User talk:Somed00d1997

No one speaks cladistics, they speak English. Dictionaries are about language, not about taxonomic technicalities. I'm not against using taxonomic names to precisely specify what organism a term refers to, and I'm well aware of the role of cladistics in taxonomy. When scientific taxonomy and semantic taxonomy coincide, that's great- but you have to keep straight which is which.

Cladistically, you and I are both fish. That doesn't mean you should include us in the definition at fish. I don't know about you, but when I say "fish", I have something in mind that has fins, gills and lives (mostly) in the water. I would venture to say that English speakers as a whole are the same in that respect.

Even in science, cladistics only takes you so far- no matter what the cladistic models may say, I'm pretty confidant that just about any scientist anywhere will tell you that a whale is not a fish. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

>Dictionaries are about language, not about taxonomic technicalities.

Dictionaries are about language yes, but also about the numerous ways in which a word can be used. A word can have multiple definitions, whether or not the definition doesn't resonate with the average person isn't relevant. Most people think using the word literally as a metaphor is invalid, that doesn't mean that the word literally shouldn't have a metaphorical sense. A cladistic definition is just as much of a valid definition as a metaphorical one. And since cladistics is the currently the norm for taxonomy, it shouldn't be relegated to being a mere ”technicality.”

>Cladistically, you and I are both fish. That doesn't mean you should include us in the definition at fish. I don't know about you, but when I say "fish", I have something in mind that has fins, gills and lives (mostly) in the water. I would venture to say that English speakers as a whole are the same in that respect.

No, fish is not a clade. We are lobe-finned fish cladistically (members of Sarcopterygii). But that aside, your reasoning is that a cladistic definition. shouldn't be included because it differs from the standard definition. I don't see why. Plenty of words have nonstandards definitions. If I recall correctly, irregardless is a valid sense here on wiktionary.

And it's not like calling us lobe finned fish is a technicality either. Most scientists absolutely will tell you that we and whales are lobe finned fish. Again, cladistics has become the norm now, it has replaced Linnean taxonomy. Humans being lobe finned fish is just as valid as birds being dinosaurs. Most people don't think of birds as dinosaurs, so should we make that clear too? No.

There's also the fact that Wikipedia acknowledges the cladistic definition.
 * Yes, I'm aware that "fish" is paraphyletic. I made that point in a discussion here years ago. That doesn't mean that an ichthyologist is wrong for studying sharks and eels, but not whales. But you're missing my point: it's not a matter of whether a definition makes sense, or whether there's science behind it. It's a matter of whether people actually are already using it that way. Irregardless is covered because people use it, and it's part of their vocabulary. You and I may agree that tetrapods are part of the same clade as lungfish, but that doesn't mean that people mean yak when they say "fish". Chuck Entz (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)