Talk:Greenfinger

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Broad interpretation not backed up by references. This is completely an original interpretation by author of the arcticle. Who says 'Maverick' who says 'environmental projects' in general. Who says 'without proper control or supervision' None of this is backed up by sources where the word is just a quote of a couple of people. Does a couple of people using a word make it wictionary (I don't know). Anyway even if it does the interpretation is not supported. Contributions/86.153.244.42 23:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Proper Noun[edit]

What follows is transcribed from User_talk:SemperBlotto#Greenfinger

' Can you make an argument as to why Greenfinger isn't a proper noun? It is a name that would be used for an individual instead of 'Goldfinger'. There aren't several Goldfingers, similarly there is no record in the refs of anyone suggesting that there would be several Greenfingers there would just be Greenfinger. Whoever acted to do environmental change would become Greenfinger (this is the concept and why it is capitalized in the refs). This is barely out of protologism territory, if that, and any definition is therefore extremely difficult speculation and ends up defining the word here on wiktionary more than it has been defined by the limited refs. It is far more common if you do an internet search for greenfinger to be associated with enviromental championing/campainging or gardening. This needs examining. 86.155.155.197 07:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'

I think therefore that although the definition may suggest that this is a noun it is because the definition is wrong. I would suggest a definition along the lines of Greenfinger is in imagined character based on Goldfinger etc. 86.155.155.197 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider "those children are little Hitlers". Equinox ◑ 16:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However, I don't deny that it could potentially be used in this way. I just question whether we have sufficient/or independent evidence to show that it has been. We could still make as good an argument for it being a proper noun. Anyway I have tagged it as a protologism but I would like to see others with more wiktionary knowledge assess this critically.86.155.155.197 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prepared to accept I could be wrong on this proper noun (see what you think it is difficult to judge based on limited refs) but I do think the description goes beyond the limited refs and it is not even the most common sense of this word anyway. So if the guidance is that someone might want to find the word in a search (which is unlikely because the two refs provided both have to establish what the word means and provide it once only in quotes/transcript) they are likely to find completely the wrong definition due to this being an unestablished use.86.155.155.197 12:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ref that David Victor is talking about in the interview is where he coins the word David G. Victor (2008) He obviously intends the word to be a noun. Steve Raynor is from the same research background as David Victor so I don't know how independent these sources are. Polargeo 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the use of a word in a journal would usually be an independant source, what is happening here is David Victor has written the article inventing the term. He has then gone and done media interviews where he has repeated the term and another closely related academic has also mentioned the term in an interview at around the same time. A wikipedia editor put an article on wikipedia w:greenfinger about the word, this was transwikied to here and the wikipedia article was deleted. The article is now under deletion discussion again and looks like it will be deleted again or changed to a redirect of some sort this time. Polargeo 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for verification[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

I apologise initially for my lack of wiktionary experience.

  • Definition used here appears not to have enough backing to be justified.
  • Meaning not conveyed in enough sources.
  • Term as defined has not been in use for long enough.

Just generally not sure whether this definition meets criteria. Polargeo 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 cites do not span a year. Do the two cites from the coiner/promoter of the term count as independent? DCDuring TALK 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This new cite is still just under a year as the word was first published less than a year ago. I think the majority of the coverage the word has had (associated with Bill Gates) until just recently is due to the wikipedia article on it that was transwikied here. So if it becomes a phrase that is widely used I think it will be largely from the success of the wikipedia article. Polargeo 08:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The great big warning tag should hold us for now. Someone didn't like the tag and removed it, twice, I think. If attestation can't be found now, the citations will be moved to the citations page, for later use. The RfV process gives an entry a minimum of a month from the posting of the RfV. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenfinger&oldid=31627120"