurasian water shrew.

Wikipedia

Negative claims

Suppose you made the claim "Richard New Forest doesn't eat dog", and I were to ask you to prove that claim. You couldn't. The burden of proof would be on me, to demonstrate that you have in fact eaten dog. Similarly, the claim "water shrews cannot puncture human skin" cannot be proven, it can only be disproven if it is false. EAE (Holla!) 03:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying about this article? Chrisrus (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments above copied from User talk:Richard New Forest and discussion moved from there.

There are several points here.

Firstly, it is simply not true that negative claims need no references, which is the claim made in the edit summary ([1]). All claims need references, and the fact tag was properly applied.

What you seem to be saying is that the claim about water shrews and human skin is not provable. It seems clear to me that in fact it is: a series of test bites by water shrews would prove it either true or false. As it happens I was not bitten by the few live water shrews I've handled, but I have, for example, been bitten by a pipistrelle bat, which certainly tried to penetrate my skin but could not. It would not be hard to prove the case for water shrews one way or the other, and I volunteer my finger to try the experiment.

In this case the claim appears plausible and is provable, and I think it should stay in for the moment. It does not have a ref, so it should have a fact tag until one appears. If no ref appears after a reasonable time, it should be deleted. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Range

The article says that its range extends to Ireland but the map does not show Ireland as being part of the its range. Not sure which is correct so I won't make any changes but thought I would bring attention to it for other editors. Lime in the Coconut 14:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]