Talk:Caladenia oreophila

Etymology of oreophila

There is some dispute about the etymology of oreophila. It is not for a Wikipedia editor to decide which is the "proper" word and to delete reliable sources. ("Reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers.") Gderrin (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC) The Primer by Short and George is published by Cambridge University Press. (ISBN: 9781107693753)Gderrin (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please, you are again misinterpreting sources. Do you actually know what a compound is? Evidently not, as ores- and oreo- are clearly not compounds. So, I did remove an misrepresentation of a source. Wimpus (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter what a Wikipedia editor knows - it only matters what is in the references. Emma Short is eminently qualified to explain etymologies. On page 221 of her book, she has "oreo-, ores- (in Gk. comp.) mountain-". "The proper word for 'mountain' in Ancient Greek...etc." is a statement not supported by a reference. It is merely a Wikipedia editor's opinion. (The Liddell & Scott reference (with the page number) has been retained.) Gderrin (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sancta simplicitas! Due to your unfamiliarity with Latin, Greek and linguistics, you seem to be unable in multiple cases to interpret a source properly. The phrase: "oreo-, ores- (in Gk. comp.) mountain-" does not support: "Short and George in A Primer of Botanical Latin with Vocabulary give oreo-, ores- as a Greek compound meaning "mountain-"." Short and George do not state that oreo-, ores- is a compound, but that oreo-, ores- can be found in a compound/is part of a compound. Additionally, one can not find unequivocally in Short and George, that the words/word parts/prefixes (et cetera) in the list, that are marked "Gk" are the actual ancient Greek forms, or are words/word parts/prefixes (et cetera) that have a Greek origin (see e.g.p. 5: "Some nouns of Greek origin, ending in -e,", p. 113: "Entries are included for many prefixes and suffixes. We indicate whether these are of Greek or Latin origin", p. xi "The letter ‘k’ was rarely used and ‘y’ appeared in few words, mainly of Greek origin."). Wimpus (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Short (quoted verbatim from page 221): oreo-, ores- (in Gk. comp.) mountain-
• Stearn (quoted verbatim from page 458): oreo-, ores- in Gk. comp., pertaining to mountains; oreophilus, mountain-loving; oresbius, mountain-dwelling

Gderrin (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And again: "in Gk. comp." So Short and George do not state that oreo-, ores- is a compound. Clearly a misinterpretation. Wimpus (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wimpus: You have reverted my edit to this article with the edit summary: "You are actually removing the description of the original describing authors. Vandalism?" (I assume by "description of the original describing authors" you mean the etymology provided by David L. Jones.)

• 1. There is no requirement that the etymology given by the describing authors must be included.
• 2. A cursory glance at my User page, Talk page or contributions reveal the question "Vandalism?" to be preposterous. Please read WP:GF and keep your edit summaries and contributions to talk pages civil.
• 3. The word "proper" reflects a value judgement. Please comply with the policy WP:NPOV.
• 4. (a) On page 449, Stearn has: "mountain-: in Gk. comp., oreo-; oreophilus, mountain-loving;" (b) On page 458, Stearn has: "oreo-, ores- in Gk. comp., pertaining to mountains; oreophilus, mountain-loving;" (c) The edit you reverted was "...is derived from the ancient Greek word for "mountain" with the ending -philus meaning "loving"..."

You have not explained why the edit was reverted. Gderrin (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

So, reagarding: "There is no requirement that the etymology given by the describing authors must be included.", I can therefore easily replace etymologies of the describing authors by etymologies provided by different sources?

Your edit was clearly not an improvement. It removed the etymology as provided by the original describing author. It does not mention what Greek word for "mountain" is intended. It becomes ambiguous whether "-philus" is intended as Greek or as something else.

I have demonstrated repeatedly, that a large part of your etymological edits results from misreading, misquoting, misinterpreting. When confronted by anomalies in your etymological edits by an adminstrator, you seemed to flat-out deny that there is something wrong with certain edits and you seemed to resort to something that can be characterized as "not telling the truth".

Similarly, you haven't acknowledge on the talk-page of Caladenia macrostylis that you were evidently not telling the truth. Despite the damning evidence clearly indicates that you are actually error-prone regarding etymological edits, you still continue to make etymological edits that are questionable. Wimpus (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It is impossible to reach a consensus with a person who calls me a liar. Gderrin (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I am telling you that your are "not telling the truth". That is not the same as calling you a "liar". Wimpus (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)