http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/chemhealth/glossary/coprophile.html describes a 'coprophile' as merely a feces-loving organism, which the etymology seems to agree with. Perhaps Beem0r's edit can be reinstated as an alternate definition?
Well, I added the alternate definition in myself...
It seems that this definition is being almost automatically reverted to one ignoring the true meaning of the word. Though I am about to edit it, it will probably be changed back right away by webley.
- Love is a human emotion. Coprophilic organisms know nothing of it.
- This word does not only describe unthinking organisms. In many cases it is used referring to human beings. Also, I originally used the word 'like,' Almost all other sources list as one of the first deinitions of the word as 'feces-loving organism' or such. Where are you getting this obscure definition? When I looked I only found the definitions describing organisms that love/like or feed on feces/fecal material.
Indeed? Log in, sign your posts, find print citations and add them here, and you will get a lot further than just wheel-whoring. Robert Ullmann 22:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A> You can look at the definition of 'Coprophilia' on this very site.
B> Google search "Define:coprophile" (result from a science site)
C> Why should I have the burden of showing proof of the definition when this guy's not showing any proof either, just changing it whenever anyone writes anything diferent?
D> The only other place I have seen with this definition is Yawiki - coincidentally another wiki - and it has the same exact wording as was present on this site only a few weeks ago, until someone added the 'feeds on' definition to this site. --Beem0r 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You would think from coprophilia that a person would be a coprophile, wouldn't you? But it turns out that that is (only) the word for organisms (bacteria, etc). The word for people is coprophagist, which you are welcome to add ... language is like that sometimes, especially English, which will take two words that both should mean the same thing (or the same things regardless of the object) and use the words to make a distinction, ignoring what the roots ought to mean. A bacteria or whatever that feeds on feces ought to be a coprophagist right? But no, the organism is the -phile (lover), and the person is the -phagist (eater). Just the way it is. Robert Ullmann 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- ah, missed that one. This isn't my usual interest area ... Robert Ullmann 23:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Why then do many sources say otherwise? A simple google search for "coprophile" shows a variety of definitions in regard to humans with a (usually sexual) liking for feces, I have yet to see a reason to accept the definition of feces-dwelling. No sources have been presented backing that definition up, while it has at least been shown that other sources agree with both the feeds on definition and loving definition. I checked a real dictionary - webster's 3rd international, and it didn't have the word, though it defines coprophagist as something consuming dung, not with a phile definition. It did have philiac, which is a word that means feces-loving.
Please show a source or get rid of the 'lives in' definition and replace it with something broader. (an organism that lives in feces would be a coprophile, but it is not a defining attribute of it. It's like a square and rectangle thing. All squares are rectangles, but a rectangle is not defined as a square. This is also true for the feeds on definition, but it has been used enough as meaning feeding on feces to have taken that as a definition.)
If you should keep your definition without source, why then cannot another be added with source?--Beem0r 01:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCESS (a government site!) relays us the news that any 'feces loving organism' does indeed qualify as a coprophile. [Source: http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/chemhealth/glossary/coprophile.html].
Humans are organisms. Humans have the capability to love feces (as disturbing as that seems). Ergo, humans can be coprophiles, not just bacteria. Please add this definition as many have been asking. The definition is constantly being reverted to an inferior one. - Dan Wolf