See diff. Is this very wrong, or only slightly wrong? What should I say when I change it back? This was by a French IP, so I looked at fr:Anguis fragilis, which says it's a species of Sauria, which on fr Wikipedia redirects to Lacertilia, which on en Wikipedia redirects to Lizard. Maybe I should change it to lizard? In fact in 2019 it was "a legless lizard", until somebody added "reptile".  Card Zero   (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

So, one thing you need to understand is there no less unified, more acrimonious and disunited group in the world than taxonomists. If there exists, in the world, n number of taxonomists, there are guaranteed to be a minimum of n+1 taxonomic schemes distinct from all of the others. At any given second of any given day, there will be some new classification or designation that is created, for which there will be some number (possibly a majority, usually a minority, often singular) of taxonomists who insists that their new classification is better/more accurate/more precise/correct, and that ALL other possible ways to categorize something are not just different but WRONG, with giant, capital letters, and the evil souls of anyone who spreads such lies are bound to the deepest pits of hell. The real answer is that Squamata are reptiles; they are the order of reptiles that include lizards and snakes. I'm sure you have at least one taxonomists who insists this is wrong, and perhaps more than one. You can probably even find a paper someone wrote insisting on it. Squamata consist of three subgroups (I don't know if these are suborders, infraorders, or "unclassified clades", or non-cladistic common groupings, but there are three of them) that are the true lizards, the true snakes, and Amphisbaenians, which are neither snakes nor lizards, like the slowworm cited above. -- Jayron 32 15:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I changed it back, due to the poor English usage and also the built-in opinion. Since when is the term reptile "obsolete"? ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Based on what other Wikipedia articles say (which for all I know could be part of a controversial systematic opinion, but for purposes of discussion I'm assuming it's correct), it would appear that it is correct to say that: they are reptiles; they are squamates; they are lizards; they are legless lizards.

However "reptiles" is the least specific of the four options. "Squamates" is more specific, but not necessarily more informative, because many readers have no idea what a squamate is. "Lizards" is better, but surprises the reader in a way that calls for explanation.

I think " legless lizard", with the link, is the best of the four options. It makes a correct statement, is fairly specific, and gives the reader fair notice that, while the creature is a "lizard" in some scientific sense, it's not the everyday sort of fence lizard they're likely used to. Armed with that notice, they can click on the link and learn about the rest of the taxonomy. -- Trovatore ( talk) 16:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

That works as well as anything else. -- Jayron 32 16:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

In a sense, this is exactly one place where an old-fashioned encyclopedia had a " leg up" (sorry) over Wikipedia. The editorial staff at, say, Britannica, could issue a fiat and declare that they used only the XYZ taxonomy system adopted by the ABC Society of Established Taxonomists, or whatever. Then they could enforce a consistency in all their articles. Then, whether the "editors" were internal staff or externally-commissioned experts, the final edition could be held to a specific and consistent standard taxonomy. Or look at my favorite childhood encyclopedia. The 2023 edition promotional material has a discussion about dinosaurs, and they boldly announce in the lede that "dinosaur is the name of a group of reptiles." I tell you - as a scientist, as a reader of a lot of encyclopedias - World Book staff did not make that sentence because they misunderstand modern scientific nuances of the taxonomy of "dinosaur" or "reptile." They wrote that sentence because it is a good introduction, editorially curated for the intended audience, and the reader who cares to know more is able to easily locate detailed discussion about these concerns in the other 14,000 pages. So - what's Wikipedia doing, and why is Wikipedia different?

Here at Wikipedia, we don't really have an editorial board who may issue fiat decisions as such. So when an issue of scientific fact has a plurality of valid opinions, we're essentially begging for inconsistency by virtue of our style of open contribution. This is a bit of a meta-analysis of what makes our encyclopedia different. It has strengths and weaknesses. True experts on "slow worms" can read an article and suss out the systematics, and they already know the nuances of disagreements about the taxonomy concerns, and if it's relevant, they can see the cited sources and review the details from the privileged position of already having an established, expert-level background. But an amateur reader can read the same article - replete with cited sources - and walk away with a different view about which facts are known, and which items remain disputed.

It's a conundrum. Wikipedia isn't hiding the knowledge - we have zillions of articles about taxonomy and about the different systems of taxonomy and about the relative merits of each, and the disputes about them, and so on... but most readers of the slow worm article don't click every link, nor perform a breadth-first-search of the whole of biological taxonomy.

I think as an editor I'd say that this issue isn't relevant for the lede of the article on the slow worm. (Maybe I can concede that it is appropriate at dinosaur, and as of this writing, "I approve" of how we handled that article). But overall - the issue of taxonomy has better coverage elsewhere. The typical audience of that article doesn't need to be distracted by these concerns in the introduction of the topic. It's all about context - where do we need to discuss taxonomy? Surely not in the introduction paragraph of every single article that uses binomial nomenclature, or even mentions an organism,...

Nimur ( talk) 16:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

It's a question of how much of a lie-to-children is necessary. It's the classic "there is no such thing as a fish" problem. Or, like, why monkey shouldn't exist as a concept. So we have to decide between using common words as people will understand them, or use specialist definitions that are more correct, but less likely to be understood correctly by our readers. If you want to get really specific, taxonomy should be reliably paraphyletic, which is to say that a taxon should contain all and only those members who share a last common ancestor. Common names don't always follow this system. -- Jayron 32 16:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

From time to time, I'm reminded of this R&H song:

Leontopodium nivale, Leontopodium nivale,

Every morning you greet me;

etc.

← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I feel like The slow worm is a worm wouldn't last very long, anyway. That's too much.  Card Zero   (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

It gets especially confusing as wyrm (the serpent-like mythical creature) and worm (the floppy invertebrate) are etymologically the same origin; so the ancient English speakers didn't really draw distinctions between serpents-and-or-worms. -- Jayron 32 18:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ah yes, t' Lambton Worm. Thanks for the informative and interesting comments on taxonomy, had thought of asking if a "legless lizard" is a lounge lizard with a drink in him, but better not. . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Seems like they could have defeated the Lambton Worm by impaling him on a giant fishhook. Meanwhile, this "slow worm" thing sounds like a song by the Mills Brothers. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply