Talk:Eucalyptus leprophloia

Etymology of leprophloia
There is some dispute about the etymology of leprophloia. It is not for a Wikipedia editor to decide which is the "proper" word or to declare that a word "is not attested" without reliable sources. ("Reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers.") It also does not matter what a Wikipedia editor knows - it only matters what is in the references. Wikipedia editors are not at liberty to delete reliable sources because they do not agree with them. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Nuytsia are reliable sources (as defined above). Gderrin (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple misinterpretations of sources. Lewis and Short indicate that leprosus is late Latin, not new Latin. The American Heritage Dictionary similarly indicates that leprosus is late Latin. Why would Sharr indicate that leprosus is Greek. Does he indicate it is Greek or Greek-derived? Mentioning the word "leper" is not ad rem. I have deleted the word "proper". Wimpus (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then change the text to suit the source rather than removing the lot. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit is correct, Gderrin's edit is non-sensical. Why would you prefer Gderrin's edit? Wimpus (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting. Wimpus (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The text that you are removing is referenced, you need to point out exactly what is in error and give the editor a chance to have a look rather than a whole scale revert. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See the quote on your talk-page: "The onus here is clearly on the person who wants to reinsert such material to first get informed and understand why the entry may have been flawed." I have indicated multiple times what is wrong with this specific edit. And I have amply demonstrated that Gderrin is actually misquoting, misreading, misinterpreting sources in multiple instances. So, Gderrin has to make clear why this edit is correct (and necessary), before reinserting this contested information. Wimpus (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No he does not, assuming the reference agrees with what is written then these are the points you need to discuss here - just like we went through on Eucalyptus gamophylla. You need to discuss it properly rather than just slagging off other editors saying they are misquoting, misreading, misinterpreting sources. Which part of the text do you disagree with and what is your suggected correction? Hughesdarren (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But it is clear, that Gderrin is misquoting, misreading, misinterpreting sources in multiple instances.
 * In this specific instance, Gderrin uses three additional sources. Two of these sources, indicate that leprosus is late Latin. One source seems to indicate that leprosus is Greek. Words on -osus are actually Latin, as -osus is actually a Latin suffix (I am not advocating the use of Wiktionary, so I can give another non-Wiktionary link for -osus for this discussion if requested). So, this source must be mistaken, or Gderrin is misinterpreting this source. Given the other etymological edits of Gderrin, I am not automatically convinced that Gderrin has correctly interpreted this source. Alternatively, the second author of this source (Alex George) has written a book on Botanical Latin (with Emma Short) in which he does not explicitely state when using the label "Gk" whether he refers to real (ancient) Greek or to something that is Greek-derived. However, when browsing through all those words/word-forming elements/prefixes et cetera that have the label "Gk" in Short and George, it becomes clear, that "Gk" does not necessarily refer to real (ancient) Greek, but merely to something that is "Greek-derived". Leprosus is a late Latin word, but derives from the Greek word lepros (λεπρός). The word lepros is mentioned by the original describing authors. And actually, that seems quite right. So, there is actually no need for including the word leprosus and to label it as Greek (that is questionable at least). Wimpus (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No response of Hughesdarren or Gderrin yet. Wimpus (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Fully protected
Due to the content dispute, I have restored the consensus version and fully protected the article. Due to the number of reverts, blocks could be issued but we're going to try to rein this in with the hopes that it isn't necessary. Editors are encouraged to seek consensus and if one is achieved before the one week protection period expires then the protection may be removed. Please post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants to invite more editors to this discussion to evaluate the dispute. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(I was unaware that the article had been unblocked). The sources quoted by me are quite clear. I quote them verbatim: Further, Emma Short gives: -phloius (adj. A, in Gk comp.) -bark[ed]. All of which leads me to the conclusion that phloios is Greek for "bark" and -phloius Greek for "-barked".
 * Brooker and Hopper in Nuytsia: Etymology. The name refers to the scaly basal bark (Greek lepros - scaly and phloia - bark).
 * Francis Sharr: leprophloia: G leprosus scurfy + -phloius -barked
 * The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: leper n. 1. A person affected by leprosy. 2 a person who is avoided by others; a pariah. [Middle English, from lepre, leprosy, from Old French, from late Latin lepra, from Greek lepros, scaly, from lepis, lepid-.]

I did not add the reference to Liddell & Scott but retained it in an attempt at consensus, (recognising it as a "good faith" edit).
 * None of these sources "indicate that leprosus is late Latin" as claimed above (although Latin Latin leprosus is given in derivations of other words in the AHD);
 * No reference given by Wimpus indicates that -osus is a Latin ending only, never Greek.

For clarity, the etymology should simply be: "...from the Greek leprosus meaning "scurfy" and -phloius meaning "-barked". Gderrin (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Lewis & Short and The American Heritage dictionary, but also Oxford Dictionary of English indicate that leprosus is late Latin. So, the claim by Sharr that leprosus would be Greek can be considered questionable.
 * Brown's Composition of scientific words (1956, p. 65) states: "L. -osus, having the nature or quality of, usually in fulness or abundance". In the list of Latin adjectival suffixes in Stearn's Botanical Latin (1983, p. 309): "-osus -a -um: indicates abundance or full or marked development; noun base; e.g. venosus, full of veins (from vena, vein)." So, the statement of Sharr, that leprosus would be Greek becomes even more questionable. It might be difficult to find a reliable source that directly states that "-osus" is "not Greek", but the evidence is clearly against such a conclusion that "-osus" could be a Greek suffix.
 * Moreover, Brooker and Hopper in Nuytsia claim that leprophloia is derived from Greek lepros. In case it would be derived from some kind of Greek leprosus, than the epithet would be leprosophloia according to rule 60.10b of the Code. Adding such obvious incorrect form leprosus is not necessary at all. Mentioning leper seems clearly not ad rem. Wimpus (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * According to this article: "Latin words in -ōsus were borrowed into Greek during medieval times (5/6th c.–13th c.)." and "was taken into MGr dialects through Venetian and Italian loanwords, rather than through Latin loanwords". Within this article, forms on -οσος, -οσσος, -ωσος, οζος, -ωζος, -οζος (and some other forms) are mentioned. It mentions however, λεπρῶζος, as derived from Italian lebbroso. But λεπρῶζος is clearly different from leprosus. And it is highly unlikely, Sharr and George are referring to 16th–17th Greek λεπρῶζος. And please notice, that Greek words end on -ος, not on -us (a clear marker in this case being a Latin word). Wimpus (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)