User talk:Tom Hulse

Welcome!

Hello, Tom Hulse! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |}

Thanks! --Tom Hulse (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad Brugmansia edits

I've watched these, too, and I agree with your well-explained reversions. I've done a lot of work on the Datura articles and a little on Brugmansia. I'm no particular expert on either of them, but I saw some really bad articles and set out to correct them. My interest in all this stems from my wife's having a bunch of semi-wild Datura plants in her garden. Lou Sander (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lou. You should really try some brugmansia too. How about a 7' tree in your front yard with a hundred huge, fragrant blooms?  ;) Let me know if you want some seed or sources for plants. Tom Hulse (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Botanical Family Names

Hello:

I think the opening sentence of this article could be more elegantly written, however, in lieu of a more thoroughgoing edit, I corrected the verb agreement with the subject. "Solanaceae is a family..." is incorrect because the subject "Solanaceae" is a plural word. It seems the trend on WP is to refer to plant families as singular, which is irksome to me. This fact is widely ignored, even in some textbooks and journal articles, but consider, for example, the explanation in Plant Systematics: An Integrated Approach by Singh, 2004.

"The names of groups belonging to ranks above the level of genus are uninomials in the plural case. Thus, it is appropriate to say, “Winteraceae are primitive” and inappropriate when we say “Winteraceae is primitive”."

James Gledhill, the renown author of The Names of Plants (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008) says:

"The names of families are plural adjectives used as nouns and are formed by

adding the suffix -aceae to the stem, which is the name of an included genus."

I am happy to provide more explanation if you want. Thanks!Michaplot (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Michael, I am glad to meet you.  :)

In this case I must humbly disagree, though I concede this is a common misconception among the higher-ups in botany. Here, context is most important, both in the sentences we are discussing as well as the quote you included above. Your own first reference settles it completely if we just keep reading. Here is the whole paragraph from which you quoted:

"The names of the groups belonging to ranks above the level of genus are uninomials in the plural sense. Thus, it is appropriate to say 'Winteraceae are primitive' and inappropriate when we say 'Winteraceae is primitive'. The focus changes when we are mentioning the rank with it. Thus, 'the family Winteraceae is primitive' is a logically correct statement." (italics added)

Those last two sentences fully cover our phrase in question, and I am a little disappointed you saw fit to selectively cut them short.

Next, from Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary, in Explanatory Notes, under "Linnaean Nomenclature of Plants, Animals, & Bacteria":

"Names of taxa higher than genus (as family, order, and class) are capitalized plural nouns that are often used with singular verbs and that are not abbreviated in normal use. They are not italicized." (italics added)

So here are some examples, both correct: 'Solanaceae are widespread' (the plural "are" is used because of the simple plural noun).

'Solanaceae is a family of plants' (the singular "is" is used because it is obvious we are here, by mentioning the rank, talking about the one singular entity that makes up all the plants in this family or the single word that represents it).

I'm restoring my edit per these two very solid references, one of which you partially provided. Best regards. -- Tom Hulse (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tom: I threatened to provide more explanation, so now I guess I must do so.

However, I think this discussion points to a more profoundl problem with WP articles on plant taxa. This (explained below) may be a harder issue to solve than mere grammar. But first the grammar.

So, if I take your argument correctly, you are saying that people who work as professional botanists (and presumably use scientific nomenclature daily) have a glaring misconception about its usage. You say I selectively quoted from the Plant Systematics book, and that the bit I left out conclusively contradicted my claim. Further you provide the Merriam-Webster usage guide to support your claim that "Solanaceae is..." is proper. Your argument is, if we are referring to the taxonomic category we can use singular verbs but in other cases (not sure what you are saying here exactly) we can use the plural. Let me know if I have any of this wrong.

I would disagree, respectfully, on all of these points. I agree that some scientists do get this wrong, even in journal articles, and that knowledge of botanical Latin is waning. It is still wrong to use a family name with a singular verb.

As for the source I quoted, the bit I left out, I left out because it is irrelevant. You could say, as Singh points out, "The family Solanaceae is..." but then "The family Solanaceae" is the subject. "Family" is singular. The WP article does not say that!! Singh very clearly indicates, "Solanaceae is..." would be improper. There is no rank mentioned, and the context, as you claim, is not clear.

As for the dictionary, first of all, dictionaries tend to be descriptive (http://englishplus.com/news/news1100.htm), which is to say they record common usage. I agree that in general use language, words evolve and currently incorrect usages today will tomorrow be acceptable. In scientific nomenclature this not the case. We have a definitive set of rules, the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Second, the dictionary is right in that if by "Solanaceae" you mean the name and not the taxon or plants themselves, it is proper to use the singular verb, as in, "Solanaceae is...a name erected by A.L. de Jussieu..." Technically you would need quotation marks around the name, or similar indications, but botanists often forgo these. So yes, the dictionary is right--often family names are used with a singular verb either by non-botanists who do not know it is incorrect, or because taxonomists are discussing the name, as apart from the plants themselves.

So I would contend that neither of your sources supports your claim that "Solanaceae is..." is proper. Here are just a few sources to show it isn't.

1. The ICBN (http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm) Article 18 covers this issue. It says, "18.1. The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a noun; it is formed from the genitive singular of a name of an included genus by replacing the genitive singular inflection (Latin -ae, -i, -us, -is; transliterated Greek -ou, -os, -es, -as, or -ous, and its equivalent -eos) with the termination -aceae (but see Art.18.5)." Note Exanple 6 in this Article: "Ex. 6. "Coscinodisceae" (Kützing 1844), published to designate a family, is to be accepted as Coscinodiscaceae Kütz." The singular is used, but the family name is put in quotes to show the name is being discussed, not the plants, just as I might say, '"tomatoes" is a plural word.' A bit later in this Article, we read, "When the Papilionaceae are regarded as a family distinct from the remainder of the Leguminosae, the name Papilionaceae is conserved against Leguminosae." Here we have the perfect example, as it has both plural and singular. "Palilionaceae are..." but the "name Papilionaceae is..."
2. The Botanical Journal of the Linnaean Society in their instructions to authors (http://www.wiley.com/bw/submit.asp?ref=0024-4074) says, "Names of suprageneric taxa (subtribe, tribe, subfamily, family, order etc.) are plural nouns and take plural verb forms e.g. "Allioideae are", "Betulaceae comprise" etc." No distinction like the one you tried to make is found here. Family names are plural, even if we are referring to the taxonomic rank.
3. The plant systematic text I quoted previously is not a major text in this field, it was merely handy. If you look in Judd et al. Plant Systematics (sorry no e-version), in their treatment of Solanaceae, they say, "Solanaceae are considered monophyletic on the basis of..." and "Solanaceae are the source of several pharmaceutical drugs..." etc. No family is ever referred to in the singular in this text, as far as I know.
4. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (http://www.mobot.org/mobot/research/apweb/) whose nomenclature has become standard, says (picking a phrase at random from the introductory material), "If Podostemaceae turn out to be sister to Hypericaceae" Note, "turn out" not "turns out".
5. Stean's famous Botanical Latin says, "The names of families are formed by adding the ending -aceae (a nominative plural feminine adjectival ending) to the stem of a legitimate name of an included genus."
6. The Flora of North America has not yet published a treatment of Solanaceae. However, the treatment of other families illustrates the issue. Look, for example, at Nympheaceae, where it is said, "Formerly Nymphaeaceae often have been treated to include Cabombaceae and Nelumbonaceae, but these are now generally segregated." Note that this sentence refers to the taxon and yet still employs a plural verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaplot (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
7. From a paper I am currently reading, (Hydatellaceae identified as a new branch near the

base of the angiosperm phylogenetic tree. Nature Vol 446| 15 March 2007| doi:10.1038/nature05612) "Here we show that Hydatellaceae, a small family of dwarf aquatics that were formerly interpreted as monocots, are instead a highly modified and previously unrecognized ancient lineage of angiosperms." Are--not is.

I could give endless examples, but these should be enough. I put these up against the Merriam-Webster discussion any day (by the way, there are some other errors in that discussion in the dictionary too).

Now, the bigger issue, which bears on this: the Solanaceae article as well as most articles in WP on plant taxa focus on the taxonomic terms and not on the plants themselves. I think this is not the best focus for WP. The question is, is the average non-botanist who comes to WP looking for information best served by a discussion of the term Solanaceae or by information about who the Solanaceae are? I am not suggesting we remove the taxonomic information, but I do not think it should be the primary focus.

The reason this comes up is because the only proper reason for saying "Solanaceae is..." would be if you were discussing the name Solanaceae as separate from the plants. This involves a Use-mention distinction, which article you should read. I think what we are doing in WP with taxa is mentioning the names, not using them. You said it yourself, "..we are here, by mentioning the rank, talking about the one singular entity that makes up all the plants in this family or the single word that represents it" Yes indeed, that is what the article begins with, a discussion of the word, not the biological organisms.

I contend we really should not be doing that as the primary focus, we should be describing the meaning of the word, not describing the word itself. So, in this regard, if you ask a hypothetical expert about "Solanaceae", there are two possible answers: 1) Solanaceae are a group (taxonomic family) of generally poisonous and economically important plants.... 2) "Solanaceae" is a name created by Jussieu, rendered in Latin from the type genus Solanum and is classified in the taxonomic order..." (Note the quotation marks.)

To provide an example, it would not be proper to begin an article on Tomatoes with, "Tomato is a six letter English word from the Nahuatl, and first appears in English in 1547..." This is the province of dictionaries and technical manuals. In WP we should begin by describing the use of the word tomato. So the WP article begins, "The tomato is an edible, typically red, fruit as well as the plant (Solanum lycopersicum) which bears it." Only later in the article do we learn, 'The word "tomato" comes from the Nahuatl word tomatl, literally "the swelling fruit"'.

This is the way it should be, I think. But the average WP treatment of a taxon is exactly the opposite. It begins by mentioning the word, where it fits in the nomenclatural scheme and such, rather than describing what the word means.

So, the way I see it, if you want to defend WP articles focusing on the names rather than the biological or even taxonomic group, that is a discussion I would engage in. I would oppose it.

Either way, I do not believe it is defensible to argue that "Solanaceae is..." is proper. I will wait for your reply, but if you cannot defend the current verb, I will revert it back to plural.

I hope you will consider this seriously. ThanksMichaplot (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Michael, for your carefully considered arguments. I'll try to take them one at a time.

1. Yes, I am aware of what the ICBN says; perhaps you are stretching it a bit too far, hoping to read into it what is not really there? The ICBN only gives two possible cases for these family names: First what it WAS in Latin (plural adjective), and second, how it IS to be used (as a noun). Note that that these are separate, what it WAS is nullified and replaced by how it is to be used. It says they were originally plural adjectives (not nouns), and now they are to be used as nouns (not plural). If they had meant that these may only be used as plural nouns, then it would have been easy to say 'plural noun', just as they did for "plural adjective". Only the tradition of Latin usage holds that these are actually plural nouns, not the rules that give us the names (ICBN). I'm willing to accept tradition, but let's not stretch and say there is some specific usage rule in the ICBN; it only says "used as a noun", nothing else. Thank you for including the Papilionaceae example, as it shows there are two ways render a plural verb (is/are). When they include the word "the" in front of Papilionaceae, it then converts a plural noun into a singular entity-phrase ("the Papilionaceae") this singular phrase then makes sense with the singular "family". That's the whole crux of the Wikipedia problem: most articles are written like Solanceae, where a plural interpretation of the noun would clash up against the singular collective noun "family". An example: 'Solanceae are a family.' sounds wrong to our ear, and rightly so, since one is a singular noun and one is plural noun for two things that are equated by the word "are" (like an equal sign in an equation). However 'The Solanaceae are a family.' sounds right, since the word "the" converts it to singular phrase, agreeing with the singular "family". Also, 'Solanaceae is a family.' sounds right since here we are of course intending to speak of the singular group that include all Solanaceae (not just the name as you say), which matches the singular "family".
2. The Linnean Society surely has experts on interpreting the ICBN, I'll concede, but that does not also apply to general English usage of complex verb/noun interactions. They are experts only at parroting exactly what is in the Code, not at interpreting/extrapolating their further grammatical English usage and interaction with other English words. The delicate nuances of those last examples are not touched on in the Code, so someone like the Linnean Society can not even come close to someone like Merriam-Webster's here, not even in the same ballpark; and their viewpoint, if it conflicted with Merriam-Webster's, would hold zero relevance unless it was in finding/repeating the exact text of the Code. This is English grammar, not taxonomy; you need references from grammar experts.
3. When Judd et al. say "Solanaceae are considered monophyletic on the basis of..." and "Solanaceae are the source of several pharmaceutical drugs...", these quotes do not disagree at all with what I have been saying, since the rank is not part of the phrase.
4. The quote "If Podostemaceae turn out to be sister to Hypericaceae..." also does not disagree for the same reason.
5. Stearn's Botanical Latin is repeating nearly exactly what the ICBN says, as we discussed above in point 1, and is in no disagreement with my argument.
6. "From a paper I am currently reading..." I don't know if you really want to go down that path of pulling usage from random articles, since it generally does go against you about 2:1. We could both haul out right or wrong examples from papers all day long, and it wouldn't really make any difference. This also goes to your earlier point about me thinking professional botanists have a glaring misconception. No I don't think they all do, or even most of them (1/3 perhaps?); I just said it was common. It is a question of specialized English grammar, and it is not their expertise. The Code (or tradition) only tells them it is a plural noun, not how to use that in various types of English sentences.
   

On the bigger picture, I can agree that most of the Wikipedia flora articles are awkwardly worded at the beginning, but I can't agree that just because they use the singular verb then their focus is automatically on the word instead of the plant, as you described in the use/mention distinction. Instead, these authors are simply trying to describe the singular entity that makes up the whole group, not the individuals in that group and not the word that describes that group. I do think that in an ideal article that reads more smoothly we would have no disagreement, since we might be starting by describing the individuals, not the whole. I just don't think it's right to insert a broken grammatical sentence by simplistically focusing too literally on a tradition for only one small part of that sentence.

Thank you very much for the interesting discussion.  :) -- Tom Hulse (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

[Previous post deleted/revised by Michael & combined with his next post below]

Thanks Michael. You asked what I meant by "singular entity that makes up the whole group". I have avoided using the word taxon so we don't get bogged down trying to convert an idea into a definition that does not exactly apply. I guess another way to to say it is that those authors, when they write the Wikipedia articles, are describing a singular version of the plural taxon you are describing. At least that's how the sentences are being set up. It's the simplest thing really; imagine you had never heard of a plural interpretation of these nouns for Family names, and wrote the article just as for a singular-noun species. They are not commenting on the "name" Solanaceae, just commenting on the group (the group in the singular sense), and setting up the rest of the sentence for a singular verb. It is references like Merriam-Webster's, and Singh (who says "The focus changes when we are mentioning the rank with it."), and common usage (which wholly defines our language) that lets them use the singular verb. The Code says nothing about how to use them in English sentences, other than that it is a noun, so our English grammar is not in the purview of ICBN-experts/taxonomists. Although the singular verbs are of course not the most desirable, it is better than a broken sentence with clashing nouns.

Honestly I would love it if you rewrote all these articles to have a plural verb. What I am trying to say about a broken sentence is that we must look at much more than just the most simple verb/noun interaction. The nouns must also agree, especially when they are connected by words such as "are", which acts like an equal sign in an equation. So if we wrongly say 'Solanceae are a family', "are" is equating the two nouns as Solanceae=family (clashing nouns here, one singular, one plural). Their plurality must match! The simplest, crudest way to fix this is to just add the word "the" before the plural noun. For instance 'The meek shall inherit the earth', where meek is an adjective used as a plural noun, or 'The rich have money', where again rich is an adjective used as a plural noun. So then 'The Solanceae are a family' is correct, since Solanaceae (plural) has been changed to "The Solanceae" (singular group), and now it matches the other singular noun in the sentence.

I noticed almost all of the WP links you provided do use the word "the" before the family name, to fix the plurality agreement with the word "family", however I did notice many errors later in the sentences, such as at Agaricaceae, where it says "The Agaricaceae are a family of basidiomycete fungi and includes the genus Agaricus...". Here, the word "includes" is set up for a singular noun, and clashes with the plural use of the noun Agaricaceae. This one should just drop the s, to say "include".

For our article, how about a compromise and we just insert "The" for now, until someone rewrites the sentence in a better way? "The Solanaceae are a family of flowering plants that contains a number of important agricultural crops as well as many toxic plants". Actually "contains" is also set up to go with singular nouns here, not plural, so perhaps: "The Solanaceae are a family of flowering plants that include a number of important agricultural crops as well as many toxic plants"? -- Tom Hulse (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see your full reply. To my mind your argument is full of poor reasoning and does not hold up, so I feel compelled to address it in detail.

1. Your discussion of the ICBN is inaccurate, Tom.
   1. The ICBN does not give two cases. Where are you getting that? Families have a special significance in plant taxonomy, so they get their own treatment, but they are treated grammatically the same as orders, classes and phyla. For higher taxa ICBN says, in article 16.1. "The name of a taxon above the rank of family is treated as a noun in the plural and is written with an initial capital letter." Where do you get that it WAS a plural and IS now a singular? The tradition of Latin usage is how nomenclature works. Are you really saying the ICBN does not have a "specific usage rule"? Replaced and nullified. That is reading a lot into the rule that family names are plural adjectives taken as nouns. Yikes! the -aceae suffix is plural.
   2. You say, "Thank you for including the Papilionaceae example, as it shows there are two ways render a plural verb [I assume you mean noun here?] (is/are)." This is not generally true. Just because a noun is collective does not mean it has to be singular or plural. The poor are... The family is... (although some people do say the family are...look in the Merriam-Webster for examples of family as plural.) Nowhere in the ICBN is a family name used as a subject combined with a singular verb (unless it is in quotes as I pointed out) Nor in the APG.
   3. "'Solanceae are a family.' sounds wrong to our ear, and rightly so, since one is a singular noun and one is plural noun for two things that are equated by the word "are" (like an equal sign in an equation)." Solanaceae are a family sounds right to me. Why can't a plural subject have a singular object? What about "Crops are a necessity." "My friends are my family" "Squirrels are a type of rodent." "Employees are an asset." "
   4. "However 'The Solanaceae are a family.' sounds right, since the word "the" converts it to singular phrase, agreeing with the singular "family"." The subject in English determines the verb not the object. This is nonsensical. "The crops are a necessity." is every bit as good as without the article. "The employees are an asset." Your argument does not hold up. What you are arguing here concerns what is called notional agreement. This varies in English vs. British English and even within English. There is no specific rule in English grammar, but we use common sense. The New York Times refers to sports teams as plural even if the team name is singular.
   5. "'Solanaceae is a family.' sounds right since here we are of course intending to speak of the singular group that include [I assume you mean includes] all Solanaceae (not just the name as you say), which matches the singular "family"." I think you are simply not understanding what is meant by Solanaceae or other higher taxa. When we speak of a taxon like Solanaceae, we mean "plants of the nature of Solanum". "Plants..." (This is from the MW by the way.) It is only a singular entity when you mean the name Solanaceae as an object. Practically, we mean the group of plants that may share certain characteristics and are most closely related to each other. "Solanaceae" is not a biological entity. It is an artificial construct. You say when WP says "Solanaceae" it means the group that includes all Solanaceae. That is a tautology. If you translated Solanaceae into English, you would see how inaccurate your argument is. Would you say, "Nightshades is a family"? Would you say, "The nightshades is a family"? I hope not. You are arguing that "Solanaceae" means the group comprising members of the group Solanaceae. Tautology. "Solanaceae" means a group of plants that have been proposed to be either related by common descent or similar depending on your school of taxonomy. Others may disagree about whether every member of this group should be in the group. Would you say "The Colts is a team." The Colts are a singular entity, but composed of individual members who might leave the team. So are Solanaceae.
2. This argument boggles my mind. We are talking about botanical nomenclature here, not English grammar. Merriam-Webster is not an expert on scientific nomenclature. In any case, they merely say that the plural term often takes a singular verb. This is true, as I said, when taxonomists are discussing the name. MW does say when and why. More importantly, MW does say, "...the scientific names of biological classification are governed by four highly prescriptive, internationally recognized codes of nomenclature..." The OED and the Websters Unabridged both have all family taxa listed as plural. MW does not include scientific taxa at all, but does define -aceae as a plural.

A better treatment would not be about individuals, it would be about the group called Solanaceae, which can be generalized about, and Solanaceae should still be spoken of in the plural, since it is. You say the singular construction is broken, simplistic and focuses too literally on a tradition for one small part of a sentence (??). So you acknowledge that there is a tradition of usage in botany (a rule actually)?

I say having the singular verb makes WP plant treatments look amateurish, laughable and low quality. Many of the fungus family treatments also focus on the taxonomy (unfortunately) but they use the plural verb. Many animal treatments get it right too. Look at Vespidae, List of Ascomycota families incertae sedis, List of Basidiomycota families, Aeolothripidae, Lycaenidae, etc. etc. etc.

What leaving the incorrect singular verb suggests is that the article has received no attention from an expert. It might almost be a litmus test. I suspect that most of the treatments of insects and other obscure groups are written and maintained by experts, while plants tend to attract more interest from non-botanists.

If you have more of a defense, I am eager to hear it, but based on this discussion and the sources I provided, I think it is proper to revert to the plural.

ThanksMichaplot (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael could I ask a favor? Could you avoid revising your posts after I have responded to them, per WP:REDACT, and also only put your new posts at the bottom? Even if you didn't intend to hide previous errors, it would still help the page make sense, and not look like I am talking at the wind. I haven't altered your post-facto revisions at all, except to move your latest post to the end, since most of it did come a couple hours after mine. Thanks!

Per the numbering order of your points above:

1.1 You've got the wrong section of the Code there. See 18.1. I was trying to show with "two cases" that it is not used now (noun) as it was originally (plural adjective). You're right, it's confusing rubbish, forget it. The point I'm trying to make here though, is that the ICBN is very basic in its instructions, with no grammer help on this one. It only says "noun", nothing else; and I'll concede tradition holds it is a plural noun. No usage rules, nothing else on grammar, just "noun". If we want grammar help on usage of family names, then we have to get it outside of Code-related sources & experts.

1.2 You're saying that 'The family are home' is ok? Do you think "family" is used as plural in our Solanaceae article? Family is a singular noun, the pluralality is already built in by definition as a collective noun, like faculty, minority, and firm. Even though they represent plural people, they are made to talk about one entity only, the overall group, and as a singular entity/group these words need singular verb & noun agreements when plurality is relevant.

1.3 "Solanaceae are a family sounds right to me" No! You have accused me of tautology, and I'm probably guilty, but perhaps you are also failing to carefully consider what I am saying. Just ask yourself why your proposed sentence for Solanaceae was specifically different than all the other examples you gave to me as correct (all those WP links to "proper" articles)? Why do they all use "the" before the family name and you do not? I won't repeat the whole thing, but the answer is above. In your examples, "Crops are a necessity", "are" is not used to equate the two nouns, so it doesn't feel like a clash; you are really using "a necessity" as an adjective here, proper English would be "Crops are necessary". Second example, "My friends are my family", you have used "My" to modify "friends" from a plural into a singular phrase/group, exactly like your peers have used "the" to modify the Latin family names so that their plurality agrees in almost every WP link you gave me, just like I said we could do for the Solanaceae article.

1.4 When you say "Why can't a plural subject have a singular object?", please look closer at what I've said, since I certainly don't believe that. I could also come up with a thousand examples, like you, where that could not be. Instead, what I said was "The nouns must also agree, especially when they are connected by words such as "are", which acts like an equal sign in an equation". Even if you don't like the grammar, it is still simple logic. The plurality of a noun can change its meaning completely. Five animals are logically very different from 1 animal, so it makes no sense to say 'cattle are an animal'. In this case "are" acts like an equal sign, equating cattle to an animal (wrongly). It should read 'Cattle are animals' or 'The cow is an animal'. In this case the plurality of two nouns must agree, just like in our first Solanaceae sentence.

When the New York Times refers to sports teams, it also uses the word "the" before their name ('The Cowboys', 'The Seattle Mariners'), just like your peers did for all those families of fungus & fauna you gave me to look at as correct.

1.5 Yes translating into a plural common name can make the way Webster's, Singh, and many botanists plainly use the family names sound awkward if you preserve the plural tense, so why don't you try the same method with the sentence you put up on the Solanaceae page? "Nightshades are a family of flowering plants". You have plural Nightshades equated to a singular group, family. This is broken. You can't deny that it is at least missing the word "The" at the very beginning so the two nouns match (just like your peers did in all those articles you showed me), or needs to be completely rewritten from scratch.

I like your "The Colts is a team" example, but it is a little unique as the proper name of a sports team. An sentence in response might be 'Physics is my favorite subject', where "Physics" retains its specific plural form, but we use a singular verb since we are interpreting the singular concept behind the actual word (and that's not the name "Physics" were are talking about), the same as is usually done when someone says "Solanaceae is...".

"We are talking about botanical nomenclature here, not English grammar" No, absolutely not. What does botanical nomenclature, or the Code have to say about logical plurality agreements of subject & object nouns? Nothing. This is English grammar.

I have already said I would support you in changing to the plural verb, as long as we get the numerical agreement of the nouns right. What do you think of my proposed change (it's at the end of my last post). Any faults? Do you think it should be different? Thanks again for a fun discussion. -- Tom Hulse (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about changing my post after the fact. I won't do that again.

OK, I believe I see the reason for your opinion on this. I have thought about this, and it seems to me that the debate has gotten rather convoluted. However, I think there are really only a few key issues here.

By way of summary and review, these are the three main issues we are trying to resolve here:

1) Is it proper to use a singular verb with a family (or other suprageneric) taxon name? (e.g. could we say, "Solanaceae is a family..."

2) Must the subject and object agree in number when the verb "to be" is used to equate them. (e.g. is, "Nightshades are a family" wrong because the plural "nightshades" are, "equated to a singular group, family"

3) Does adding the definite article "the" change the sense of a taxon name to singular, so that it now agrees with the singular object family. (e.g. is saying, "The Solanaceae are a family..." necessary to have the subject and object agree in number.

Let me know if that is not accurate. These are three distinct, though obviously related, issues. Here is what I think we have determined so far:

As for 1), you initially argued that the singular can be proper. (You said, "'Solanaceae is a family of plants' "(the singular "is" is used because it is obvious we are here, by mentioning the rank, talking about the one singular entity that makes up all the plants in this family or the single word that represents it).") So you reverted the article to "is".

I disagreed and argued the singular is never proper (unless the referent is the label (the taxon or the word) itself). To support your case you presented the Merriam-Webster usage guide, the full Singh quotation that I partially gave and the rules of English grammar. Here is my argument on this:

The Singh quote does not support your case. Singh says, in full,

"The names of the groups belonging to ranks above the level of genus are uninomials in the plural sense. Thus, it is appropriate to say 'Winteraceae are primitive' and inappropriate when we say 'Winteraceae is primitive'. The focus changes when we are mentioning the rank with it. Thus, 'the family Winteraceae is primitive' is a logically correct statement."

"Solanaceae is a family" is clearly disallowed by this. No rank is mentioned with the family name. (It is common practice for botanists to write, "the order Solanales is..." or the phylum Pteridophyta is...") I am not arguing that, "The family Solanaceae is..." is incorrect. In that case the subject is "family", and family in American English usually takes a singular verb.

MW does say that often the singular verb is used with family names though the word is plural, but it does not say when and it does not argue this is correct usage only that it is common. The MW also says that the rules of the very prescriptive ICBN apply. I say singular verbs are used by taxonomists but only when they are discussing the taxon as a taxon (its priority, authority, circumscription, etc.). I also agreed that the singular is often used incorrectly, even by scientists. You can find other grammatical errors in papers, too, so the fact that some papers or books use the singular does not make it correct. Molecular biologists, cell biologists, etc. without expertise in taxonomy and scientists whose first language is not English may not know the rules of nomenclature.

As for my side, I presented the ICBN, Stearn's Botanical Latin, the instruction to authors in a taxonomic journal, Gledhill's, The Names of Plants, the APG website and other sources. You averred that MW is a much better source than any of these, (even though it is not an authority on scientific usage and even though there are, as I said, other errors in the MW usage guide, which render it dubious). While all of my sources support my case in that you will not find a family name with a singular verb in any of those sources (unless it is in quotation marks or otherwise set off) it is true none of them (except the instructions to authors in the botanical journal, which you nevertheless reject as parroting the ICBN--though curiously you also deny the ICBN says anything about this issue) specifically addresses your claim that a singular verb is proper, and the MW suggests it might be.

Please take a look at Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual. Here we read on pg 423, "Names at the rank of family and above are plural in form and therefore require plural verbs and pronouns."

You said, "This is English grammar, not taxonomy; you need references from grammar experts." I have now provided one. Based on the vast amount of evidence including this direct reference, this matter should be considered resolved. Singular verbs cannot be properly used with family names. (They can be used only when family names are mentioned.)

On issue 2), as you pointed out, examples abound both pro and con on agreement in number between subject and object, so examples alone will not resolve this issue. There is no rule, as far as I know, in English, but there is commonsense based on meaning. To use your example, it would not be proper to say, "Cattle are an animal" for obvious reasons. It would not be proper to say, "Customers buy a tomato" because this suggests the customers all buy one fruit--unless that is what you mean. And that is the key here: meaning. It is absolutely not improper to have a plural subject with a singular object if that is what you mean. My example, "Crops are a necessity" is a case in point. ("A necessity" is not an adjective as you say (it would be an adverb if anything), but it is used here as a noun). However, you also object because you say the "are" is not used to equate the "crops" with "a necessity". I don't think you can defend that theory, but I will let it lie. Instead, I will ask what about the following:

"Crops are a commodity"?

What about, "Books are a technology"? Books are not a singular entity.

What about, "Children are a problem" or "Children are a group, much like a family".

Better yet what about this: if "Solanaceae" is a plural word, then the pronoun for it would be "they." Do you argue that it is grammatically improper to say, "They are a family"?

I don't see how you can continue to insist that a plural subject cannot take a singular object if it has an "equating" "to be" (whatever that is) and that, "Their plurality must match!" A plural interpretation of the subject noun (Solanaceae) does not grammatically clash with the singular object noun. So it is not ungrammatical to say, "Solanaceae are a family" if you understand that "Solanaceae" is plural, just as, "The team are a family".

As for issue 3), this is a less definite issue. Among taxonomists, it seems to be a matter of style. My major professor in grad school advised me never to use "the" before a taxon, as it is unnecessary. Latin nouns do not take articles. Many taxonomist do, however, append a "the" in front of taxon names. The examples given in the scientific style manual I cited above both have the definite article.

I believe the reason that many people do use the definite article is because it is common in English, as you have argued. In standard English, (quoting MW), one of the uses of "the" is, "as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>".

However, is it necessary, as you argue, or a matter of taste? I gave you several examples where taxonomists do not use an article before the family names to show it is a matter of taste and not grammatical necessity. You will not find a "the" in front of any of the family names in the APG treatment. Many of these (most in fact) are referring to taxonomic groups as entities, rather than the plants that make them up. The Doyle article I gave you is another example. Doyle, who was on my dissertation committee, I know is fluent in Latin. Cronquist, a very famous taxonomist, nearly always uses a "the" before family names. So it clearly varies.

Technically the grammatical issue is that words like rich or English are typically nominalized by adding "the" to them, as MW says. However, some linguists have argued that such constructions as "the rich" or "the English" are only partially substantivized as they do not possess all the attributes of nouns. Some see these constructions as intermediate between a noun and an adjective. I am not a linguist, so I have no opinion on that.

My point here is that since taxa are Latin words (or treated as Latin if not originally Latin) as per the ICBN, it is not clear that one needs the English article as is common with English words. This may be analogous to "the hoi polloi" issue, wherein some grammarians object to the use of "the" with "hoi polloi", because "hoi" means "the" in Greek. Most usage guides accept "the hoi polloi" because that has become standard in English. Plant taxonomic names are not part of standard English (which is why they are not even in the MW). So the question of whether an article should be used with a Latin word is complex. Whether it must be, is unlikely.

So, while you argue the "the" is necessary to convert the plural noun into a singular entity, it does not appear to be so. There is no difference in meaning between between, "Solanaceae are..." and "the Solanaceae are...", despite how it sounds to your ear. I prefer the taxon without the article, but others like the article. As for why, WP articles nearly always have the article, I am not sure. Perhaps people of like mind to you added them because they make the noun sound better to them. However, they are not necessary.

So, while I think we could rewrite the Solanaceae treatment, but this is a bigger problem on WP and adding "the" does not seem like a general solution.Michaplot (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael I'm sorry I forgot about you after I my vacation. I did tell you I'd be gone for awhile, but you deleted my last post (again, lol!). You can see it all in the View History tab above. Please be more careful when editing.  :)

I don't have the energy to go around in circles, since it seems that you are not really reading what I am saying (e.g. the reason we say "Physics is my favorite subject", not "Physics are my favorite subject"). Please feel free though to edit the articles however you see fit. Best wishes, and thanks for the fun discussion!Tom Hulse (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Hi. Thanks for the note but I think you are mistaken. The WP:LINKSPAM says: "The Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." But the link I added, and you removed was not for the purpose of promoting a website or a product, it was used as a reference for the herb in question, specifically adding the information about how its also used to support the immune system though liver and lung support. 24.5.69.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

Thank you for your reply. I'll respond on your talk page.  :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I left a response to your message on my talk page. Thanks again for your help in understanding Wikipedia policies. 24.5.69.164 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Trivial name

Sources I've looked at differ in what exactly they consider a "trivial name". It's true that Linnaeus wrote in Species Plantarum "Trivalia nomina in margine apposui" [1], and that what appears in the margin are single words, i.e. what we would now call specific epithets. However, it's not clear that Linnaeus meant these single words to be the trivial name itself, rather than the combination with the genus name. This latter interpretation is easily found by web searches, e.g. "Linnaeus suggested that each life-form should be labelled with a 'trivial name' or a two-word reference" (L Koerner, Cultures of natural history, 1996). I suspect your edit to Botanical nomenclature is right, but you need to to reference it I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Argh! Of course. I hate it when people make a bold correction in the article but don't reference it. Had one ready, just forgot to include it. Thank you for reminding me. --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Salvation

Following the recent result of no consensus for the deletion of Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation, what are you thoughts on what could be added to the article? Currently, it basically duplicates the points already made at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation, which seems fairly redundant. The principle JW beliefs of the matter seemed to be sufficiently explained at the Beliefs article, and the 'main' article is only about as long as the other section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a lot that could be added; I'll have to think about whether I want to tackle it. I've been reluctant to jump in editing on the JW articles because it seems like almost every small edit is an argument with just a few bitter POV people intent on making sure everything is worded in the most negative way possible and from dubious sources. I edit at Wikipedia for fun, don't know if I'm up a for the huge battle a whole article would take. Seems like the negative and obviously heavily biased people usually win through sheer persistence at those articles, whether it's worthy of Wikipedia or not. I will think about it though. --Tom Hulse (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Botany

As you can see I'm very new. I started by fixing references on soybean, then did the same on botany. Now I'm fixing other formatting and such. Thinking botany is a core topic of the plant kingdom, I'd like to make it the best I can. However, since I don't know much about improving the body of a wikipedia article yet, I was wondering if you would be interested in this too? You can answer here, I clicked the watch button on your page. 512bits (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You're doing great! I really appreciate your improving the references, especially when you add a readable link to the reference on Google Books or an online pdf. Keep up the good work! --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why thanks! But are you interested in helping make "Botany" as good as we can make it or in pointing me in the right direction? I do know about plants but not how to use wikipedia yet (other than create references). 512bits (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I already have been improving the article. I think it is actually a well-watched page though; many editors monitor it, so if you do major substantive changes you might discuss them on the Botany talk page first. You'll notice that on my last edit there (you can see all edits at the "View History" tab on every page) that I actually deleted a couple notable botanists whom I felt were not notable in relation to the other titans of botany, and explained my edit in the "Edit Summary". This is a good example of being right on the line as far being a controversial edit or not. Sometimes editors like to include info that honors their native sons (e.g. the modern expert on Hawaiian botany that I deleted), even if they are not notable, and may strongly argue to keep them, so that's why we sometimes get consensus at the talk page first for controversial edits (I didn't on this one, thought it not really controversial). One way to really improve the article at first is to reference every claim in the article that could be challenged, so that every paragraph has at least one or two or more reliable references. Just remember for your edits that Wikipedia is not about what we think is true, but what we can demonstrate through the most reliable references (as you've already been doing a great job at). We are also going for an article worthy of the finest Encylopedia, with a readable, continuous prose, and where there is fully complete coverage of the subject, but minor topics and individuals are not given undue weight. A good place to start are the 6 links added at the top of your talk page, like Wikipedia:Article development, and reviewing several of Wikipedia's Featured articles. --Tom Hulse (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Input sought

Please see Talk:Botany#Botany_article_structure_and_concerns. Thank you. Present for you on my user page too.512bits (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yucca faxoniana

See Talk:Yucca faxoniana for another puzzle about yucca names. It seems a confused genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I've been using this format for WCSP references: 'World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, retrieved ..., search for "..."' because earlier I had used a direct link to the page, but then they changed the format and it no longer worked. "http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/namedetail.do?name_id=..." does seem to have been stable for a while now, so maybe I should use it. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. I was wondering about that. Here's a question for you: do you think perhaps we should be linking to The Plant List instead of WCSP? They seem to include everything at WCSP, plus additional info from other databases. For instance Yucca faxoniana at WCSP, and Yucca faxoniana at TPL. TPL has everything WCSP does, plus an additional synonym from Tropicos, plus it has direct links to the WCSP page (which would presumably be automatically maintained in the future). --Tom Hulse (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Um... It's certainly a great source for researching names for WP articles, but it only seems to collate information, which may be inconsistent and out of date if not downright inaccurate. Look at The Plant List entry for Yucca elephantipes. It says that Tropicos reports it as an accepted name. But if you follow the link it gives to the Tropicos record, then, as we know, it doesn't say it's an accepted name, it says that it's an invalid name. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS:GLOSS

I responded to some of that stuff over at WT:MOS. I agree that "one-size-fits-all" won't work, but I also think that "one-size-fits-most" is pretty clear. It should set a default. In reverting that Alan fella's mass-rename of 100 or so glossaries, I got to see pretty much every possible kind of glossary name all in one day, and learned a lot from it. I'm still trying to synthesize it into something that can be written up as a clearer naming convention (in the guideline sense, not in the WP:AT policy sense). It's funny that you mentioned the equestrian example, because among horse people "equestrian" (more to the point, often capitalized as "Equestrian"), is treated as a noun! I.e., "I've been competing in Equestrian for 17 years." So from a "horse people" specialist-style perspective, Glossary of Equestrian is the proper article name! This is why I think that specialist style needs when they cause conflict or confusion have to be dropped, with prejudice. Equestrianists could easily make a "we MUST call it "glossary of Equestrian" per relaible sources!!!" fallacious argument, because they can instantly show that reliable equestrian sources tend to treat it as a noun, like "plastic" and "chiropractic", and tend to capitalize it. Every specialist style debate has the same quality and the same problems. That actually doesn't have much to do with "botany" vs. "botanical", though. The harshest thing that can be said about that use of "botanical" is that it can be construed as slightly ambiguous. No big deal. I was aiming for consistency, but am actually swayed by the COMMONNAME argument. Back to the MOS:GLOSS NC stuff: The equestrian example, if not for the coincidence of its "in-horsey-universe" noun usage, would have actually been a good example of where "term" is needed in glossary names; your instinct was right on that (and "equestrian terms" is almost certainly better than "equestrianism"). Anything that looks adjectival like "botanical" is going to need "term". If it is a noun that is unambiguously the name of field/topic and nothing else, like "botany", it won't need that, though including it isn't harmful; "glossary of botany terms" is technically redundant, I concede, but consistency might be more important. Then again, redirects work for a reason. <shrug> If it's a noun that can be a field/topic or can be a count noun, then its need "term", and this is where Alan L. caused problems. Glossary of boilers, glossary of fuel cells, glossary of Japanese swords, etc., all imply a list of entries of examples of these things and their properties defined, not a list of terms about those topics. That's a serious comprehensibility issue. There are other cases to be addressed too; like "glossary of HVAC" just sounds like gibberish. So, I am definitely thinking on it, and input is welcome. WT:MOSGLOSS is wide open. :-) PS: Sorry if I was tooth gnashy at the botany glossary page. I felt kinda ganged up on for a bit. All old news to me now. PS: I mentioned MOS:GLOSS in reference to including " terms" in the name. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "Glossary of Equestrian" would be a specialist style, but it should be disallowed not by a inflexible Glossary-only policy, but rather by the already standing policy at WP:AT of using common names. A quick check of the references shows that WP:AT would not allow "Glossary of Equestrian" because it is commonly used differently. If we tried to force a policy on glossaries that is more narrow than WP:AT, then you would become the specialist style to be avoided, as I explained at Botany vs. botanical.

I'm glad you see that botany & botanical have slightly different meanings when used in this context. It doesn't matter which we think is right, just the fact that they are different shows there is a problem with using one rigid policy to stretch over all glossary articles.

When dealing those who want to wholesale drop "terms" as redundant, you might point out that "proper" English grammar is not dictated by one's personal interpretation of logic, but idioms and usage rule in this language; and to try and buck them is actually "improper".

--Tom Hulse (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Nomenclature"

Hello Tom. I was just idly perusing various pages, and noticed your recent postings at Talk:Abutilon x hybridum; in my view, I think you may wish to change your initial addressing of "Hi Andrea" to "Hi Nadia" - it might be better received! :) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Argh! Yes, thank you, thank you! --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Geoduck vs. Panopea generosa

Hi Tom! I saw your post on the talk page of Panopea generosa aka the Pacific geoduck; BYW Geoduck does have a redirect to this species. Just like you are a self proclaimed "plant nut" I am a "shell nut", hence the moniker. This article comes under the global umbrella of WikiProject Bivalves, which is patterned after WikiProject Gastropods. We are trying to use proper taxonomy throughout both projects, up to date per the World Register of Marine Species. Knowing that a lot of people use the common names for organisms we try to use redirects to get the common name search moved to the formal name article. Part of the problem we run into with marine fauna is that "common names" have not always garnered full acceptance, and sometimes there are multiple common names. With birds I know that there are generally accepted common names; maybe this is true in botany too. If you are interested, go to the main class article Bivalvia and scroll down through the taxonomy. For starters we are trying to clean up the major taxa through families, working down to species articles as we have time and interest. Shellnut (talk)

Hello Shellnut. :) Thanks for your note. I replied at the Talk:Panopea generosa page regarding binding WP:FAUNA naming conventions. --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brugmansia arborea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Sweet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tom Hulse. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants.
Message added 19:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pol430 talk to me 19:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Peony gallery

Hello, I saw you deleted the small portion of the peony gallery I restored, with a comment. I read the text of Wikipedia policy, and am excerpting it here: « However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–1795 in fashion for an example of a good use of galleries. »

OK. If you think that one image of the peony blossom is adequately encyclopedic, you are sadly mistaken. The flower has a wide variety of forms (I won't bother listing them) and surprisingly wide range of color. The images provided on Wikipedia showed an extremely limited of number of forms as a sample: single, double, Japanese flowered, and arguably the most popular cultivar, Mons. Jules Elie (very mundane, but appropriate here nonetheless). Someone coming to this article unaware of peonies probably does not know they are available in color beyond pink, white and magenta, such as blood red, pink coral, as just two examples. -- The gallery had descriptive labels about the cultivar and form. -- The gallery was not excessive, and as far as I am concerned, and Wikipedia policy is concerned, completely appropriate. A picture is worth a thousand words. Why be such a zealot? Charvex (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Charvex, nice to meet you. Do you always start the name calling before you've even conversed with someone, lol? Perhaps you could look a little closer at that policy (WP:IG)? Please read more carefully there what it means by "...cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". In this case, the subject of our gallery can definitely be described by individual images placed into the article, so that is your complete answer. It gives examples there of what kind of subject could not be described by individual images, such as 1750–1795 in fashion. Notice the locked-in sequence that is intended for side-by-side and sequential comparison there? You would loose the sequential comparison if you interspersed them throughout the article. To further understand the difference, consider the rule of thumb given at that policy: "if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons". This sentence applies exactly to our gallery. It was merely a random, hodge-podge collection of a few cultivars, not any kind of tool to help our readers understand the 6 flower forms. A fair, unbiased title of the gallery, as shown, should have been exactly the same as the article title, which makes it non-encyclopedic. This is important: a gallery that only helps the reader understand the general title of the article is not allowed.

Here is further from that policy: "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons". So I'm all for having more images, but we need to improve the article first to have somewhere to put them... not just cram an indiscriminate collection of images at the end of the article. We already have Commons for that, and our readers can get there with a single click at the bottom of the page. So if you want to create a gallery "Flower Forms of Peony lactiflora", with descriptive captions that show each of the 6 different flower forms, then that would be a nice addition. Hope that explains the difference. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no name calling in the least. I was making the mildest of ideological points. How do you say this in English? « You have such thin skin! » :-) I know there is no arguing with Wikipedia editors, such as yourself, who wish to delete anything. Simply stated, I think the images are educational, diverse, and informative. You interpret it as a « cram of an indiscriminate collection of images ». Sincerest best wishes to you. Tchao, Charvex (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No one likes being called a zealot just because you may disagree with an edit. What I or you interpret or simply think or simply state is really irrelevant, you just need to learn what the wide consensus has already decided on image galleries. It's not me man, it's the wide community. I didn't stretch out the policy, or wikilawyer, or anything like that. The policy is crystal clear and is written 100% with this kind of article in mind. The images are still there, one simple click away at Commons. Instead of continuing to whine about policy, why don't you just improve the gallery to bring it up to Wikipedia standards? --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful thoughts and kinds words. Cheers! Charvex (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Night-blooming cereus

I have formalised your move request at Talk:Nightblooming cereus. —  AjaxSmack  21:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

View that English names must be used

Tom, please note that in my original "numbered" response, I carefully directed only one comment to you. In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't implying that you were one of those who always argue for English names; I know that you don't. But there are so many that do, often based on the flimsiest of cases, that it does become frustrating for plant editors, and newcomers like HalfGig can be forgiven for not discriminating between reasonable and unreasonable editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Peter. I see now that I did misunderstand on that point. Thank you also for your thick skin when debating with me, it seems I am often less tactful than I wish. --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about me; I enjoy a robust debate. (Though I would prefer it to be verbal; writing back and forth doesn't always work well for me.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

See Zad

See post on Zad68's talk page. HalfGig talk 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks on my behalf

I kindly ask of you to that you do not call me a sock puppet. There has been no reason to do so, especially on the talk page. Asdisis (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Asdisis. I would welcome you to Wikipedia, but it seems from the way you are familiar with the the background structure here, and the experienced confidence you have in bossing around long-time Master editors (not me) in Wiki policy, that you are no newbie to editing at Wikipedia. I am going to assume good faith and say you must have started a new account for a Wikipedia:Clean start, which is fine, but you must have simply been unaware of the restrictions that go along with a Clean Start and new user name. Please take a moment and carefully read that clean start link. It says you may not edit on a page like Tesla, and you may not participate in the types of discussions that you have. They really do have amazing ways of telling when someone has used more than one user name.--Tom Hulse (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for a late response. I was not, not am I now familiar with the background structure. At that time I couldn't recognize long-time Master editors and I surly was not bossing around Wiki policy. You can go back and see that I made many inaccurate allegations regarding Wiki policy. Asdisis (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that this account has been permanently blocked for using multiple accounts. Tom Hulse (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Tesla

You missed the topic about Tesla's article being biased, that's why I will answer you here. As I can see, even before I joined wikipedia, there were problems with nationalistic attitude regarding Tesla's article. I think that's why it's protected. I tried to make a simple edit. I haven't thought it would be so hard. I'm not engaged only in this article. It's just that this article is merely impossible to edit. Allegations that I used cherry picked sources are unfounded and I dismiss them. Those people were free to list sources that prove I cherry picked. They failed to do so. Anyway, I made a summary of the sources listed in the article, and they were quite clear regarding my case. I agree with you. I also think my suggestion was dismissed on ad hominem basis. However, I'm not important. I had not based by suggestion upon my reputation, but more than a few dozen sources. On the other hand, you can see in the previous discussions that editors who posted none, or just a few sources (which were pretty much in my favor) had too strong objections than arguments and sources to support that objections. That can be a sign of nationalistic agenda. I find this article biased and I will try to correct it with objective sources. That doesn't mean I have nationalistic agenda, but rather that I'm trying to remove nationalistic deeds of previous editors. Lastly, I think that we all agree that every discussion about Tesla brings nationalistic attitude. However, because of that, it's important to make an objective article. Not to have constructs with double meaning, and so on. The present construct of Tesla's birthplace is directly copied from Serbian propaganda, despite the fact that only Britannica contains that construct, and other sources that contain in, have a further clarification to eliminate double meanings. I tried to change it both way, to mention Croatia, or to completely remove Croatia, and write only "Austrian Empire". The fact that some were quite adamant to keep that construct, without any objective reason, is worrying. Asdisis (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Erowid and Datura, again

Tom, you may have noticed it already, but in case you haven't... there is some discussion going on at Talk:Datura#Effects_of_Ingestion_2.Lou Sander (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tesla

Re: this edit, Would you care to point out where in the article it states Tesla had operated as a physicist? i.e. had an advanced education as a physicist, proposed theories, did scientific experiments, or made contributions to physics? The word "scientist" or "physicist" does not show up in the article (other than noting Tesla's views on the topic) and WP:BURDEN does require that claims be referenced before you re-add them.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fountains. :) Here is a direct link to the section in the article which directly (but meagerly) discusses only just his contributions to physics: Nikola Tesla#On experimental and theoretical physics. WP:BURDEN is fully satisfied by the references in that section. Almost every verb in that section (said, claimed, disagreed, was-critical-of, etc.) represents one of his published writings on physics. You asked about education, he studied experimental physics at both the Austrian Polytechnic in Graz (prof. Jakob Poeschl) and at the University of Prague (prof. Karel Domalip)₁. While many of his theories were wrong or not accepted, he did work extensively in the field. For instance many of his inventions relied heavily on new or fringe physics. Colorado Springs & Wardenclyffe were advanced experimental work in physics. Transmitting electricity through the ether, which he worked extensively on, relied on his whole competing theory of the universe that lost out to Einstein's theory of relativity, he debated this in the open press. The contemporary press thought of him as a physicist₂. Nikola thought of himself as a physicist ₃. Many modern biographies say he's a physicist ₄. Although you may not see him on some smaller lists of most notable physicists, because many of his theories were wrong, he is is usually part of the larger more complete lists of physicists_{5, 6, 7}. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1937 ₈. Minor portions of Tesla's theories on physics are still being debated today as refinements to current EM theory ₉. That whole portion of our article could be greatly expanded. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How someone self-styles themselves or is styled by relatively unreliable sources does not really meet the requirements for Wikipedia. WP:BURDEN is satisfied via "citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" so a source that has an unreliable summary "eccentric physicist developed the alternating current electric power system that lights up the world today. He also invented radio" is directly contradicted by the much more reliable Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age By W. Bernard Carlson which describes Tesla's working methods as anything but science (page 301). Per Carlson again Tesla did not operate in "fringe physics" at Colorado Springs & Wardenclyffe: he used very well known theories of electric conduction (and for 30 years rejected the fringe-y idea of radio waves) and led himself down the garden path because he believed in his own idea's, he did not test them by scientific experiment. Two of the sources you provided are copies of each other and copy each other's wrong facts (the war of currents came before Tesla's induction motor, not the other way around). A paper that has a previous work citation "Solutions to Tesla's Secrets and the Soviet Tesla Weapons," is getting well out into the WP:FRINGE. If you read through the sources you provided you will see Tesla had no advanced education in physics, he did not have the language requirements to take the courses at University of Prague and had to drop out within a year. Tesla had no "published writings on physics", just his own unpublished ideas and musings or claims he made in the press. Tesla's CV is that of an engineer, engineers study and use physics but they are not physicist. Tesla may have self-styled himself as a physicist in his later years and the press may have dubbed him a "physicist" but in the same quote they also dub him "Dr. Tesla" (Tesla did not have a doctorate). So if we summarize Nikola Tesla#On experimental and theoretical physics to conform to WP:LEAD at best we have "self-styled physicist". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)