The contents of the Kurios page were merged into Kyrios on 22 February 2016 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This redirect is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
While the dictionary definitions are footnoted, the meat of the article is not. In particular, the assertion that a kyrios is always male and the subject person is always female is not documented. This content is controversial enough that citation should be mandatory. I'm not editing the page at the moment, just flagging it, to see the author(s) want to respond.JennyHoward (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
IMO your distinction is correct, that the documentation of the dictdefs does nothing to excuse the lack of substantive verification. Technically the article deserves {{Morerefs}} rather than {{Norefs}}, but the verified material is so trivial that i not only am letting the tag stand, i also praise the choice as correct in the spirit of our policies and guidelines. --Jerzy•t10:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
In particular, the ref to Strong['s Concordance, IIRC] is IMO too weak: it establishes that that Greek usage is widely assumed in some Christian denominations' discourse, but such sources, however valuable, depend heavily on church traditions that over-value doctrinal agreement with sources that may or not have benefited from, and should be backed up by, linguistic evidence acceptable to scholars of modern scientific linguistics. --Jerzy•t10:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I see now that the history does mention importing information from the french wikipedia. I question whether wikipedia is a valid source citation in a wikipedia article. It also seems that the citation should be in the article itself, not in the history log.JennyHoward (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is clear that WP cannot a reliable source for purposes of verifying WP content, and it has often been explicitly stated. Translation from a foreign language WP is a common and appropriate practice, and calls for annotation in the edit summary for the sake of attribution for copyleft purposes. But that does not constitute verification, and it would be misleading and thus inappropriate to use a footnote to cite the f-l WP. --Jerzy•t10:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Jerzy I agree that this page has problems. This means that it will have to take up some of my time this weekend to fix it, or rewrite it. Let us wait until Monday to see what I can do to fix it. It should be no bid deal, however. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
That's great to hear, Hi7 -- far better than i hoped. Sometimes i say to myself "WTF do you think you're accomplishing, answering a year-old (or even 5-year-old) comment?" But sometimes i answer "Wazzamatta, self, don't you know the good news about many eyeballs?" Sometimes myself seems right for longer than i pay attention; sometimes i'm clearly right.If you look at it carefully, you'll see that what i just said makes no sense at all. But methinks it's better to just go with the flow. Happy editing. --Jerzy•t14:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
In his book "Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography" Philip Comfort ascribes to Josephus the assertion that Jews refused to call emperor Kurios. Josephus wroteDespotes instead. --Sheetikoff 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheetikoff (talk • contribs)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Give me a break this an article on the general usage of kurios and yet the only sources are theological. The see also is filled with other religious terminology. Also the only information you give about the term is from religous texts. I think you confused this with the biblical usage which is also terrible. If this isn't cleaned up soon to actual general usage, I'll delete everything and restart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rynchpln (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
