The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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.
RFVs for these general senses:
- Someone with great powers.
- A superior man or human.
It is very likely that some kind of general sense has developed from the technical philosophical sense I've just added, but probably just one, vague one. A review of usage should help to clarify what that general sense is. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, to start with, there's another dimension to this that hasn't been covered: try searching on Nazi Übermensch, and you'll see what I'm talking about. As for the challenged senses: they look like the kind of thing one would get by extrapolating from the literal meanings of the parts that make up the word. It wouldn't surprise me if we don't find anything. So far, all I'm finding is Nazis and Nietzsche, but there are way too many hits to sort through until I can come up with suitable filters. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced the Nazi sense and the sense "a superior human" are distinct. (At a minimum, the Nazi sense would seem to be a subsense of the "superior human" sense.) Whether to keep the Nazi sense or keep the "superior human" sense depends on how much non-Nazi usage the latter sees, I suppose. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- That would make synchronic sense; however, the Nazis took their über- and untermensch terminology and concepts — in crude form — from Nietzsche, so the Nazi sense derives from the Nietzschean sense and very likely predates the general "superior human" sense. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- RFV failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check, the term as a whole seems absent from online dicts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)