Talk:Cosmopolitanism/Archive 1

Klitou
I have two questions. First, where is the citation of this Klitou fellow? Also, am I being thick when I am confused by cosmopolitanism being a "major foe" and yet a "necessary element" of the human rights movement? --Hashshashin 19:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why remove the critique of Beck?
Hi Mikkalai Why remove the critique of Beck? It's not spam. Its a genuine academic article on cosmopolitanism from a reputable academic journal that is relevant to the topic. This sort of thing appears all over Wikipedia, including on this page, why do you feel it is inappropriate here? It's by a tutor at my university and many of the students like me have found it really useful in finding a critical persecptive on cosmopolitanism which is quite rare. You also removed an article by Martell on the neoliberalism page which we also put there for the same reason - again this is an academic article from a recognised journal relevant to the topic just as the other articles posted there are, and you haven't removed these other ones. User 86.27.89.53 11 August 19.00 GMT.

What happened to the rest of this article?? OrionK 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection: "Cosmopolitanism is the quality or state of being sophisticated and having wide international experience."

The disambiguation page under Cosmopolitan has a much better definition of the term--I suggest using it here; with "cosmopolitanism" defined as a social, political, or philosophical stance advocating a cosmopolitan way of life.

Also: "For this reason the implementation of a world government would be morally right and ultimately just..."

I don't believe this is necessarily true--cosmopolitanism in the sense of "world citizen" may mean a world government, but could also mean various national governments working together, or may imply a kind of political anarchy--world citizenship without a government.

--Pariah 08:52, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Everything you've said is fine. Make changes as you see fit, I say. :) Chadofborg 23:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool--will do--Pariah 23:18, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Cosmopolitan cities" is a diffferent sense of the word!
I removed the edits by 213.202.187.208, as they do not refer to cosmopolitanism as defined in this article. Maybe one could write an Cosmopolitan cities article? Anyway, I doubt the claim that London is "the most" cosmopolitan cities. What about New York? UnHoly 23:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The last sentence in the critique seems biased. --69.159.66.135 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical Roots
If someone is willing, I think a section detailing the philosophical roots -- from the Greek origin of the word, to Kant and Habermas -- would further enrich this article. As I'm no expert, I'll leave it to someone who is.

Though not at all an expert, I've tried to add my share. Sven Jense 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a thesis that will make use of cosmopolitanism as a theoretical base for making a broader argument on how we as humanity should act towards culture and poverty; for who's interested the thesis will be written as a wiki and you're invited to participate. See www.svenjense.com/thesis Sven Jense 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Universalism/Pluralism --

In the article cosmopolitanism is solely being compared to universalism, however a pluralist version of cosmopolitanism is just as conceivable. Perhaps this could be extended by someone more adept than myself? Scholars that come to mind, who support such a possibility, would include Linda Bishai, Will Kymlicka or perhaps Magda Opalski?

US Cosmopolitanism
Presently the article suggests that the EU is the "most successful attempts of cosmopolitanism" and describes how "companies from selling products with lead within the EU". If this is the standard, the US is far ahead of the EU. Should we delete the text below, or properly insert the US success?

"The most successful attempts of cosmopolitanism so far are the successes of the European Union, such as the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive which forbids companies from selling products with lead within the EU. As the European market is significant as a whole, this forces companies globally to remove environmentally destructive chemicals from their products. In this way, the EU counters a global risk through regional transnational co-operation which has enough clout so that it cannot be challenged in the courts of the World Bank and the IMF." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of Cosmopolitan into Cosmopolitanism
I propose that Cosmopolitan be merged into Cosmopolitanism. There is a great deal of overlap between these two articles. I believe that Cosmopolitanism is the proper article to keep, as a Cosmopolitan is merely one who subscribes to Cosmopolitanism; and Cosmopolitanism also seems to be the more developed article. Squideshi 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. `'Míkka 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * disagree. the person is not the same as the ideology, overlap is fine here. there is no space issue to force conceptual confusion. --Buridan 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the person is not the same as ideology. Still, we don't have separate articles for marxism and marxist, bureaucracy and bureaucrat, fascism and fascist, expressionism and expressionist, and long etc. `'Míkka 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That there are not, does not imply that there should not be.--Buridan 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That there are not, implies that there must be a solid reason, otherwise wikipedia would have had as many "-ist" articles as there are political "-isms" already (wikipedians just llloove to write new articles). And this reason is that unlike occupational usage of suffix "-ist" (guitar ->guitarist) there is not much to say about a philosophical "-ist" beyond them being an adherent of the corresponding "-ism". and splitting a single topic in two is maintenance hightmare for keeping information consistent. Of course, I may be mistaken about cosmopolitanism, but you have to provide a more solid reason than "why not?". `'Míkka 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * actually no, it has no implications according to wikipedia policy as best as i can tell. feel free to find a contrary policy though. --Buridan 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was the problem with my poor language. Only now I realized that "cosmopolitan" is adjective. The noun is "cosmopolite". There are no articles about adjectives in wikipedia. So this page must be merged wherever unique text may go, and Cosmopolitan (disambiguation) page must be moved here, and I am doing this now. `'Míkka 23:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lede of the article
Aliens? ALIENS??!!! This is not what the dog of Sinope had in mind. Skomorokh incite — Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cosmopolite, not Cosmopolitan
A person who believes in cosmopolitanism is a cosmopolite, not a cosmopolitan. "Cosmopolitan" is only used as an adjective or adverb. --Trickymaster (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * False, it's essentially just a rarer usage of precisely the same Word, albeit with a different tone and part of speech. Cosmopolitanism exists only as an aspect of other isms and not as a stand alone thing for which there would need to be a demonym distinct from the modifier forms. A person who has cosmopolitan perspective is just that, nothing more. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
There is no need to have this short article when the same information can be a portion of the Cosmopolitanism article. Meclee (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam
The article Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam should be merged to this. The term is only a Sanskrit equivalent to Cosmopolitanism. The word-by-word meaning of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is "World is a family".--  InarZan   Verifiable  19:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose Cosmpolitanism is just one of many ideologies that recognize human commonalities - apart from this incidental similarity the concept of cosmopolitanism has no history or roots in common with Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. It would make just as much sense to merge this article into Human evolution (i.e. no sense). These are clearly to separate but related topics that should simply point to eachother through hyper links.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose Maybe not as seperated in concept as compared to human evolution, however the two are clearly different. More like socialism & communism. Similar, but not the same. It would not do just to either concept to merge them into one.
 * oppose The political ideology of Cosmopolitanism does not need to coincide with Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. However, since basic ideas overlap, a reference from one article to the other may be useful. --Hulten (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose The articles should certainly have links noting each other (such as a see also at the bottom) & perhaps a mention of some person's speculation that Diogenes may have been aware of the earlier Persian notion. Unfortunately the Persian system is based on the same religious culture as Zoroastranism, so I have to ask if someone was trying to push an agenda with this proposal. Retain N.P.V. 75.187.40.50 (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been open for a year? Consensus is not to merge.  Removing merge tag.  Meclee (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cosmopolitanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307132143/http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/sociology/pdf/Beck-LivingintheWorldRiskSociety-Feb2006.pdf to http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/sociology/pdf/Beck-LivingintheWorldRiskSociety-Feb2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Blatant Contradiction in this article
The article clarifies that Cosmos to ancient Greeks meant Universe and not the World (Gaia), but the article then goes on to translate Diogenes as talking about the World, which Diogenes did not. Diogenes was talking about the Universe (Cosmos), not the World (Gaia).47.201.179.7 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cosmopolitanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211182551/http://www.gtinitiative.org/default.asp?action=43 to http://www.gtinitiative.org/default.asp?action=43
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211182551/http://www.gtinitiative.org/default.asp?action=43 to http://www.gtinitiative.org/default.asp?action=43
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211182551/http://www.gtinitiative.org/default.asp?action=43 to http://www.gtinitiative.org/default.asp?action=43

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Political rhetoric
I have changes this sub-heading to "Criticism"; as it is now, it lacks NPOV. Creuzbourg (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

20th-c. Communist rejection of "cosmoplitanism" sorely missing
Adding this section header to bring more attention to the following already existing point by UnHoly. See the linked German article for a concise presentation of the information about the Soviet view of "cosmopolitanism" that's missing here (although the German lacks some citations). Wegesrand (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

In the beginning of the century, communists governments often reffered to cosmopolitanism as one of the evil of the capitalist world. See, for example, Rootless cosmopolitan. I think this should be included here, but I fail to see how cosmopolitanism is contrary to standard communist doctrine. In fact, it should fit perfectly in it, but it would not the first contradiction. UnHoly 15:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)