May I inquire why editors are deleting the correct definition for this word. Please look at the Oxford English Dictionary, before you make any further changes. Thank you. WritersCramp 01:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- The definitions 1 to 5 are not of different senses, but rather different ways to express the concept of an "all-powerful being", that's why. They should be combined into one definition. I suggest that you propose a wording for that. Hekaheka 08:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- The majority of these quotations are invalid, most don't contain the word which needs to be cited, others are "mention" not "use", two are listed as from 200 AD, before English was spoken. The first 5 definitions are all just extensions of the same one definition: a supreme or total ruler; one who rules the entire world or universe. We don't need 5 definitions to cover that. What the OED has to say about a word is not the final say, it is just a say. My copy of OED lists "Lord or ruler of the world; ‘the prince of this world’." as it's definition of the term. - [The]DaveRoss 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I checked in with a German, she indicated "Kosmokrator" might be a better German translation. - [The]DaveRoss 02:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, I suggest you check the Oxford English Dictionary, please report back to us once you have done that. Thank you. WritersCramp 09:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please read above. OED is a good dictionary, but they aren't the only dictionary, and what they have to say about a word is not the final say about the word. Also, I did check the OED, they listed: a supreme or total ruler; one who rules the entire world or universe in my Edition. From here on out please refrain from using the "but Oxford says" argument, it is invalid. - [The]DaveRoss 10:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Check the history of definition, I wrote the definition based on the OED and built on it from other sources. The definition has the OED as a citation and the Quotations as I recall are from the OED. I suggest you provide citations for the changes you want, rather than just what you think is right. WritersCramp 10:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is no way to tell between the first five definitions in Citations (as they are all referring to a very similar if not identical concept). It thus can be treated only as one definition (unless of course you can find three cites which clearly indicate this word being used to mean each of the definitions). The wording of that one definition could include all five examples that you give but it seems to me that thus is unnecessarily repetitious, as they all mean the same thing. I have scored out some of your definition below because it is repetitive, "God or Satan" seems to put a Christian spin on the word which I'm not sure is supported looking at cites. Conrad.Irwin 11:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is worth it to point out at this point that entries do not belong to any one person, they are meant to be edited and collaborated on. Looking back at the edit history you have apparently reverted other contributors revisions time and again, stop that. It is in the spirit of the Wiki that we all allow our work to be modified and improved upon by others. Secondly, if you took these definitions out of the OED I find no mention in the edit history of that borrowing, it should be clearly listed as a resource. We are making changes based on the existing cites and on additional research, the multitude of senses are not supported by the current cites, and don't seem to be supported by the additional textual examples I have seen while investigating this. If you think that #1-5 are distinct and can be verified as such, by all means find the supporting documentation. I don't think they can, and that opinion appears to be in the majority based on this discussion. - [The]DaveRoss 20:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- These citations are no good for a variety of reasons... - [The]DaveRoss 01:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Quotations are allowed at Wiktionary, in this case they are a type of Etymology, showing the earliest uses of the word. Cosmocrat, is the prime word, the balance of the words are derivatives, with the same basic meaning. WritersCramp 01:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes they are, which is why the "mention not use" is still on the citations page. The other words should be moved to the appropriate citations page for other entries, because that is how we file things to prevent needless duplication. The 200AD ones need re-dating to the time of their translation into English and their original language (I'm assuming greek) should be used in the etymology for this sense. Conrad.Irwin 11:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, check the OED, most of the them are used there, the others are citations I found myself. Cosmocrat is the root, the others are the addition of a suffix, the meaning are the basically the same. WritersCramp 02:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- So can I assume that, based on the fact that the only argument you can come up with in defense of your opinions is that "the OED says so", you have no evidence or supporting usage? - [The]DaveRoss 02:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- mention not use
- 2003AD John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, A Future Perfect : The Challenge and Promise of Globalization, 'Chapter 12 - Cosmocrats: An Anxious Elite'
- page 69: "a cadre of people who live the global lifestyle more thoroughly than any other modern business people [...] well educated business school graduates."
- page 226: "On the other hand, the definition of a cosmocrat is much tighter than just "somebody who had prospered from globalization." Cosmocrats are defined by their attitudes and lifestyles rather than just their bank accounts. That separates them from the widest class of winners from globalization, who are simply local people who have plugged into global networks [...] So who are the cosmocrats? The backbone of the group is still provided by people such as Knapp: the loyal retainers of sprawling multinationals."
- cosmocrator is not cosmocrat
- 1990AD Alexander Scobie, Hitler's State Architecture, page 114:
- "External symbols suggest that the domed hall was where Hitler as cosmocrator (Gr Herr der Welt) would appear before his Herrenvolk: On top of the dome's lantern was an eagle grasping in its claws not the usual swastika but the globe of the Earth (Gr Erdball)."
- 1822AD T. Taylor, Apuleius 258:
- "The cosmocrators [planets] are the leaders of the multitude in each."
- cosmocratic is not cosmocrat
- 1831AD Robert Southey, Q. Rev. XLV. 427:
- "The idiosyncratic demorcratic, cosmocratic, comicocratic Jeremy that he [Bentham] is."
- Cosmocratores is not cosmocrat
- 1708AD H. Dodwell, Nat. Mortality Hum. Souls 130:
- "Yet they reckon her Sophia among their proper Aeons, far exceeding the Demiurgus and Cosmocratores."
- English wasn't spoken in 200 AD
- 200AD Iranaeus in the late second century, describes part of the complex mythology of Valentinus the Gnostic:
- “They teach that the spirits of wickedness derive their origin from grief. Herein the devil, whom they also call Cosmocrator and the demons, and the angels, and every wicked spiritual being that exists found the source of their existence. They represent the Demiurge as being the son of that mother of theirs [Achamoth] and Cosmocrator as creature of the Demiurge. Cosmocrator has knowledge of what is above him, because he is a spirit of wickedness; but the Demiurge is ignorant of such things, inasmuch as he is merely animal.”
- "And then a voice - of the Cosmocrator - came to the angels: "I am God and there is no other beside me.""
—This comment was unsigned.
An additional note. This is also used Biblically in Ephesians 6:12:
KJV: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Greek: οτι ουκ εστιν ημιν η παλη προς αιμα και σαρκα αλλα προς τας αρχας προς τας εξουσιας προς τους κοσμοκρατορας (kosmocrator) του σκοτους του αιωνος τουτου προς τα πνευματικα της πονηριας εν τοις επουρανιοις
Likewise, it is never Biblically used for God, who is described instead as παντοκρατωρ (pantokrator) or all-ruling.
-- EmperorBMA 07:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's not really relevant to this entry, which purports to be about an English word, not about a related Ancient Greek word. But please feel free to create an entry for κοσμοκράτορας (kosmokrátoras). :-) —RuakhTALK 22:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
IMO, rfv for each sense, given the long history. Either it's truly citable or the senses need to be merged so that there are enough cites to cover the overlapping senses. So far there are some uses, but the citation effort seems to have been misdirected. Perhaps the OED is citing some obscure theological sources that have not been scanned and are not readily available to us. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- The OED Online gives only two cites for cosmocrat proper — this one from 1820, which capitalizes it, and this one from 1870, which does not (though the OED Online transcribes the latter cite a bit differently from what you see on b.g.c. — it omits the word just — so there may be more to the story). Also, in the same entry, it gives one cite each for cosmocratic, Cosmocratores, and cosmocrators (“planets”). —RuakhTALK 02:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have a rather different mix of citations of uses in "modern" histories that use the word in closely related, mostly non-divine ways. One sense is something like cosmopolitan bureaucrat, another is the B-School "masters of the universe" sense, another is ancient imperial divine king (Nero, Augustus, Pompeii), and a more divine sense, which gets its citations as much from Tantra as Christianity, though they may be separable. Some are a bit mention-y, but not purely so. The senses certainly show a lot of relatedness. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge. The senses listed for "Deletion" look redundant to me. I don't see anything in any of the supplied citations to warrant these additional "senses". --EncycloPetey 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - each definition adds meaning and depth to the word. The definitions are individually different and each is correct. None of the definitions should not be deleted or merged. WritersCramp 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Move to RfV. Probably not possible to cite all, but worth a shot. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
WritersCramp has done some merging. It looks good to me now, but if someone wants to, the citations page can be rearranged to match. DAVilla 06:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Striking, since WritersCramp merged senses and removed RFD tags a while ago. Equinox ◑ 22:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)