![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
ARCHIVE PAGE 1: 2005 to 2010
Where do we talk about common names when on pages about a Scientific name?
I encountered a new word luce today in Scrabble, and spent some time till I could associate it with Esox lucius and on that page couldn't find a convenient place to say luce -- please put hints on my Talk page. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 19 June 2005 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice a recent BBC headline "Apes 'extinct in a genertion'" that announced the publication of a UN World Atlas of Great Apes and their Conservation? It coincided with Wikipedia's Featured Article (Main Page) linking to Common Chimpanzee.
In a fast-moving world, simply recording what we find in use, calling it encyclopedic, will tend to be dated. By using available information and thinking ahead (without promoting opinions or research ideas), we can still be encyclopedic as well as being responsible and showing leadership.
Common names of species are important in communicating environmental information; but very little is being communicated. Not just the Great Apes, but many species will be extinct within a few decades and even science has not (yet) really noticed. Wikipedians can help.
I've made major changes to this "Common Names" Article, hoping I've kept to what is acceptable, although I would have wanted to be more radical. In paraticular, I would have liked to say that we prefer to Capitalize Common Names! Our recent debate was trending this way; did we arrive at a conclusion? 218.101.117.67 04:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)= Stanskis 10:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "Botanists sometimes maintain ..." is very unclear. Can someone who understands what it means pls rewrite it. Nurg 03:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I was taught as an undergraduate zoology student that capitilizing species' common names was incorrect unless the name included a proper name (e.g. Wilson's storm petrel). This article notes that convention among botanists, but it is more broad than that. Scientific journals use the same convention, I believe. There is great inconsistency in Wikipedia in this regard, although I note that the references to species in this article are for the most part in lower case. -- Peter3 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The article trivial name covers the same territory for chemical names, and should be merged into this one. -- Blainster 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
In section Common names that repeat scientific names, there is no citing of sources, and no mention of any downside; I imagine confusion results from having multiple or dicrepant names. I find these phrases POV: "This is a useful feature", "common and scientific names should be treated differently with no systematic attempt to make them correspond", "New common names are to be welcomed as long as they are helpful to a group of users, no matter how small", "spontaneous names are ideal", "multi-lingual and multiple local common names an increasingly valuable feature". jnestorius( talk) 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I (anon) pulled the weird POV text, since there's been no update on this since January and the text is bizarrely out of place. - September 23, 2007 Oh, okay, yeah, that was kinda weird. Probably whole article needs reviewed. Thanks.
What is the correct syntax for the common name of an animal?
For example a Siberian Tiger or Clown Loach or African Elephant. Or should it be written as Siberian tiger, Clown loach, African elephant?
The article main page indicates a common name for a species is a formal name therefore it surely should be written as 'Clown Loach, etc.'? But I've see so many books use the lower-case second name. Which form is correct?
Can an English expert put me right?
-- Quatermass ( talk) 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly I have added comments about different cultures and scripts. We are inclined to be Western-0-centric about these things. Also I have re-defined common name to be more inclusive and reduce ambiguity.Let me know if you do not feel that the definition is an improvement. added a couple of paragraphs and headings to the introductory material and slightly altered what was written there before. Also addressed the capitalisation issue in a way which I hope is acceptable. There are a few more additions to go. Please bear with me until I've finished. I am now fully aware of the various Wikipedia conventions and policies and am not (I believe) transgressing any of these. I'm sure I will find out if this isn't acceptable ... -- Granitethighs ( talk) 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the opening statement just added because: . it repeats the sentiments of the definition given below it . common names are not only referred to as such by professionals . the ambiguity of common names is discussed in the section "scientific and common names" so it does not add anything
One possibility is to come to an agreement about the definition - let me know Granitethighs ( talk) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Not quite a formal proposal, but shouldn't we deal with common name and trivial name on the same page? Earthlyreason ( talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated the sentence in the lead saying that a common name is not necessarily a commonly used name. In the context of this article, Common name, the distinction is very important. -- Una Smith ( talk) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the introduction is confusing:
This would mean within a scientific community the common name was the scientific name! This is not what it means, it means the name used by the people who are outside the group of specialists that use the term "common name" (patricians and the plebs or House of Lords and House of Commons) and is a relation of such terms as " as common as muck", and Common People . -- PBS ( talk) 01:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have tweaked the article to some extent, but it is still rather poorly organized. It needs more rewriting and tighter organization. Right now it is only too obvious that many different people have contributed to it, patchwork style. Best wishes, Invertzoo ( talk) 20:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This opinion, despite rewording, needs a citation. It will also need clarification, finding a concordance for a common name with a taxon is fraught with difficulties; this is why systematics has been adopted by anyone wanting to communicate effectively.
For most people a common name in their own language has more appeal because it is easier to pronounce and remember than the Latin scientific name; they also often convey cultural and historical or other associations that are not so evident in Latin (e.g. barking owl, German shepherd). It is common names, not scientific names, that are the major currency of everyday communication about organisms.
A common name for an organism has restricted usage and utility, especially in reference to those few who are 'familiar'. A killer whale is a dolphin, a species of cetacean (whales and dolphins).
— cygnis insignis 13:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In the examples given (barking owl etc.) the actual organism referred to by the common name is irrelevant- it was the "content of the name itself" that was being referred to - you seem to have missed this point. In my view this statement is uncontentious, it is not demeaning the utility of scientific names as you seem to assume. My concern is that the important points being made have been removed. Could you please re-edit the sentence to remove the "opinion" but yet still making these key points dispassionately please? Otherwise I think it best for me to revert again. Granitethighs ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not uncontentious. I disagree with both "For most people a common name in their own language has more appeal" and "It is common names, not scientific names, that are the major currency of everyday communication about organisms". I agree with Cygnis: citations are required.
Hesperian
02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I consider the first sentence doubtful, and disagree with the second. Citation needed. Hesperian 07:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Common name and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Checking the article, the lead text specifically includes "vernacular name" and "colloquial name" but the Usage section goes on to discuss the use of "common name" for describing organisms (to quote the OED:"a name applicable to each of the individuals or species which make up a class or genus"). As it stands the lead text is deficient as it does not actually reflect the uses of the term as described in the article body and the lead text quotes no sources for the interpretation of "common name" expressed there. I would agree that the most published usage of "common name" is the scientific sense for plants in contrast to "botanical name". However as the lead includes other uses and examples are not that hard to find, for example "Mad Cow Disease" as a common name on CNN, these uses of "common name" can be demonstrated and should be expanded upon if the lead text introduces them. I note that the particular edit in question uses the term "more appeal" and unless sources can demonstrate this to be the case then potentially POV language should be avoided. Conclusion, the article should expand on the variations of usage of the term "common name" as described in the lead. As the lead text states common name can mean "vernacular name" then a name used in the local language (possibly a colloquial name rather than literal translation) is precisely this usage and can be considered on-topic. However sources should be included in order, at a minimum, to illustrate alternate types of usage rather than over reliance on "self evident truth" which in this case has been challenged and so we should allow for the possibility that this truth may not be self evident to all observers.— Ash ( talk) 11:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
Ash, I think you have missed the point, and your response has only muddied the waters. The dispute here is very simple. Should the article text
be allowed to stand without a supporting citation? Hesperian 14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Common name | Scientific name |
---|---|
wolf | Canis lupus |
earthworm | Lumbricus terrestris |
honey bee | Apis mellifera |
cone flower | Echinacea sp. |
daisy, lawn daisy, English daisy | Bellis perennis |
white oak, Quebec oak | Quercus alba |
acetic acid, vinegar | ethanoic acid |
caffeine | 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione |
brimstone | sulphur |
chalk | calcium carbonate ( calcite) |
salt | sodium chloride |
We seem to be painting ourselves into a corner and it is getting confusing. Here are some suggestions:
What do you think? Granitethighs ( talk) 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
A three to one majority assert that these two sentences should not be allowed to stand without a citation, and your response is to reinsert the sentences without citation, whilst pretending to be complying with consensus?!
[4] Do you think I cannot smell bullshit when it is shoved under my nose?
Hesperian
23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
At this point, the situation is that you are edit-warring against other editors, in violation of the three-revert rule, [5] [6] [7] [8], contrary to acknowledged consensus, and in violation of our verifiability policy, as quoted above. Hesperian 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I have long (decades long) been a proponent of common names. I have also long been a proponent of scientific names. Common names (and I mean true vernacular names, not the crap made up by authors of popular guides) have in many cases deep cultural significance. Anthropologists and ethnobiologists cannot avoid carefully considering them. People trying to reclaim their language and culture often wrap their tongues around names that are as hard, or harder, to pronounce than Latin. Common names are bound up with history, sometimes in a way we'd as soon gloss over, e.g. niggerhead. Common names should be cherished, for all these reasons.
But, while they are often the preferred way of communicating in local communities, they are often worthless for communicating in the wider world.
To say that pronunciation is a factor is trivially true, but also complex. As a triviality, it is unencyclopedic ("People can pronounce words that they often say more easily that words with which they are unfamiliar"). As a complexity, the disputed statement doesn't come close to doing it justice (and lacks a citation).
To say that there are "historical, cultural or other associations" is also trivially true, but not so trivial that I would oppose an addition that included that part. It should be easy to find references for specific examples. But the "appeal" part, as it stands, is POV. A statement, "appeals to so-and-so", with a citation, totally defuses the POV, but without that, I must oppose it.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed because possible promotion of c.o.i. as regards author Granitethighs or author of book... [11] also reffed and removed elsewhere for similar reasons [12] - skip sievert ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hesperian you reasonably requested a citation for a paragraph that you had deleted. I reinstated that paragraph and was about to add the citation when you deleted it again. I have added the qualifying citation and restored the paragraph. Please do not delete it again without explanation. Granitethighs 04:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The section in question:
In almost all cultures objects are named using one or two words. citation needed When made up of two words (a binomial) the name usually consists of a noun (like salt, dog or star) and an adjectival second word that helps describe the first, and therefore makes the name, as a whole, more "specific", for example, lap dog, sea salt, or film star. citation needed The meaning of the noun used for a common name may have been lost or forgotten (whelk, elm, lion, shark, pig) but when the common name is extended to two or more words much more is conveyed about the organism's use, appearance or other special properties(sting ray, poison apple, giant stinking hogweed, hammerhead shark). citation needed These noun-adjective binomials are just like our own names with a family or surname likeSimpson and another adjectival Christian- or forename name that specifies which Simpson, say Homer Simpson. citation needed It seems reasonable to assume that the form of scientific names we call binomial nomenclature is derived from this simple and practical way of constructing common names - but with the use of Latin as a universal language. citation needed Because of this universal and simple way of naming with one or two words modern scientific taxonomy has been described as "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles." citation needed
Okay - there are six separate statements which need referencing (it is a fairly fact-dense para). The question is, how many of the six the above source actually accounts for - and if some or all of tehse views are held by other notable writers. The last does not necessarily gell with some of the info on Linnaeus and binomials. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In most folk taxonomies, taxa that are members of the category generic are more numerous than life form taxa, but are nonetheless finite in number, usually about 500.
Okay well let's get back to the paragraph - the main thrust of the paragraph is discussing the whole binomial issue this is just not touched on in this reference at all. I am not hugely familiar with work in the area, but would ask for appropriate sourcing before it goes back in the article. I'd also like to see sources for the sentences and segments I have tagged in the article. Casliber( talk · contribs) 17:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian I do not want to get into another unnecessary and destructive edit war. I have accepted your deletion but quoted two eminent authorities on the topic at hand. I think that Stearn's comment is a very lucid summary of the matter, which is why I have put it at the end. However, the Raven-Berlin quote, though possibly irritating to some, draws closer attention to the important point of simplicity of communication that is already present both within the structure of folk taxonomy and taken over by scientific nomenclature (it is also founded in Aristotelian logic - a point that you removed). This is not controversial material, I urge you to please use restraint in you response. Granitethighs 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian, you have deleted a paragraph once again with the comment "Remove paragraph. Source is about folk /taxonomy/. It has nothing whatsoever to say about /nomenclature/, and certainly nothing about the "underlying connection between the vernacular and scientific" The paragraph was:
This underlying connection between the vernacular and scientific prompted Peter Raven, the Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, to describe scientific taxonomy as "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles." [1]
I would like your interpretation of what exactly you think the above paragraph is referring to. If you do not, or cannot, give an explanation then I shall put the paragraph back and refer the matter to Wikipedia arbitration as I do not want to resort to an edit war. Granitethighs 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you not understand the difference between scientific taxonomy and scientific nomenclature? It isn't my job to explain it; you should be able to google it easily enough.
The article you're citing is about taxonomy. It asserts that scientific taxonomy is a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles. It is not about nomenclature. It has nothing whatsoever to say about nomenclature. It does not make the connection between vernacular names and scientific names that you are claiming for it.
I understand this. Guettarda understands this: "Fundamentally, the Raven paper is about higher taxa, not species, not binomials. Not related to this paragraph in any meaningful way." [15] Casliber understands this: "I have to concur with Guettarda and Hesperian - it doesn't touch on the issue of binomial names really at all." [16]
I intend to continue removing unsourced material, and, in particular, putatively sourced material that fails verification. I have no objection to you referring the matter to Wikipedia arbitration.
Hesperian 11:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Also highly relevant:
Hesperian 05:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Hesperian - now we can move on. Granitethighs 07:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
There is some evidence for the deep-seatedness of taxonomy which comes from patients who have, through accident or disease, suffered traumas of the brain. Scientists studying these patients’ brains have reported repeatedly finding damage — a deadening of activity or actual lesions — in a region of the temporal lobe, leading some researchers to hypothesize that there might be a specific part of the brain that is devoted to taxonomy. This turns out to be more serious than the loss of some dispensable librarian-like ability to classify living things. Without the power to order and name life, a person simply does not know how to live in the world, or how to understand it, because to order and name life is to have a heightened sense of the world around us and our place in it. And by locating ourselves within the natural world we are more likely to manage it in a sensitive way. [2]
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
ARCHIVE PAGE 1: 2005 to 2010
Where do we talk about common names when on pages about a Scientific name?
I encountered a new word luce today in Scrabble, and spent some time till I could associate it with Esox lucius and on that page couldn't find a convenient place to say luce -- please put hints on my Talk page. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 19 June 2005 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice a recent BBC headline "Apes 'extinct in a genertion'" that announced the publication of a UN World Atlas of Great Apes and their Conservation? It coincided with Wikipedia's Featured Article (Main Page) linking to Common Chimpanzee.
In a fast-moving world, simply recording what we find in use, calling it encyclopedic, will tend to be dated. By using available information and thinking ahead (without promoting opinions or research ideas), we can still be encyclopedic as well as being responsible and showing leadership.
Common names of species are important in communicating environmental information; but very little is being communicated. Not just the Great Apes, but many species will be extinct within a few decades and even science has not (yet) really noticed. Wikipedians can help.
I've made major changes to this "Common Names" Article, hoping I've kept to what is acceptable, although I would have wanted to be more radical. In paraticular, I would have liked to say that we prefer to Capitalize Common Names! Our recent debate was trending this way; did we arrive at a conclusion? 218.101.117.67 04:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)= Stanskis 10:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "Botanists sometimes maintain ..." is very unclear. Can someone who understands what it means pls rewrite it. Nurg 03:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I was taught as an undergraduate zoology student that capitilizing species' common names was incorrect unless the name included a proper name (e.g. Wilson's storm petrel). This article notes that convention among botanists, but it is more broad than that. Scientific journals use the same convention, I believe. There is great inconsistency in Wikipedia in this regard, although I note that the references to species in this article are for the most part in lower case. -- Peter3 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The article trivial name covers the same territory for chemical names, and should be merged into this one. -- Blainster 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
In section Common names that repeat scientific names, there is no citing of sources, and no mention of any downside; I imagine confusion results from having multiple or dicrepant names. I find these phrases POV: "This is a useful feature", "common and scientific names should be treated differently with no systematic attempt to make them correspond", "New common names are to be welcomed as long as they are helpful to a group of users, no matter how small", "spontaneous names are ideal", "multi-lingual and multiple local common names an increasingly valuable feature". jnestorius( talk) 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I (anon) pulled the weird POV text, since there's been no update on this since January and the text is bizarrely out of place. - September 23, 2007 Oh, okay, yeah, that was kinda weird. Probably whole article needs reviewed. Thanks.
What is the correct syntax for the common name of an animal?
For example a Siberian Tiger or Clown Loach or African Elephant. Or should it be written as Siberian tiger, Clown loach, African elephant?
The article main page indicates a common name for a species is a formal name therefore it surely should be written as 'Clown Loach, etc.'? But I've see so many books use the lower-case second name. Which form is correct?
Can an English expert put me right?
-- Quatermass ( talk) 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly I have added comments about different cultures and scripts. We are inclined to be Western-0-centric about these things. Also I have re-defined common name to be more inclusive and reduce ambiguity.Let me know if you do not feel that the definition is an improvement. added a couple of paragraphs and headings to the introductory material and slightly altered what was written there before. Also addressed the capitalisation issue in a way which I hope is acceptable. There are a few more additions to go. Please bear with me until I've finished. I am now fully aware of the various Wikipedia conventions and policies and am not (I believe) transgressing any of these. I'm sure I will find out if this isn't acceptable ... -- Granitethighs ( talk) 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the opening statement just added because: . it repeats the sentiments of the definition given below it . common names are not only referred to as such by professionals . the ambiguity of common names is discussed in the section "scientific and common names" so it does not add anything
One possibility is to come to an agreement about the definition - let me know Granitethighs ( talk) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Not quite a formal proposal, but shouldn't we deal with common name and trivial name on the same page? Earthlyreason ( talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated the sentence in the lead saying that a common name is not necessarily a commonly used name. In the context of this article, Common name, the distinction is very important. -- Una Smith ( talk) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the introduction is confusing:
This would mean within a scientific community the common name was the scientific name! This is not what it means, it means the name used by the people who are outside the group of specialists that use the term "common name" (patricians and the plebs or House of Lords and House of Commons) and is a relation of such terms as " as common as muck", and Common People . -- PBS ( talk) 01:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have tweaked the article to some extent, but it is still rather poorly organized. It needs more rewriting and tighter organization. Right now it is only too obvious that many different people have contributed to it, patchwork style. Best wishes, Invertzoo ( talk) 20:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This opinion, despite rewording, needs a citation. It will also need clarification, finding a concordance for a common name with a taxon is fraught with difficulties; this is why systematics has been adopted by anyone wanting to communicate effectively.
For most people a common name in their own language has more appeal because it is easier to pronounce and remember than the Latin scientific name; they also often convey cultural and historical or other associations that are not so evident in Latin (e.g. barking owl, German shepherd). It is common names, not scientific names, that are the major currency of everyday communication about organisms.
A common name for an organism has restricted usage and utility, especially in reference to those few who are 'familiar'. A killer whale is a dolphin, a species of cetacean (whales and dolphins).
— cygnis insignis 13:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In the examples given (barking owl etc.) the actual organism referred to by the common name is irrelevant- it was the "content of the name itself" that was being referred to - you seem to have missed this point. In my view this statement is uncontentious, it is not demeaning the utility of scientific names as you seem to assume. My concern is that the important points being made have been removed. Could you please re-edit the sentence to remove the "opinion" but yet still making these key points dispassionately please? Otherwise I think it best for me to revert again. Granitethighs ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not uncontentious. I disagree with both "For most people a common name in their own language has more appeal" and "It is common names, not scientific names, that are the major currency of everyday communication about organisms". I agree with Cygnis: citations are required.
Hesperian
02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I consider the first sentence doubtful, and disagree with the second. Citation needed. Hesperian 07:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Common name and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Checking the article, the lead text specifically includes "vernacular name" and "colloquial name" but the Usage section goes on to discuss the use of "common name" for describing organisms (to quote the OED:"a name applicable to each of the individuals or species which make up a class or genus"). As it stands the lead text is deficient as it does not actually reflect the uses of the term as described in the article body and the lead text quotes no sources for the interpretation of "common name" expressed there. I would agree that the most published usage of "common name" is the scientific sense for plants in contrast to "botanical name". However as the lead includes other uses and examples are not that hard to find, for example "Mad Cow Disease" as a common name on CNN, these uses of "common name" can be demonstrated and should be expanded upon if the lead text introduces them. I note that the particular edit in question uses the term "more appeal" and unless sources can demonstrate this to be the case then potentially POV language should be avoided. Conclusion, the article should expand on the variations of usage of the term "common name" as described in the lead. As the lead text states common name can mean "vernacular name" then a name used in the local language (possibly a colloquial name rather than literal translation) is precisely this usage and can be considered on-topic. However sources should be included in order, at a minimum, to illustrate alternate types of usage rather than over reliance on "self evident truth" which in this case has been challenged and so we should allow for the possibility that this truth may not be self evident to all observers.— Ash ( talk) 11:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
Ash, I think you have missed the point, and your response has only muddied the waters. The dispute here is very simple. Should the article text
be allowed to stand without a supporting citation? Hesperian 14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Common name | Scientific name |
---|---|
wolf | Canis lupus |
earthworm | Lumbricus terrestris |
honey bee | Apis mellifera |
cone flower | Echinacea sp. |
daisy, lawn daisy, English daisy | Bellis perennis |
white oak, Quebec oak | Quercus alba |
acetic acid, vinegar | ethanoic acid |
caffeine | 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione |
brimstone | sulphur |
chalk | calcium carbonate ( calcite) |
salt | sodium chloride |
We seem to be painting ourselves into a corner and it is getting confusing. Here are some suggestions:
What do you think? Granitethighs ( talk) 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
A three to one majority assert that these two sentences should not be allowed to stand without a citation, and your response is to reinsert the sentences without citation, whilst pretending to be complying with consensus?!
[4] Do you think I cannot smell bullshit when it is shoved under my nose?
Hesperian
23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
At this point, the situation is that you are edit-warring against other editors, in violation of the three-revert rule, [5] [6] [7] [8], contrary to acknowledged consensus, and in violation of our verifiability policy, as quoted above. Hesperian 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I have long (decades long) been a proponent of common names. I have also long been a proponent of scientific names. Common names (and I mean true vernacular names, not the crap made up by authors of popular guides) have in many cases deep cultural significance. Anthropologists and ethnobiologists cannot avoid carefully considering them. People trying to reclaim their language and culture often wrap their tongues around names that are as hard, or harder, to pronounce than Latin. Common names are bound up with history, sometimes in a way we'd as soon gloss over, e.g. niggerhead. Common names should be cherished, for all these reasons.
But, while they are often the preferred way of communicating in local communities, they are often worthless for communicating in the wider world.
To say that pronunciation is a factor is trivially true, but also complex. As a triviality, it is unencyclopedic ("People can pronounce words that they often say more easily that words with which they are unfamiliar"). As a complexity, the disputed statement doesn't come close to doing it justice (and lacks a citation).
To say that there are "historical, cultural or other associations" is also trivially true, but not so trivial that I would oppose an addition that included that part. It should be easy to find references for specific examples. But the "appeal" part, as it stands, is POV. A statement, "appeals to so-and-so", with a citation, totally defuses the POV, but without that, I must oppose it.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed because possible promotion of c.o.i. as regards author Granitethighs or author of book... [11] also reffed and removed elsewhere for similar reasons [12] - skip sievert ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hesperian you reasonably requested a citation for a paragraph that you had deleted. I reinstated that paragraph and was about to add the citation when you deleted it again. I have added the qualifying citation and restored the paragraph. Please do not delete it again without explanation. Granitethighs 04:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The section in question:
In almost all cultures objects are named using one or two words. citation needed When made up of two words (a binomial) the name usually consists of a noun (like salt, dog or star) and an adjectival second word that helps describe the first, and therefore makes the name, as a whole, more "specific", for example, lap dog, sea salt, or film star. citation needed The meaning of the noun used for a common name may have been lost or forgotten (whelk, elm, lion, shark, pig) but when the common name is extended to two or more words much more is conveyed about the organism's use, appearance or other special properties(sting ray, poison apple, giant stinking hogweed, hammerhead shark). citation needed These noun-adjective binomials are just like our own names with a family or surname likeSimpson and another adjectival Christian- or forename name that specifies which Simpson, say Homer Simpson. citation needed It seems reasonable to assume that the form of scientific names we call binomial nomenclature is derived from this simple and practical way of constructing common names - but with the use of Latin as a universal language. citation needed Because of this universal and simple way of naming with one or two words modern scientific taxonomy has been described as "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles." citation needed
Okay - there are six separate statements which need referencing (it is a fairly fact-dense para). The question is, how many of the six the above source actually accounts for - and if some or all of tehse views are held by other notable writers. The last does not necessarily gell with some of the info on Linnaeus and binomials. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In most folk taxonomies, taxa that are members of the category generic are more numerous than life form taxa, but are nonetheless finite in number, usually about 500.
Okay well let's get back to the paragraph - the main thrust of the paragraph is discussing the whole binomial issue this is just not touched on in this reference at all. I am not hugely familiar with work in the area, but would ask for appropriate sourcing before it goes back in the article. I'd also like to see sources for the sentences and segments I have tagged in the article. Casliber( talk · contribs) 17:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian I do not want to get into another unnecessary and destructive edit war. I have accepted your deletion but quoted two eminent authorities on the topic at hand. I think that Stearn's comment is a very lucid summary of the matter, which is why I have put it at the end. However, the Raven-Berlin quote, though possibly irritating to some, draws closer attention to the important point of simplicity of communication that is already present both within the structure of folk taxonomy and taken over by scientific nomenclature (it is also founded in Aristotelian logic - a point that you removed). This is not controversial material, I urge you to please use restraint in you response. Granitethighs 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian, you have deleted a paragraph once again with the comment "Remove paragraph. Source is about folk /taxonomy/. It has nothing whatsoever to say about /nomenclature/, and certainly nothing about the "underlying connection between the vernacular and scientific" The paragraph was:
This underlying connection between the vernacular and scientific prompted Peter Raven, the Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, to describe scientific taxonomy as "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles." [1]
I would like your interpretation of what exactly you think the above paragraph is referring to. If you do not, or cannot, give an explanation then I shall put the paragraph back and refer the matter to Wikipedia arbitration as I do not want to resort to an edit war. Granitethighs 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you not understand the difference between scientific taxonomy and scientific nomenclature? It isn't my job to explain it; you should be able to google it easily enough.
The article you're citing is about taxonomy. It asserts that scientific taxonomy is a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles. It is not about nomenclature. It has nothing whatsoever to say about nomenclature. It does not make the connection between vernacular names and scientific names that you are claiming for it.
I understand this. Guettarda understands this: "Fundamentally, the Raven paper is about higher taxa, not species, not binomials. Not related to this paragraph in any meaningful way." [15] Casliber understands this: "I have to concur with Guettarda and Hesperian - it doesn't touch on the issue of binomial names really at all." [16]
I intend to continue removing unsourced material, and, in particular, putatively sourced material that fails verification. I have no objection to you referring the matter to Wikipedia arbitration.
Hesperian 11:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Also highly relevant:
Hesperian 05:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Hesperian - now we can move on. Granitethighs 07:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
There is some evidence for the deep-seatedness of taxonomy which comes from patients who have, through accident or disease, suffered traumas of the brain. Scientists studying these patients’ brains have reported repeatedly finding damage — a deadening of activity or actual lesions — in a region of the temporal lobe, leading some researchers to hypothesize that there might be a specific part of the brain that is devoted to taxonomy. This turns out to be more serious than the loss of some dispensable librarian-like ability to classify living things. Without the power to order and name life, a person simply does not know how to live in the world, or how to understand it, because to order and name life is to have a heightened sense of the world around us and our place in it. And by locating ourselves within the natural world we are more likely to manage it in a sensitive way. [2]