User talk:Michael D. Lawrence

July 2019

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Park "Lyn" June— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciations

Firstly, pronunciations must be sourced like all other information. If you wish to add a classical Latin pronunciation of a scientific name (which discussions at WP:PLANTS have repeatedly shown are not used by the vast majority of botanists) you are free to do so – if you give a source. What you must not do is to remove a sourced pronunciation in favour of an unsourced one, based on your opinion. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Michael. On my talk page, you said: Is this good enough? http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf . Certainly not. That's a complex research essay and is not a secondary WP:RS source. The encyclopedia user should have a simple, understandable source for this word, cinchona. There are countless pronunciations in Wikipedia's botany articles, such as Sepal, which shows the pronunciation and uses three different secondary sources. That's what Peter was referring to, and what you and I have edited on Cinchona today. I really don't understand your persistence to dispute the Oxford dictionary, but maybe Peter can add some insight, and I will look further for additional pronunciation sources, as you should. --Zefr (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of English speaking scientists do not use classical Latin pronunciation for scientific names. Here is one example of some paleontologists pronouncing Triceratops with a soft "c". [1] Plantdrew (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Michael D. Lawrence: there is clearly no consensus for your edits that change pronunciations; please stop now and discuss at some forum such as WT:TOL. Editors who consistently ignore consensus may be topic-banned. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: @Plantdrew: If you prefer the English pronunciation, I suppose I have no say in it. I give you free rein to revert all my edits, but it is a pity that the knowledge-seeking visitor of the encyclopaedia will be stuck with this absurd, unrecognised and prehistoric pronunciation system. Before I say goodbye, I apologise for any pronunciation mistakes I have made, as I am not too familiar with Classical Latin myself.

I haven't commented here before now, but perhaps it's time I did. First off, on the positive side, you DO have a say in things. However, on the flip side of that, having a say does not mean unilateral power, nor does it mean you can persuade people with arguments based on suppositions rather than direct personal or professional experience. There's also the expectation that you would be respectful of others and their expertise, rather than being dismissive, as you were on Zefr's talk page ("I was changing English pronunciations to Classical Latin until the amateur ruling class of the project had me stop."). The people reverting your edits are not an "amateur ruling class", and this is especially true in my case, as I am one of the Commissioners of the ICZN, tasked with oversight of the rules governing the formation and usage of scientific names. I can assure you that your impression of what professionals and amateurs do with respect to the pronunciation of scientific names is exactly the opposite of how it works. I know hundreds of professional taxonomists, and go to international and national conferences where - I think I can say, without exception - every talk I've ever heard used scientific names, and in the 40 years I've been doing this, not one professional taxonomist whose native tongue is English ever pronounced scientific names as if they were Classical Latin. At best, the pronunciations are a bastard love child of English and Latin, but - and here's the important point - those bastardized pronunciations are in wide use, and accepted among professionals, AND they conform to the IPAC-en entries that you have been replacing with IPAC-la versions. To be blunt, the only people I've ever heard pronouncing scientific names as if they were actually Classical Latin are amateurs, who have generally fallen into two categories: there are those, who when you explain that the rules of Classical Latin pronunciation do not actually apply to scientific names, take the news in stride, apologize and capitulate, and then there are those who take deep offense, as if it were an attack on their integrity, and try to argue that they are right and professional taxonomists are wrong. Part of my role as an ICZN Commissioner is to educate members of the lay and scientific community about the proper use of scientific names, and while the Code itself literally has nothing in it regarding pronunciation, that doesn't mean there aren't professional standards, including well-known published statements on the topic. In that vein, I can cite what is perhaps the most widely-used book in the English language on the topic of scientific names, R.W. Brown's classic 1954 work, "Composition of Scientific Words", in which he very plainly states that of the two schools of thought, he agrees with those who insist that when speaking English, pronounce scientific names as if they were English, only with allowance for those whose native tongue is not English, and who may therefore intrinsically pronounce things (especially vowels) differently. He also states the following: "...the essential problem is not What is right or wrong? but What is the best, most consistent usage?" The IPAC-en pronunciations given in Wikipedia are consistent with usage by professionals, and I don't think that deleting these and replacing them with IPAC-la versions is at all appropriate. Dyanega (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)