Talk:Cosmopolitans

Drink

What about the drink, the cosmopolitan? That's what I was looking for. Punstress 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I oppose to the merge of this article to citizen of the world. The reason is that cosmopolitan is not used exclusively to refer to humans. It can be used to refer to animals, plants, and any other organism. Joelito 16:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merger because the concepts have two fundamentally different histories. --Buridan 17:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both oppose and support, that is keep this entry, explaining the history of the word. Move out the material on culture. Brya 08:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me that if it is to be merged it should go to World citizen as Citizen of the World is an article about a UN award. ++Lar: t/c 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this merger, on the basis of Joelito's reasoning. --DeltaGuy 17:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this merger as cosmopolitan has a specific meaning in the sociology of identity. It seems that citizin of the world needs to be made to refer more specificly to the UN award mentioned above. Pprevos 10:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this as well, because Joelito is right. The word cosmopolitan is used frequently when describing plants found all over the world. --Lovemei 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this merger. "World Citizen" has a diferent intellectual heritage than cosmofuturebird 23:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merge because they are not synonymous. In fact; this article is fatally flawed: Cosmos is accurately translated as "Universal," and then in the very same paragraph Cosmopolitan is translated as "world citizen." "Universe" is not equal to "World," and such sloppy interchanging of words with very different meanings doesn't belong, of all places, in a definition. Cosmopolitan means citizen of the universe and has much broader implications than the concept of being a citizen of the world. Being a citizen of the world does not carry the philosophical implication of perceiving oneself as integral with all matter and energy as does citizen of the universe. -anon. April 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.45.47 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]