Talk:ecoculture

RFC
Very wordy. Equinox ◑ 20:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done everything but the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this "everything" that you refer to?
 * Redefined. The previous definitions were lengthy and vague at the same time. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jamesjiao: I have coined the word 'ecoculture' for my nonprofit organization Ecoculture Village (http://ecoculturevillage.org). You changed my definition, which served as a viable and accurate framework for further definitional development into something less than accurate, in fact its opposite! The current “definition” does not take into consideration certain relevant facts that differentiates and uniquely defines the word ‘ecoculture’. Your definition uses the words “environment” and “sustainable” according to their most controversial and loose definitions… which is the exact opposite of what ecoculture seeks to do concerning these words… according to their definition, ecoculture includes urbanization, for example, which is the exact opposite of ecoculture.

Even if only for the sake of being concise, I was willing to work with people concerning my definition, but they did not even try to contact me... they just changed it into something that means the exact opposite. Not only am I disrespected... I am also convinced that there are Wiktionary volunteers who have nothing better to do with their time than make themselves look like uneducated idiots by poking their noses into topics they know nothing about. How can someone be so ignorant of a topic that for the sake of conciseness, their new definition is the exact opposite of what the word actually means?

I have cleaned it up, and it is done! TAB


 * Troy, this really doesn't look like your own coinage, as there are Google Books hits starting from 1961 with this publication.  Even assuming you coined the word before then, it's been used by many different people to mean things that appear to be closer to the looser definition that James gave.  And if this word were your coinage and yours alone, and no one else had used it, it wouldn't belong here on Wiktionary anyway (see WT:CFI for why).
 * I'm not saying this to be mean -- you seem to be confused about the goals of the Wiktionary community, and I'm saying this in the hope that it helps clear up any misconceptions. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I only meant that since I was told by Wiktionary previously that 'ecoculture' is not a word, but a protologism, that I had coined the word (for Wiktionary)... not originally. I am fully aware that many have coined the word, and I am merely one of them, not the only or first (except for on Wiktionary). Sorry about that confusion. Although I was upset that my accurate definition "the relationship between human culture and the ecology, in the sense that human culture recognizes that it is a directly proportional function of the ecology" was replaced with a definition that allows for urbanization to be a form of ecoculture which it of course cannot be, and which is of course not only insulting to me and the rest of the educated world, but absurd. Can we either please respect that I would like to have at least some participation in how my original entry turns out or please delete it entirely if those "higher up" on the Wiki ladder than myself cannot provide an accurate alternative definition? Is this unreasonable?
 * You don't own the word 'ecoculture' just because you coined it. Sounds to me like you coined it not for Wiktionary but for your business venture. Even if it's non-profit, it still has to make enough revenue to break even so non-profit organizations can spam for financial gain. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for a link to my website, but for an accurate definition. Are you really convinced that the word "environment" is a suitable alternative to the word "ecology"? That's what this discussion is about... the meaning of words, not a link to my site, besides, the definition I came up with for Wiktionary is different than the one I use on my site that is more encyclopedic in nature in advocating the charity work we do in growing free food for poor people. If you will not allow my link, that is completely ok with me. Again, this is about the definition, nothing more.
 * See WT:CFI. It is often necessary in real life for one to define a term explicitly so the precise meaning one intends is clear to others. Others, however, may use the word as they please and the vague common meaning is the one that gets into dictionaries because the vague common meaning is all that one can expect users to understand when the word is used without an explicit definition in the immediately adjoining text. DCDuring TALK 21:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As intelligent and respectable as you are, you are missing the point. There are many examples of "the interplay between the human culture and the environment that it exists in", since there are all sorts of environments that are not at all ecological... thus not ecocultural; and there are many examples of "sustainable development" that are not 'ecologically' sustainable... thus not ecocultural. This is not a question of vague or explicit, but one of accurate or contradictory. How do you sign, anyway?
 * I am not trying to get your point. I am trying to come up with the generally accepted meaning of ecoculture:, based on independent sources that are durably archived.
 * To sign type ~ . DCDuring TALK 21:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not my point... its the point; that James' definition is contradictory because "environment" and 'eco-' are not always synonymous, and because "sustainable" is not always 'ecological'; thus James' definition is not a generally accepted meaning according to its etymology. The Wiki community deserves to be represented by way of etymologically accurate definitions... I can't believe you don't agree with that. An apology to James must be required of me concerning my hasty words concerning his definition, since you are all backing each other in not hearing logic in and of itself, independent of me... so... I'm sorry James that I said things that might have been rash or hasty. There, now... I really do think that the definition of a compound 'protologism' (as this word is, as has already been determined previously by a Wiki admin) always remain true to its component words regardless of what common meaning might later arise after it comes into common use (which this word hasn't yet really... and since it is a compound word, in order for its common use to stray, it would have to be slang, which I highly doubt this word would evolve to be)... agreed? So, what this comes down to is whether or not the word is going to be allowed into the dictionary as anything other than a protologism because the definition is given by way of its etymology as "ecological culture" nothing more nothing less. To add more would be to enter the realm of Wikipedia. Someone higher up will eventually agree with this, and also since James' definition can be commonly construed as anything but "etymological", that thus James' definition is as absurd as my original attempt at one was. I think we've all learned our lesson here... especially me, that as of yet, the word 'ecoculture' is a mere protologism, so let's just be done with it and respect the previous admin's decision to delete the dictionary entry in its entirely. TAB 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect, you are ignoring the point of this argument. We do not just include any word that anyone comes up. As I mentioned in my email reply to you, if you are able to produce three citations that actually make use of this word over the span of a year, then we will include it provided the citations are valid (not just made up by, let's say, you). What you are trying to do is to shove this word into a dictionary to give it some sort of official status, intentionally or not. This is not how a dictionary works in general. If this word, by any chance, comes into general acceptance in the future, we will consider adding it with or without your intervention. Just on my definition, I was just trying to clean it up as it was extremely verbose and obviously written by someone who had had no experience with lexicography. I should've deleted it on the spot, especially since it was a neologism without any backup. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I would much rather have it deleted than remain as it were... and you are right, I had zero experience with lexicography at that time, and I still have very little... although your attempt at a definition was really no better as it sacrificed etymological integrity for conciseness, I apologize for my hasty and potentially insulting words, James. TAB 22:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, just saw this thread again. I'm not sure I agree with the deletion of the entry, given that presently returns 890 hits. I couldn't tell you quite what this word means, but it does seem to have some currency in certain fields, and use in published dead-tree works. -- Just my 2p, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Until we have common usage, best let it rest or we will likely have this argument all over again... but in any case, here's my 2-cents... "ecological culture" and "to culture ecologically"... KISS (Keep It Simple Smarter). TAB 22:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't deny the existence of this neologism, but everyone seems to use it in their own way (some are clearly just attempts at stylizing), i.e. there is no agreement on what it should mean. The dead-tree usage obviously deviates from the definition provided by TAB (assuming you are also Ecoculturevillage). Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There are as many definitions as there is leeway according to its etymological compound construction, so whatever the words 'ecology' and 'culture' mean when put together just so long as the definition stays within non-slang usage is agreeable by my understanding of etymo-logic... "the relationship between human culture and the ecology, in the sense that human culture recognizes that it is a directly proportional function of the ecology." is assumed from 'eco-' "Meaning ecology or the environment (in the ecological sense)." Another way I define ecoculture is: "the harmonious union of the environmental dynamic (ecosystem) and the social dynamic (culture), which I believe is both the underlying determinant for and the end result of rational land use." TAB 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2011
A few Google hits, but the definitions given don't seem to actually mean much. SemperBlotto 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the noun should pass with some definition or another, but the verb, looks unlikely. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)