Talk:List of people who have been considered deities/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The picture here is in error, the timeline for Charles Manson is incorrect it uses the dates for Charles Manson Jr. If these dates are correct then it should reflect it in the name. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 06:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

nevermind the dates for David Koresh and Manson got switched, that is what happend. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 06:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey Sunborn. My understanding is that the Emperors typically didn't receive status as a deity until after they died, and only a couple/few of them believed they were while they were alive. Accord? -Alterego 11/8/04

Perhaps a more appropriate title would be 'People with divine status'. After all, it's hard to prove if anyone actually believed in their divinity, whether they claimed it or not.

Hello. There is already a List of deities. I was moreso interested in real men who believed they were, or at least said they believed they were at some point. The list is pretty short, as you can see (so long as we don't list the name of every pharaoh :) -Alterego 11/10/04

Rastafarianism

I don't think Marcus Garvey ever claimed to be a deity, however he did claim to be a prophet. Rastafarians believed Haile Selassie was the messiah, but he himself never accepted the claim and was in fact a member of the Ethiopian Orthadox church. I've modifed Marcus Garvey and added Haile Selassie, although I'm not sure that either realy are appropriate. --Swamp Ig 01:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge page history

This page has been cut and paste moved from List of people believing themselves deities. Could some kind admin perform a page history merge. I don't think it's edited at this point, so it would probably just work to revert the old page pre-redirect, delete this, and move the old page here again.

Thanks! Shane King 06:55, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Done! Do move pages using the move function if possible. Cool Hand Luke 08:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2000 year self-proclaimed deity break?

Is there really a 2000 year pause inbetween self-proclaimed deities? I haven't been able to find any myself...must have been someone :)

woot! found one :) *Hong Xiuquan claimed to be the second son of God, brother to Jesus Christ. - Alterego 11/13/04

Aren't the emperors of Japan divine? Or are they not deities as such? Dr Zen 02:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Emperors of Japan doesn't mention anything. Do you have a citation we can research further? --Alterego 02:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Despite Truman's desire to have Hirohito tried for war crimes, Truman consented, and Hirohito kept his status, though he was forced to disavow the emperor's previous claims of being a "arahitogami, living god"." In the section called "World War II". See arahitogami. See this also. If Hirohito "renounced the claim", someone must have made it. So you can certainly establish that Hirohito thought he was a living god and I think it's reasonable, given that his claim to be one was because of his unbroken descent from Amateratsu. I'm not certain but I think Kojiki makes explicit the belief that the emperors were divine. Hope this helps.Dr Zen 03:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ohhh... there is already a listing that encompasses all practitioners of Shinto. The Arahitogami article at least belongs on the "see also" section, though. --Alterego 03:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes but there's divinity and divinity, no?Dr Zen 05:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's also Aradia de Toscano, born on August 13th, 1313 CE (according to legend, this probably isn't the real date) and initiated into a witchcraft cult on August 13th, 1326 CE (the day of her 13th birthday). As the story goes, she had a vision given to her by the Goddess Diana who told the young girl, who no one really knows the name of, that she was the human incarnation of Aradia (goddess), sent to Earth to lead the former slaves, who were by then thieves and assassins, and to give them true freedom so they wouldn't have to steal or kill to remain free anymore. She was henceforth known as Aradia de Toscano.

No one really knows how much of the story has any historical basis. There's a few historical references to a group of people known as the Malandanti who engaged in activities that Aradia was said to have condoned/taught, and they were traced back to about the time of Aradia's adulthood, but that's about it. Everything else is "oral tradition", meaning no one can really be sure just how old the story is. Although the name "Hera-Dea" (supposedly the Greek form of Aradia, whom Aradia de Toscano would've been also the incarnation of) appears on some old Celtic inscriptions in Italy, but that lends nothing toward the person herself, only the Goddess she supposedly claimed to be.

Because of the scarcity of the evidence, I wasn't sure whether to include her or not. But if Jesus Christ can get a mention, and the evidence for him is even sparser, I figured "why the hell not?" --Corvun 00:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about Jesus Christ?

Jesus Christ was a prophet who claimed himself to be the son of God, yet I'm sure people would be insulted if I added his article under this category. This raises an interesting discussion, no?--Sonjaaa 02:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Huh? He's already on the page, nobody has been insulted yet ... Shane King 03:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)\

There is little room for insultation. Jesus Christ was the original train of thought that got me started on the article, FYI. Consider this quote from C.S. Lewis, someone oftentimes associated with Christianity in modern context, from his book Mere Christianity, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either he was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.". I find a list including both Charles Manson and Jesus Christ within its categorization intriguing. - Alterego 1:29PM on Nov 23.

Lewis may have believed this, but that doesn't make it objective. There is ample room for a pov that JC was neither, but simply a well-meaning (or political activist) Rabbi who was later touted to be the Messiah by Paul and the gospels. Consequently, whether or not Jesus regarded himself the "Son of God" must be considered disputed (we only have the evangelists' word for it). dab 10:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It cannot ever be known that the words in the New Testament which have been attributed to Jesus are the words he actually said. This is just as it cannot ever be known that any of the quotes attributed to any of the people in the list were actually said by them. None of us were there. We cannot know for sure if any of the quotes on WikiQuote are misattributed or a pertinent and context changing word has been added or dropped out. We must go with what we have. Each and every single one of the applicable quotes of Jesus is debated fiercely and has been subject to translation, but that stands aside from the fact that it is practiced by 2 billion believers. Many of them believe these were his words, and scholars can neither prove nor disprove that they are his words. That said, it would be an error to leave his name off of this list. There may be 4.28 billion people on earth who don't care if Jesus actually said these things, but there is no passion behind their non-statements. Not-believing is not equatable to believing. So many believers do not make it fact that Jesus said these things, but they certainly earn his names place in an neutral article concerning folks who have considered themselves to be a deity. -- Alterego 11:17 29 Nov 2004

Do you find the text, "Jesus Christ, according to 2 billion Christians' interpretation of words thought to be his, believed he was the son of god." to be more neutral? -- Alterego 11:57 29 Nov 2004

timeline

the timeline image is pointless. All Pharaohs, most Kings of Assyria, certain Roman Emperors, and possibly emperors of Japan and China would qualify for the list. What is the point of this timeline (and what is the point of this article? adding text to apotheosis would be much more useful)? dab 10:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello. The point of the article is to provide a list of people or groups of people who have considered themselves to be deities during their lives. This is the only list of it's kind on the Internet. The graph is rather limited as I have every intention of making it more dynamic, but am new to the syntax. If you think you could help that would be wonderful. Historical timelines do not require a defensive argument in order to back up their usefulness, I think. Regarding apotheosis, it does not strictly apply to this article in particular. Most roman emperors do not qualify to have their names put here, as they themselves did not believe they were deities. According to the article, "The apotheosis of an Emperor was an essentially political act performed by the dead emperor's successor". This article is concerned with people who considered themselves a deity during their lives. I appreciate your interest!-- Alterego 11:17 29 Nov 2004

Schaefer

Who is Paul Schaefer? He doesn't have an article. It isn't Paul Shaffer from David Letterman's band, is it?

As funny as that is, no, it ain't him :) There is a link to the yahoo news story which is my citation. Here it is again for ya: [1] - Alterego 1:14(AM!) 12/2/04

That link has expired. This one looks a little more permanent:

Rick A. Ross Institute description of Chilean cult 'Colonia Dignidad' founded by Paul Schäfer

The name should probably be spelled "Paul Schäfer". And I very much doubt he belongs on the list, anyway; although his followers may have thought of him as some kind of divine being, I don't see anything in any of the articles I could find that says that he thought or spoke of himself as God or as a deity. (?)

If you start including people on the list who merely said that they were divinely inspired, I think the list would have to be an awful lot longer -- you'd have to put in everybody from Joseph Smith to Joan of Arc.

-- So I'll probably pull the 'Paul Schaefer' entry out in a day or two, if nobody objects. There is in fact at least one Paul Schaefer that needs a Wikipedia entry -- a dedicated and charismatic conservationist from upstate New York, who did most of his work in the Adirondacks but had connections with the national Wilderness Society. But he doesn't belong on this list either... User:dvgrn:dvgrn 5:11 PM 28 Dec 2004

FYI, there was just an article on Schäfer in the New York Times. It referred to his group as a "cult", but I don't recall if it mentioned any claim to divinity. It is a citaiton for Schäfer's group's inclusion on the List of purported cults. -Willmcw 05:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Timline

I can't figure out how to color the timeline...I have one that looks extremely ugly but is functionally better than the one currently in the article. It could be a very informative timeline if we can get it going. Here is the current (warning, very fugly :P) version: User:Alterego/List of people claiming to be deities timeline

It isn't that fugly. Definitely usable, even if you can't color it. --Corvun 22:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article move

After a good bit of discussion in IRC (and a few jokes :p) I decided to move the article here.

The Pope

User 207.244.30.102 added the Pope to this list stating, "It is an official doctrine of the Catholic Church that the Pope is the "vichar" (substitute) of God, and is to be revered as God on Earth." Please read the article on the Pope and also Papal Infallibility. Although the Vatican holds that the Pope is "Christ's representative on Earth, he makes no claim to be God, or to be Christ, or to be a deity to be worshipped. --Alterego 07:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't add the pope to this article again. We don't do original research on Wikipedia, but if you have specific quotes from specific Popes we can proceed. From IRC:

• Rdsmith4 nobody claims the Pope is a deity. That's entirely bogus.
• AdamBishop you don't need any qualifications to talk about it, he is not and does not claim to be a deity

--Alterego 19:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. But I also think that it can't hurt to make some room on the page for people accused of being self-proclaimed deities, or thought to be self-proclaimed deities by critics. It can never hurt to clear up common misconceptions. Also, since the Pope is so visible and there exists so much controversy about him (mostly stemming from animosities between Catholics and Protestants), this may be something that will need to be adressed somewhere on the page in order to avoid vandalism, which is why I tried to throw out a temporary compromise. --Corvun 19:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that very many folks are accusing him of being a self-proclaimed deity. Has anyone with scholarly repute done so in a widely read academic journal or book? I've been learning that it's best not to argue points specifically on Wikipedia, and instead to take the point of view that if it's arguable, and there is no citation in the first place, it doesn't get published. --Alterego 20:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, neither Rdsmith4 or myself are authorities on the Pope, so don't necessarily trust us...but still, I am certain that the Pope is not a deity. Being "Christ's representative" does not mean he is Christ or a deity of any sort, and he certainly does proclaim to be himself. It would be blatantly incompatible with Catholicism and the office of Pope to declare oneself a deity. Adam Bishop 20:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point is more along the lines that he isn't a deity, doesn't claim to be a deity, isn't deified by his followers, and no scholarly authorities consider him a self-proclaimed deity, yet for some reason there seem to be a number of people who think of him as being one who sets himself up as a god. I just think that the subject should be adressed, and that it should be clearly stated that he doesn't fit the definition of "self-proclaimed deity", otherwise we're going to get a lot of people adding him to the page, and we'll and up having to revert the same additions 3 or 4 times a day, especially when this page gets a higher slot in the search engines. I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging and confronting the public misconceptions of a vocal minority. If there was, we wouldn't have a Creationism page here on Wikipedia. --Corvun 23:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"They" can come read the talk page ;) --Alterego 03:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent point! I agree. --Corvun 03:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More on the Pope

User 207.144.225.5 is adament about adding the Pope to the article. I wish they would join us on the talk page, but unfortunately it does not seem to be the case. At any rate, here are that users' citations for various Pope's as self-proclaimed deities:

"We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God." (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3) Pope Innocent III (1198-1216)

"I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do…wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Pope Nicholas (Decret. par. Distinct 96 ch. 7 edit. Lugo 1661)

"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." The RC New York catechism

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." (Barclay Cap. XXVII p. 218 Cities Petrus Bertanous, Pius V)

"the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." (Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para) Pope Nicholas I --Alterego 06:02, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Basically, the Pope has Godly authority and, like the Mormon Prophet, is the earthly representative of God. Not the same thing as being a self-declared deity; damned close, but no cigar. --Corvun 08:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some of these quotes bring specific medieval popes into question, though. --Alterego 18:26, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

---

Response from Library of Congress

Because many of these as originals will be in Latin, there may or may not be English translations. What I might suggest is that you contact or visit a local Catholic university or college which may have these items. --Alterego 17:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Vespasian

I decided to remove Vespasian. His last words were, "Alas! I think I am becoming a God!" This really doesn't fit into the context of this list, as many religions believe in an eternal afterlife. --Alterego 07:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus

207.144.224.19 changed the text of Jesus to something debateable. Here is the sentence I have chosen, which seems to be pretty neutral, followed by your replacement, which is highly debateable.

Me: According to the Christian interpretation of his words, believed he was the son of God. See (Historicity of Jesus)

You: According to the Christian interpretation of his words, believed he was the son of God though he personally never claimed to be God. See (Historicity of Jesus)

--Alterego 22:51, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

-- Show me ANYWHERE in the Bible where Jesus claimed to be God, and when you bring up "I and my father are one" I'm ready to reveal to you EXACTLY what that means - and it doesn't mean he WAS God AND he EXPRESSLY says so just a few verses down from that statement made by him.

Why are you people so IGNORANT of these FACTS?

Although it's true that Jesus never said "I am God" in such simple language, he claimed equivalence with God (according to the Gospels) on a number of occasions, for example see John 8:58, and accepted the title of God on others (see John 20:28). There are plenty more. DJ Clayworth 05:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John 8:15 says Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. That is a true and correct statement. Jesus was WITH GOD since the very beginning. He was WITH GOD before EVEN ADAM was created, much less Abraham. Jesus has always been WITH GOD - but they are TWO SEPARATE BEINGS. So this verse does not qualify as to Jesus saying I AM GOD. He always said I AM WITH GOD AND GOD IS WITH ME, not I AM GOD.

Now on to John 20:28 Let's put it into context, starting at verse 27. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Once again, that was someone ELSE calling Jesus God, not JESUS HIMSELF SAYING HE IS GOD. Jesus maintained that he was the SON of God (and that is what he Built his ENTIRE Church on that the Gates of Hell will not withstand) and the Son of Man as well.

SO, still not ONE VERSE where Jesus claimed TO ACTUALLY BE GOD. God is IN him and HE is IN GOD, they are AS ONE, meaning UNITED, NOT DIFFERENT, OF THE SAME OPINION, LIKEMINDED - Like the US ARMY's slogan AN ARMY OF ONE - like the USA is comprised of 50 SEPARATE states forming ONE Nation UNDER GOD - yet remaining 50 SEPARATE states. God and Jesus ARE UNITED, but ARE TWO SEPARATE BEINGS.

AND to make sure my point is driven home, the Disciples themselves encountered these very same such ERRORS when they were preaching the Kingdom of God, that Jesus said he was GOD HIMSELF. Here is what John had to say about it.

1 John 2:22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Now if Jesus WAS GOD, or even CLAIMED TO BE GOD, then that makes John a liar doesn't it? Because the FATHER (God) CANNOT BE THE SON (Jesus) and the SON (Jesus) CANNOT BE THE FATHER (God). Who was Jesus praying to in the garden of Gethsemane, himself? Who granted him power to take his life back, himself? NO. His FATHER (God) did.

John gave it to you plainly. If you don't believe in God the Father AND Jesus THE SON you are ANTI CHRIST. PERIOD. END OF BOOK.

To say that Jesus said he WAS GOD is SLANDER and BLASPHEMY to God his Father and to Jesus.

Please see above. Also, if you plan on being a longstanding member whose contributions are respected by those who watchlist the articles you edit, you may consider registering an account and treating people with half an ounce of respect. --Alterego 23:16, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ummm...excuse me your geniusness, I did see above. Did you?

Anton LaVey

Should there really be an asterisk next to the late Dr. LaVey's name? I wouldn't really say that he had many "followers", as the Church of Satan (hence, LaVeyan Satanism) discourages the concept of "followers", even though the political structure of the church is hierarchal. Satanism does teach that each person is his/her own diety, but this is also a metaphorical term in such a sense, as "true" dieties are not believed to exist within the context of Satanism in aught more than an allegorical or archetypical sense. I suppose I would question whether the late Dr. LaVey (or Shinto practitioners, for that matter) should even be on the list at all, as their belief that "everyone is a god/ess" sort of defeats the whole intent of this list -- which is a compilation of people who have claimed to be somehow "above" the level of "mere mortals" like you and I. Then again, they do in all technicality consider themselves dieties, whether in such a way as to truly fit my percieved intent of this article or not. Am I the only one who feels conflicted on this matter? --Corvun 08:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, but while I support the removal of Shintoism, I think Anton leVey is likely an appropriate entry. I must admit he is the most dubious of them all however, outside of shintoism. Kami are very diferent from gods. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 14:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog

I can only assume this has already been discussed, but I would not consider Sollog to be nearly notable enough to be in this list. Or is this meant to be tongue in cheek... if so, it would be something I'd do :'D... yet something I would eventually revert. - RoyBoy [∞] 03:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree that Sollog/Ennis isn't notable as a self-proclaimed deity. There is a school of thought that his self-promotion is an insincere, ham-handed ruse to generate more hits for his deathporn websites. Fire Star 05:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arrested by the secret service for various things including threatening the POTUS; people have been made bigger celebrities on less, right? saying something like that in a court of law is a pretty serious thing anyway.... --Alterego 06:25, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

That "earns" him a Wikipedia article, not a deity entry. He is not notable as a self-proclaimed deity, he is notable as a crank who sometimes claims to be a deity. - RoyBoy [∞] 23:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree Ennis/Sollog isn't encyclopedic as a self-proclaimed deity, he's known as a crank spammer. Wyss 20:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog is notable, though perhaps not as a deity. He has an article, and his claim of godlyness is notable within the context of that article. In most cases it is very useful if our lists tend to work as 'wikipedia indexed by listsubject'. If there were a great many people who claimed to be gods, we might only decide to list the most notable ones, but since there are only a few we should tend to be inclusive. Although some claim he is only trying to draw attention to himself, he does have actual followers. Since Sollog has an article, and since everyone credable supports that he has made these claims I have included him in the list. --Gmaxwell 06:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent argument, however I remain unconvinced for several reasons. There are a "great many" who claim to be gods, to allow this would be to encourage Wikiabuse of Wikipedia, and this article in particular. Furthermore Sollog's notability is entirely questionable given hanky panky with Wikipedia. Yet another reason not to involve him in Wikipedia any more than necessary. His claims are not in doubt; his sincerity and notability are. As to having followers, that is indeed notable... and secures him an article. Anything further needs to qualify on its own merits. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Dalai Lama

Would the Dalai Lama fit the bill to be included on this list? He (and thousands of his followers) claim that he is a living incarnation of the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, who, at least in the overtly Tantric traditions associated with Tibet, allegedly has divine characteristics. Fire Star 05:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

we've discussed him at length before. he just doesn't fit. i can't get into details right now...Shinto might not really qualify either. need a practitioner to discuss it with us sometime --Alterego 06:26, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick remark- as I understand such things, the Dalai Lama doesn't claim divinity in any contrasting or distinguishing sense from anyone else. Wyss 20:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As explained elsewere in this talk page, it is not up to this article to deal with these distinctions. A disclaimer to this respect is included in the intro. --Zappaz 14:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The same is true of Anton LaVey, Satanists, practitioners of Shinto, and many modern Pagan groups. Also note that many vampyres believe their physical bodies to be inhabited by "ancient gods" or whatever. And what about pantheists? --Corvun 21:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any notable persons from these religions or practices, should be included. --Zappaz 14:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we revisit the Dalai Lama? After all he is known in Tibet as His Holiness The Dalai Lama, the 14th incarnation, of the God-King or Priest-King. Disciples say of him:

"He is our vision, he is our heart and soul. He is for us, like a god, like a living god." Tsering Choephel[2]

In the press also: [3], Search --Zappaz 13:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that all Tulku, nor all Tibetan Buddhists are self-proclaimed deities. I have not found any evidence that, in the scheme of things, the Dalai Lama considers himself extra to other humans. See Wikiquote:

According to Buddhism, individuals are masters of their own destiny. And all living beings are believed to possess the nature of the Primordial Buddha Samantabhadra, the potential or seed of enlightenment, within them. So our future is in our own hands. What greater free will do we need?

Additionally, according to the Buddhist principle of Anatta, any sense one might have of an abiding self or a soul is regarded as a misapprehension. --Alterego 15:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism is a beautiful religion in many respects, but we are not discussing that. The fact is that Tibetan buddhists consider the Dalai Lama as a living God-King. That in itself should be enough to include him. --Zappaz 16:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Please also note that we are not talking about Buddhism in general, but a about Tibetan Buddhism. Although these are only 6% of Buddhists, the Dalai Lama is widely recognized. For Tibetan buddhists the Dalai Lama is a god-in-earth. [4] --Zappaz 16:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That title has absolutely no context. Their conception of life, definition of god, and ideas concerning reincarnation deserve considerable and careful thought. Additionlly, you are relying on others' conceptionof the Dalai Lama, and not statements he has made himself. It is not sufficient to simply say, "well, they call him god-king." It begs the question - what is a "god" to them, and what is a "king"? More specifically, what exactly is a god-king, and what are the characteristics of being one? What features distinguish a god-king from those who recognize him as such?--Alterego 16:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we get into dangerous waters when discussing concepts of Divinity in different religions. That is one of the problems I tried to highlight previously: a list of people that claim divinity will be very difficult to NPOV, unless we either:

• narrow its scope to a particular definition of godliness or divinity, or
• widen the scope to include any and all definitions ofgodliness or divinity.

Once we agree on scope, it will be a piece of cake to agree on any name for inclusion/removal. --Zappaz 16:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Especially controversial entries

This entry has inspired excellent conversations. I've just gone in and cleaned out those with solid objections. Here's our current standing:
Not included

• Marcus Garvey
• the Shinto religion
• the Pope
• the Dalai Lama
• Paul Schäfer
• Vespasian
• Sollog
• Haile Selassie

Included

• Jesus

--Alterego 02:58, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert by any means; but after watching another excellent documentary by Frontline: From Jesus to Christ on early Christianity I'd have to question if Jesus was self proclaimed. Or if that was done by the Gospels (the good news) after his death. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

heh, seems i overlooked someone inserting 'lamb of god'. anyway, as near as I can tell this satisfies both POVs (if you can narrow them down to two...i can't):

According to the Christian interpretation of words ascribed to him in the Gospels, believed he was the son of God. See also: Historicity of Jesus.

--Alterego 06:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm skeptical of the Gospels; even if Jesus did say he was the "son of God," is that a proclaimation of divinity? Or a philosophical construct that we are all children of God? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes any difference with the phrasing I provided. It's just a fact that Christianity has interpreted words ascribed to him as him proclaiming himself divine. It's not like with these other characters who aren't being included. A substantial amount of all the human beings who have ever existed really believed this. If we leave him out of the page we take the POV of those who are not Christian, if we simply state it as a fact we take the POV of Christian's. By leaving it in, and with a sort of detached pragmatism stating what it is the Christian's believe we avoid the issue directly. I can't see anything controversial with the way it is now. --Alterego 21:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

There are also other groups beside Christianity who have included Jesus in their doctrine. It may be apt to dual list him for each religion and their rationale. I'm not sure what they are or even if it is necessarily the case that they found him divine as well. --Alterego 21:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable; perhaps even inclusive. Damn u Alterego!!! ;"D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Timeline, again

Ahem. Why does the timeline contain entries the list doesn't? (I can understand the reverse.)

Also, what is the point of a timeline that has a few entries in antiquity and then a lot bunched up at the end of the 20th century? Does this reflect the true trends of self-proclaimed deities or just the importance we attach to contemporary figures? Furthermore, what good is a timeline listing events we can't correlate in any meaningful way (unlike, say, historical timelines that show when battles happened or when certain inventions were made)?

In short, other than curing the fix of people with picturitis, what's the added value? JRM 14:31, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

I think the timeline lists people not currently in the article because no one has taken the time to remove them. Other than that, I don't think timelines need arguments in favor or against their usefulness. When discussing a topic that spans several thousand years it is useful to have a visualization tool --Alterego 16:05, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Don't look now, but you've just stated an argument in favor of the timeline's usefulness. I happen to disagree, but this is boiling down to personal preference, to which there's no point discussing about. If you think it's useful, then have the timeline. I'll just close my eyes when I get to it. JRM 17:01, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

I commented it out for now until I or someone has time to fix it. --Alterego 20:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

Several of the entries have an asterisk or dagger in front of them but no corresponding footnote. Are these supposed to mean something?

Found an older version that included:

• = Individuals who had significant numbers of followers believing to them to be deities.

† = Individuals who became the focus of whole religions with many followers believing the individual to be divine or messianic.

‡ = Individuals percieved by many as self-proclaimed deities, but who merely claimed to be representatives of God(s).

Western bias

This article is hopelessly biased from a Western perspective. The concept of "divine" or "deity" differs dramatically in other cultures than our own. For example, in Hinduism, the concept of guru is directly related to divinity. We will need to add a list of all Hindu gurus and Sikh gurus. This article as it stands has IMO,little or no value, unless we add text that presents the differences between the concept of "divine" or "deity" in differnt cultures and religions. --Zappaz 16:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed your template. If you think the article needs improving, please get started. Oh, and start by reading all the discussions above. --Alterego 19:55, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I did read the discussions, and I added the CSB template for a good reason. Adding the template will encourage other editors to come and help with this article as it is now in the to-do list. --Zappaz 22:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That template is not going to remain on this article. You will either improve the article or you will secede that there is nothing wrong with it. Bottom line. --Alterego 23:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I see from your user page that you are promoting the "systemic bias" you are accusing this page of. If you have such a vested interest in brainwashing, mind control, cults, hate groups, opposition to cults and new religious movements, the apocrypha, charismatic authority and the great apostasy, I don't see how you can walk around telling anyone about "systemic bias". Fix what you perceive to be wrong with the article or leave it alone. --Alterego 23:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am not "acussing" this article of anything beyond the fact that it is biased from a western point of view. My interests and my edits have nothing to do with it. If you disagree with my views, we can place an RfC and invite other editors to contribute. As it stands this article is hopeless. --Zappaz 01:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a policy that you must fix an article that you perceive a problem in? —Ashley Y 01:36, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

And there is no policy that this template goes up. Three times a day from now until the day I die I will remove that POV template. If there is a problem here, fix it! --Alterego

I don't think this template is meant as an insult; it's just meant to show that sometimes articles have insufficient coverage of certain areas. Not that it's appropriate for every article where geographical or cultural coverage is uneven, just that the template itself isn't really an accusation.

Anyway, back to the article and even an example of what I think is probably a cultural understanding: Mirza Ghulam Qadian may have claimed to be Jesus, Muhammed, and the Mehdi, but none of these have the status of deity in Islam or specifically the Ahmadiyya sect. Does anyone object to his removal?--Pharos 05:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I would be willing to agree with you if I hadn't come back today and found not one, but three templates on the article all of the sudden lol. Regarding Mirza, this is directly from the Ahmadi article, At the “end of days” Jesus himself will descend from heaven in the flesh. I don't understand how that is not a deity. --Alterego 08:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you check back at that article you will see you are quoting directly from the box about "mainstream" Islamic eschatology. This does not imply divinity at all, but simply that in Islam Jesus is a human messiah destined to return to Earth. The Ahmadis themselves tend to interpret this more allegorically; that Mirza was not Jesus in the flesh but that his life fulfilled the role of the Second Coming - but even if Mirza had claimed to be Jesus in the flesh you can see this would not be claiming divinity in an Islamic context.--Pharos 09:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Human

Although this is clear from the list, the title of the article and the descriptive paragraph do not indicate that the list is limited to those previously known as human. YHWH is, after all, self proclaimed. -Acjelen 22:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I like this title and opening paragraph better. Much more accurate to the topic at hand. -Acjelen 03:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this article

There are many problems with this article. As it stands, its encyclopedic value is nill, the information is not factually accurate, there is a strong Western bias to it, and lastly its formatting is incompatible with WP styles. --Zappaz 06:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Factual innacuracies

• This article purports to be about "self-proclaimed deities", but it includes Individuals who had significant numbers of followers believing them to be deities an dIndividuals who became the focus of whole religions with many followers believing the individual to be divine or messianic. So, what is it? It cannot be both.
  • Yes, it can be both. You can be a self-proclaimed deity and have a significant number of followers who also believe you to be a deity. You could also become the focus of whole religions. --Alterego 16:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Listed are people that fit the description of self-proclamation (e.g. Sai Baba) and others that do not (e.g. Jesus, Rev. Moon, etc.)
  • According to the Christian interpretation of words ascribed to him, Jesus most certainly did prolcaim himself to be a deity. The article doesn't go any further than that --Alterego 16:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

For these, this article has now {{disputed}} template as it is not factually accurate.

Western bias

• The concept of divinity, deity or God varies tremendously between cultures and religions. For example in Hinduism, the guru is considered divine (or even greated than God). Same in Sikhism. Buddhism recognizes the divine spark in each person. This article needs to either make a distiction on the concept of God between cultures and religions, or at list make a disclaimer about the Western bias in the intro. For these this article has now the CSB template.
  • All you need to do is spruce up the introduction if you feel this is the case. Putting a "western bias" disclaimer is not satisfactory. --Alterego 16:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

• The tabular format of this article makes it extremely difficult to edit and it does not comply with WP style. See List of deities for an example on how a list can be easily presented. The eye-candy of this tabular format does not add anything and does not foster collaborative editing. For this, this article now has the {{cleanup}} template. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  • There are many, many, many tables on Wikipedia. It would be in your best interest to learn how to edit them. --Alterego 16:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

--Zappaz 06:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

You have given no solid evidence for any of your claims. You're just template-whoring. The inclusion of Jesus has been discussed extensively above. The blurb on what a deity is was copied directly from the deity article, so take your rant there. I don't really care if you don't like the tabular format of this article, because it looks nice. RE So, what is it? It cannot be both., that is a subset of folks who thought they were deities, and that is obvious as the article is firstly introduced as self-proclaimed deities and then the subset is also introduced.

And for the last time, if you have beef with the inclusion of a specific person, I expect you to act in the same manner of the dozen or so before you and present your case for that specific person. Like I said, from now until the day I die I will remove your silly templates. You got a problem, solve it. That's the wiki way. --Alterego 08:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I do not have a"beef" with anyone. I have clearly expressed by concerns with this article. You cannot bully me out of editing this article: the WP way is one of collaborative editing based on consesus. Please engage in a constructive discussion and address my concerns rather than dismiss them with personal attacks. Templates restored. Also note that this is not your private article. Thanks. --Zappaz 15:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Look pal, i'm not bullying you out of editing this article. The other day someone removed a list about ten strong of see also entries and his edit stuck. The fact of the matter is you are NOT interested in editing this article, you want to argue. If you want to edit it I suggest you get started. If you are going to remove content from it I suggest you make a solid case that you can argue. Simply saying that so and so does not belong is your point of view, and as such it is not welcome. Please pretense whatever claims you have with an /argument/. --Alterego 15:53, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not your pal. Secondly, I have clearly expressed my concerns that you have avoided responding to. Adding a template to alert other editors is part of the editing process. BTW, my concerns have nothing to do with my POV. Simply, this article as it stands is not up to standard for the problems highlighted above. Please respond to my concerns, and let's discuss. Thanks. --Zappaz 16:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I will be happy to edit, once it is in a shape that enables me to do so. The tabular format, that is non-standard, discourages collaboration, one of the concerns explained above. --Zappaz 16:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

You know, this is funny, because i'm a pretty reasonable guy. You thought you were going to get away with a fly-by-templating - and that's just not reasonable. Picking some article you glanced at briefly and didn't have any interest in editing and just slapping something on it. What you didn't realize is that there are a lot of folks watching this article, a few who have put considerable time into researching it, myself included. What you haven't provided is a single well stated argument, a single citation, or a single rephrasing. If this article is "worthless", it should be easy for you to improve it, so quit with you templates and make some real edits to it. If they are controversial, you are expected to back them up with a solid argument that moves people to agree with you. I'm getting tired of this, and soon either you or I are going up the chain of command.

On preview, if you think you are unable to edit this article, you will be the first of dozens of human beings who was incapable of that task. But here, let me spell it out for you. You see an entry in there. You copy it to your clipboard. You paste a new one in alphabetical order, and then you offset the colors. Sometimes the colors might go a little while without being perfect, but that's ok because it looks nice. --Alterego 16:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I moved the templates to the top of the talk page since their inclusion in and of itself is disputed. This article went this far without having a single template on it, and many debates were resolved without putting a template on it. A dispute template indicates a long drawn out dispute that isn't near being resolved. That isn't the case here and as soon as you provide some evidence or an argument it won't be. --Alterego 16:24, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

When reading the conversation, I understand that only Moon and Mirza need to be removed to get rid of the factual accuracy warning. We could also make an article List of historical persons venerated as deities. Andries 16:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC) (amended)

Thanks. Could you explain why Moon does not belong? At first glance it seems obvious - he claimed to be the savior and messiah of humanity. --Alterego 16:58, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Hitler claimed to be the savior of Germany but that does not mean that he claimed to be divine. I do not think that a messiah always has to be divine. Andries 17:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

This is a proposal to move forward, in that order:

1. Replace current tabular formatting withs standard formatting as per Wikipedia style guide
2. Remove any and all entries that do not comply with the article's description (Jesus, Moon, Mirza)
3. Expanding the introduction to alert the reader about the obvious Western bias of the article (that is not a negative, just a disclaimer due to readers)
4. Include in the intro a clarification regarding the different connotation of deity and divinity in the major religions of the world.

Until that time in which these issues are addressed, I think that the templates are necessary to alert the readers about the disputed state of this article.

If the above is not agreeable, I would suggest a RfC to ask other editors to help with the dispute resolution. --Zappaz 19:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Systemic bias timplate removed, now that there is an explanation and disclaimer in the intro. --Zappaz 19:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, why did you give the article a factual accuracy warning? Note that Moon and Mirza have already been removed by me. I oppose to removing Jesus because according to the Bible he said "I am my Father are one". Besides the entry on Jesus refers to an extensive explanation. Andries 19:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, the article does not need to be cleaned up. This is tabular data and as such it is being presented in a table. Not only does it look nice, but it is using wiki table syntax. There is nothing wrong with using wikisyntax in wiki articles. It's not hard to edit - you are the first person I have ever heard say anything regarding editing tables. I understand if you are unfamiliar with editing them, it just takes practice. --Alterego

I appreciate that civility has come back to this dicussion. Thanks. I have nothing against tables and I am prety familiar with its syntax. Tables should be used where appropriate. This article now is 80% formatting text and 20% actual text. And I am sure you would agree that it chills collaboration as it is miuch more cumbersome to edit. I would argue that same text will be more readabl, more economic in bytes and more easily editable with standard formatting. Example:

• Alexander the Great (356 BCE - 323 BCE)

Used the title "Son of Ammon-Zeus," bestowed upon him by Egyptian priests of the god Ammon at the Oracle of the god at the Siwah oasis in the Libyan Desert

• Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (985 - Unknown)

Later mainstream Islamic doctrine alleges he encouraged his own deification as Allah

The reason for factual innacuracy is the inclusion of Jesus (regardless of the dicussion above, I would argue the contrary with the support of plenty of historical, biblical and theological scholars), Anton LaVey (if you include him you need to include each and every incarnation of the Lama, including the Dalai Lama), the Beltway Snipers (they were just taunting the police), David Koresh (the Lamb is not God), and many others that do not fit the description of the article. --Zappaz 20:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

If the problem is Jesus then I suggest you bring it to RFC because there is, I think, good reason to include Jesus here, as long as the entry refers to a more detailed treatment. I also oppose removing the Beltway snipers, yes, they were probably taunting the police but it is a fact that they made the claim so they belong here. Interpretations are left for the readers. Andries 20:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

That is the inherent problem with this article. It gives itself too wide of a latitude for inclusion, making it hardly encyclopedic. Once you add all the people that have claimed to be Avatars, all the gurus of Sikhism, all notable gurus of Hinduism, all the incarnations of Lama, etc. the real problem with this article will manifest: an implausable taxonomy, unless a more narrow criteria is chosen for inclusion. I would suggest to come up with a criteria that makes sense. --Zappaz 20:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The goal is tactful wording in precarious situations. There have been human beings who proclaimed themselves to be deities. This article will successfully list them - it will take some time. Please help by carefully rewording things from a detached and pragmatic perspective. --Alterego 22:17, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

personal divinity in Buddhism and Sikhism

I removed the statement by Zappaz that personal divinity is not bizarre an implausible in Buddhism and Sikhism because I think it is not true. Andries 20:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

In Sikhism, as you know, the guru is considered to be divine. In Buddhism, the spark of divinity is inherent in each human being and part of its nature. --Zappaz 20:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought that Sikhism hated idolatry like Islam. In Buddhism they have the concept of Atman_(Buddhism). Even the Buddha Sakyamuni did not claim to be divine. Andries 20:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, you say, "In Buddhism, the spark of divinity is inherent in each human being and part of its nature." But this is also said in, for example, Judaism, and one can hardly argue religious Jews believe every human being is their own god. There is a difference between having an aspect of "divinity" and claiming to be a god.--Pharos 21:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, of course, Pharos, I am familiar with Judaism (I edited to "Feature Artice" the Names of God in Judaism)... The point I am making is that the concept of divinity is very diverse amongst religions. This article is entitled "List of self-proclaimed deities". It is not called List of people that claim or claimed to be God. My contention is that the article needs to narrow its scope to become useful. For example, in Sikhism, (and Andries is correct in regard of non-idolatry), their gurus are considered to be of divine providence (see the halos behind any Sikh guru portrait...). For example if we call this article, "List of people that claim or claimed to be the Creator", it will be an appropriate distinction. When we say "deity", then the scope is too wide resulting in an article that does not provide any encyclopedic value IMO, and one that looks like better belonging in a tabloid... --Zappaz 22:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you present us the differnet definitions of a deity and we can proceed from there. The goal is to not take any one point of view, so it is necessary that we are very clear in the article about what every single point of view is. --Alterego 22:24, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Jesus, he never said "I am God" or "I am a deity". The fact that he said, "me and my Father are one", it is a subject of theological discussion. That does not warrant his inclusion. --Zappaz 22:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the way it is stated is accurate and correct. According to the Christian interpretation of words ascribed to him in the Gospels, he believed that he was a deity. A substantial amount of the human beings who have ever existed believed he thought this. That alone warrants it's inclusion. Scholars make no difference in the discussion. We aren't saying it's true, we are just saying that billions upon billions of human beings believe he said this --Alterego 22:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

That is the problem, Alterego. This article is labeled "List of self-proclaimed deities", not a list of people that other people think of them to be divine. Other discrepancies abound: Charles Mason claimed to be Jesus, not to be God. Lu Sheng-yen claims to be a living Buddha, not God. Hong Xiuquan, claims to be the son of God, but not God. I still do not understand the purpose, value, and criteria for inclusion. It seems haphazard to me.

Zappaz, is there any chance that this will confuse the reader when this is so clearly explained in the accurate comments? No, I do not think there is. Hence I see no problem with the article. These people listed here did not make identical claims and the sometimes subtle differences are explained and that is exactly what the article should do. Andries 22:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The entry on Jesus refers to this theological discussion whether Jesus made claims of divinity, so the reader can decide for himself. Personally I think that jesus made unambiguous claims of divinty:

Gospel of John 10:29-39 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[e]? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Andries 22:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Oh, Andries exactly... Jesus words in this situation have been the study of many theologians. He is not saying that he is God, but that God is in him and him in God. Let's not get into a discussion on this theme, as it is a massive theological undertaking, to say the least... --Zappaz 22:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I know that this is a massive theological understanding and the entry refers to this massive theological understanding so there is no problem with this articlle Andries

Then you need to add a disclaimer notice to that enrty.

There are many others that don't fit the stated criteria that need to be excised from the article. Others that need to be added are in Avatars#List_of_other_avatar_claimants. --Zappaz 22:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Please, whether or not Jesus actually said these things is not provable with existing evidence. However, several billion human beings believe, and have believed, that he did say he was a deity. These human beings are called Christians (among other groups). In order to be fair to the Christian's and not take the point of view of those who believe Jesus did not say these words, we need only say that the Christians believe he proclaimed himself to be a deity. Please do not argue whether or not he actually said those words, it is irrelevant. According to Christianity, It is the world's largest single religion, with over 2.2 billion followers. And that doesn't count dead people. One last time: We cannot know if he said he was a deity, and we don't care. We are only pointing out that 2.2 billion christians currently believe he said that he was. --Alterego 22:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

What disclaimer do you want to give to Jesus? Andries 22:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem, Alterego, is that this article is called "List of self-proclaimed deities". As such and using your own logic, Jesus does not belong to the list.--Zappaz 22:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholics disagree with Zappaz. See Hypostatic_Union. Andries 23:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

That is an incorrect characterization of my logic. 2.2 billion Christians currently believe that Jesus proclaimed himself to be a deity. To be divine. To be godly. Part of the godhead, the trinity, the son of god, god the son, the messiah, however you want to say it, they believe that he actively said and thought to himself that he was of this status. That is the proper characterization of my logic. --Alterego 23:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Very good, Alterego, we are getting there. We ought to reflect the attribution in the text. Instead of the current text we should say something along the lines: "Christians believe that Jesus proclaimed himself to be a diety, although in Gospels there not a direct self-proclamation by Jesus to be one" or something along these lines. I would do the edit myself, but I refuse to dwell in the current tabular format that I am also disputing, as you know by now... --Zappaz 01:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There does not need to be any technical disclaimers. Please be tactful in your language and present the points pragmatically within the article. Please insert no formal disclaimers - I will remove them and insert tactful language instead --Alterego 22:41, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Zappaz 22:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Moon

Reverend Sun Myung Moon is listed as having been discussed, but I don't see the discussion. Our article on the Unification Church includes this quotation:

"In early July I spoke in five cities around Korea at rallies held by the Women's Federation for World Peace. There, I declared that my wife, WFWP President Hak Ja Han Moon, and I are the True Parents of all humanity. I declared that we are the Savior, the Lord of the Second Advent, the Messiah." -- Reverend Moon, Unification News, August 24, 1992

Isn't that sufficient for inclusion? -Willmcw 23:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, he hasn't actually been discussed. Is the messiah necessarily a deity? I quote from the Messiah article, In Judaism, the Messiah is a human descendant of King David who will rebuild the nation of Israel and bring world peace by restoring the Davidic Kingdom. --Alterego 23:15, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Right. I understand that the view of the article is that a "Messiah" is not automatically a "God". However other terms in the statement appear to be more direct, for example, "we are...the Lord of the Second Advent." This seems as direct as some of the other entries in the list. -Willmcw 23:29, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I will await the input of Zappaz something since he is the person who has the factual accuracy dispute template up. --Alterego 23:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, after further research, I am questioning the inclusion of Moon. This document, "A Cloud of Witnesses: The Saints' Testimonies to the True Parents", is one of the important documents of the faith. It is a report of a meeting in heaven in 2001 in which representatives of religions (including Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, Shankara, Marx, and followers) all attested to the fact that they now understood and endorsed God's plan and Moon's place in it (Savior, Messiah, etc). God is the Parent of humanity and Moon is the True Parent. Regardless of the exact theology, there appears to be a clear separation between God and Moon. Also part of the report is a letter from God to Moon, which says, "I want you to inherit all that is mine," in a manner that sounds like he is being appointed heir but it is ambiguous. At one point in the letter God apologizes for not writing sooner ("I have wanted to express my heart to you for a long time, but I have not had such an opportunity."). God further invites Moon to become "King of Kings". I'd say it's a close call, but if this report coincides with Moon's own thinking on the matter then it appears that he does not consider himself to be God. Messiah, Savior, King of Kings, and True Parent, certainly. God's heir, perhaps. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:57, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

We've got a moving target here. If the criteria is "godly status or repute", then I'd probably say that Moon belongs. May I suggest that, before deciding who belongs or doesn't belong, the criteria be decided upon? Cheers, -Willmcw 22:35, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree Will. I have added the criteria, now we need a change of title. I will change the title to: "List of people that claim or claimed godly status" so that NPOV can be maintained and keep everybody in the list. Thanks. --Zappaz 22:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest waiting to make sure that the move has a backing of the consensus? -Willmcw 23:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree with Will on this. Moon needs to be removed. Please note that the following names are still in dispute:

• David Koresh
• Anton LaVey
• Charles Manson
• Jim Jones
• Lu Sheng-yen

For each one the above we need a direct quotation attributed to them (that needs to go in the References section), in which they self-proclaim to be a deity (not a prophet, a messiah, a historical figure, etc., but a deity in unequivocal terms)--Zappaz 01:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Zappaz, that's not how it works. You need to start doing some of the research here. A name is not in dispute until you provide actual evidence which makes it disputable. I am also beginning to question your understanding of Wikipedia. You seem to not understand what the cleanup and wikify templates are used for. The article is clearly wikified. I am getting really tired of dealing with you on this, as you don't provide any research or evidence, all you do is complain. I had already comprimised with you regarding the factual accuracy of the article. As a warning, if you put another template on the article again I am going to begin the formal dispute resolution process. You have put four templates on this article in one day, and you are clearly abusing Wikipedia. --Alterego 01:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, since you are so fond of quoting rules and the wiki way and slapping templates everywhere, I'm going to take my turn and slap you with one. It's a very special rule that has a very special place in this encyclopedia, having been around since 2001. It's called Ignore all rules. So please get off of your high horse and start doing some of the grunt work around here. Nobody like someone who just complains, and this place is a community. --Alterego 01:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Let's remain civil, would you? Since I got involved in the article, we have made some progress regarding the quality of the article, don't you think? No problems with Ignore all rules, but I wanted also to encourage consensus. So, if this is the way you want to play, I will ignore all rules and re-format the article using standard markup. Regarding the list of people above, it is pretty obvious why they are disputed, as none of them have proclaimed to be a deity. So either they get deleted, or whoever added them provides with an unequivocal reference that they have self proclaimed to be a deity. The burden is on the editor that added the text. That's how wikipedia works. --Zappaz 01:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you trolling me? How is it possible for one single person to have put so many templates on articles in such a short edit history? My bs meter is through the roof. What is going on here? --Alterego 01:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not trolling you. Why should I? My intentions are sincere and that is making articles better. Please keep the discussion on purpose. Thanks. --Zappaz 03:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You need to put the table back, your formatting is ugly and hard to read. A lot of people put a lot of hard work into getting the table the way it was. This is not going to fly, sorry Zappaz --Alterego 04:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

Following Alterego suggestion to be bold and work on the article, I have proceeded to re-format the article according to WP style guidelines. The benefits are obvious: Clearer, compact and simple to maintaina dn or edit.

Modified somewhat also the caveat text for the Jesus entry. If no references are provided to substantiate the inclusion of the following names, I would delete them from the article. I would think that 5 days is enough.

• David Koresh ("The Lamb" would mean to be Jesus, not a deity)
• Anton LaVey (Text does not support the "self-proclamation" criteria)
• Charles Manson (He said he may be Jesus Christ, not that he was a deity)
• Jim Jones (He claimed to be the reincarnation of many hiostorical figures, but did not claim to be a deity)
• Lu Sheng-yen (Claims to be a living buddha, not a diety)

--Zappaz 04:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz please stop

Zappaz you are ruining this article. You cannot add statements like There is no material or textual evidence supporting the claim that Jesus self-proclaimed to be deity to Wikipedia. You don't know if that is true. I am asking you to stop ruining this article. You have inserted so much POV and you are making unreasonable demands. You have put four templates on this article in one day. You have ruined the layout that has been tweaked and perfected by users over many months. Please, please stop. --Alterego 04:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

There is no material or textual evidence supporting the claim that Jesus self-proclaimed to be deity. But there isn't. Show me a Biblical text in which Jesus claims to be God. Regarding me "destroying" the article, please note that I am aware of pride of authorship, and I know it is not easy when someone comes and "meddles" with the work that you and others have done. But I am confident that if we remain civil, this article will benefit from this exchange. We have alredy cleaned up some names that were not appropriate. At least acknowledge that. Please note also that I have not inserted any POV to the article. If I have, please let me know where. That is not my intention. My intention is to make this article an excelent one. Good night now. --Zappaz 04:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Please also note that it is not polite to place the article on RfC, without commenting here. I am surprised that you did, because the only remaining template is the {{disputed}}, and for reasons clearly explained. All the other issues have been cleared (format voting pending). As you have placed the article on RfC, it is now your duty to make a summary of the dispute, so that editors can understand the nature of the disagreement and what we are asking them to comment on. Thanks. --Zappaz 04:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Process

For the time being, I am giving up on the issue of formatting. I will address this once we have resolved the other disputes. I kindly request that the {{disputed}} template is not removed until the disputes are resolved. If the template is removed again, we will need to escalate to RfC.

The disputed entries:

• David Koresh ("The Lamb" would mean to be Jesus, not a deity)
• Anton LaVey (Text does not support the "self-proclamation" criteria)
• Charles Manson (He said he may be Jesus Christ, not that he was a deity)
• Jim Jones (He claimed to be the reincarnation of many hiostorical figures, but did not claim to be a deity)
• Lu Sheng-yen (Claims to be a living buddha, not a diety)
• Moon (see discussin above, someone had re-added him)
• Jesus - See extensive discussion above.

Other disputes:

• There are entries that refer to "messianic" rather than "deity". The criteria for inclusion is proclamation of "deity", There is already another list of self-proclaimed messiahs.
• The list needs to reflect the stated criteria of "self-proclamation". If self-proclamation is not provable, the entry is invalid.

--Zappaz 15:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

how about the following text for Jesus?:

"Apart from the uncertainty of his existence, he said according to the Bible (Gospel of John 10:30) that he and the father are one but not all Christians see this as a claim of divinity, see trinity, non-trinitarian, Son of God, Hypostatic_Union"

Andries 15:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It will be clear that I also think that every person who claimed to be Jesus should be included i.e. David Koresh, Charles Manson. Lu Sheng-yen did claim more than being a living Buddha. I am not sure that Anton LaVey and Moon should be included. I oppose Mirza to be included who was re-added. Andries 15:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz wrote

"The list needs to reflect the stated criteria of "self-proclamation". If self-proclamation is not provable, the entry is invalid."

I disagree with giving a fixed criteria for inclusion because there are too many complicated, subtle differences between the entries. The comment field serves and the main article of the person function as a more detailed description for people who are interested. Andries 15:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No Andries. This is a list of people that self-proclaimed to be deities. The entry on Jesus does not need a disclaimer, it needs to be deleted. The criteria as stated by the title, does not permit its inclusion, because there is no supporting reference for a self-declaration of being God by Jesus. That fact that 2 billion people beleieve Jesus is a deity, is inconsequential... The list is not called List of people claimed to be God by others. If there is ambiguity, let's resolve it. We could start the article List of people that claimed to be Jesus and add the persons you listed (and probably others). Please see the intro to the article that reads:

A self-proclaimed deity is, in this context, a human being that has proclaimed themselves to be of this godly status or repute.

I can see that this may be the main issue with this article: the lack of an unambigous criteria for inclusion. Maybe Alterego can explain the evolution of this article, the criteria, etc, and limit the discussion to that topic., Once we have reached consensus on the criteria, the rest will be a piece of cake to resolve. --Zappaz 15:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I consider the removal of Jesus unaccpetable given the fact that Jesus said that he and his father are one, according to John 10:30. How can you not see this a self-proclamation of divinity? Self proclaimed divinity can be in thousand forms so it is impossible to give fixed criteria for inclusion. Andries 15:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean to say that you are Jesus Christ?

The text for Jesus doesn't need any changing. It doesn't say Jesus said those things and I have made it really, really clear above. There is only one person out of everyone who is watching this discussion who finds Jesus to not belong on the list. That said, every single time Zappaz brings up the issue of Jesus he completely ignores the fact that we are not attempting to prove he said anything, and that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia goes into extensive neutral detail regarding his historicity in the first place, and we link to that discussion. As far as I am concerned Zappaz has not presented any new evidence or a new argument from previous arguments.

Regarding the others: Claiming to be someone such that they are the savior of mankind, returned from heaven to judge their kingdom, is indeed proclaiming yourself to be a deity. The Christian interpretation of the words ascribed to Jesus Christ is unambiguous and is repeated in testiomony in churches all over the globe every day: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either he was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C.S. Lewis.

Zappaz, you don't know if Jesus actually said those things or not, and by trying to take a stand on the issue and introduce it into the article you are trying to insert POV in a place where it is not welcome. Yesterday you inserted some of the worst POV I have seen on Wikipedia into this article: There is no material or textual evidence supporting the claim that Jesus self-proclaimed to be deity. I will have you know sir that the issue you so urgently feel the need to take a position on is a very delicate issue that has been debated for thousands of years. It is none of your business to make that statement on Wikipedia so please cease and desist!

Now, according to Christianity, to say that you are Jesus is to say:

• You believe you are the central figure in the religion of Christianity, which has over 2 billion followers
• You believe you are the Son of God and have risen from the dead to save mankind from sin and death.
• You have performed Miracles, such as turning water into wine, and healing the sick.
• You are the Messiah, promised by God to bring salvation to humanity
• You are God the Son in the Trinity
• You are Jesus Christ in the Godhead (Christianity)
• You are God incarnate

Above I explained why Jesus Christ belongs on this list very clearly. With this further list I have shown why someone who comes from the west and claims to be Jesus clearly believes they are a deity, and are not making a weak claim. As a matter of fact, it is a very strong claim with little to no ambiguity. Therefore, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Charles Manson absolutely belong in this article, based on the utter strength of their claims. Their claims are so strong that they do not rely on Jesus' historicity - as they claimed to be Jesus irregardless. --Alterego 16:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I added the following to the RfC: " Should Jesus be included in the list? If so with what comments?" Andries 16:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The only point I am making is about the title of this article: A list of people that Self-proclaimed to be a deity. My argument is that Jesus did not made such a proclamation and as such it does not belong in this list. Your argument that others believe that he made such claims, is inconsequential. Either you change the title of the article, or you exclue Jesus. Why is that so hard to understand? --Zappaz 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This extends to the points you made about people claiming to be Jesus. Again, it is all about the title and criteria for inclusion. If this is an issue, moving all these people to an article List of people that claim or claimed to be Jesus would be more aprorpiate. We already have a List of messiah claimants. --Zappaz 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The only person here making a 'claim' about something that Jesus did or did not say is you Zappaz. The article only states that what the mainstream religion of Christianity believes. You can't prove their claim true or false. If you think you can, you should definitely get started on all the articles about Jesus. By the way, claiming to be a messiah is not as strong of a claim as claiming to be Jesus Christ. It has a wholly stronger connotation.

I don't have a lot of time to wait here and watch you duck and weave and avoid every point I succesfully argue. I have extensively laid out my claim with facts and multifaceted points. You are simply attempting to argue in principle, and it is not convincing in the least. If your argument is exactly as you say, "that Jesus did not made such a proclamation," then you have just given up on this article. I have already said, and you have ignored me saying it, that, according to multiple articles such as Jesus and Historicity of Jesus, it is impossible for someone to make your claim or defend your argument. The fact of the matter is that Jesus' existence is subject to argument, writings attributed to him are subject to argument, and that the meaning of those writings are subject to argument. If you want to argue that Jesus did not make such a proclomation you are arguing in the wrong place, and with the wrong person. That said, I am finished discussing Jesus with you. --Alterego 18:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

It is your prerrogative to stop discussing this. All your arguments are not addressing the concerns that I have clearly expressed. An article that purports to list individuals that proclaim or proclaimed to be deities, needs to remain on purpose. If there is no reference that can be used to say that Jesus proclaimed to be a deity, then his name does not belong in this list. If we have not managed to clarify this and you do not want to continue the discussion, then refrain from editing trhe article. Thanks. --Zappaz 19:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

As an NPOV list of "self-proclaimed deities", we have to list anyone that a significant POV believes to be a "self-proclaimed deity", even if this POV may seem lacking in theological rigor to some of us. Of course every messiah claimant should not be listed, but those who claim to be Jesus in the context of a relatively "mainstream" Christian theology must be seen as also claiming divinity, barring evidence of a different interpretation.--Pharos 19:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Pharos, you make a good point. But then we need to find a better title for the article. A "list of people that self proclaim to be God" is very different from a "List of people that others believe they self-proclaimed to be God". The differece is subtle, but very significant if NPOV is to be maintained. --Zappaz 19:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand it. Who are the others? Andries 19:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Most Christians, for example. --Zappaz 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Then we can rename all lists in Wikipedia e.g. from List of kings into List of people believed to be kings by others. In other words, I think this is a bad idea. Andries 19:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No Andries, A list of Kings is a list of Kings, and you include in the list people that unequivocally are or were Kings and you provide references to substantiate their inclusion. --Zappaz 20:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

But don't you see, Zappaz, making this judgement as to which "are" self-proclaimed and those which "it is believed by some" are self-proclaimed is going beyond the bounds of NPOV?--Pharos 19:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't think so... For example, check the Sai Baba entry. This person unequivocally self-procaimed to be God, and hence the inclusion of his name is not disputed. You see, a "self-proclamation of being a deity" is a pretty outrageous statement, don't you think? So, if this article liste these people, we are providing a good encyclopedic article, otherwise this article is useless. Maybe the problem is with the name of the article. You cannot have a title that indicates something, and then the article presents another thing. That in itself is not NPOV. --Zappaz 20:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Pharos, please read the statement in the intro:

A self-proclaimed deity is, in this context, a human being that has proclaimed themselves to be of this godly status

That is a tall order. We are saying is that this list is a list of people that have made the prety amazing statement that they are a God or have godly status, right? Then we need to stick with it, and list only those that have made a self-proclamation of that godliness. --Zappaz 20:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Except for Moon about whom I have my doubts, I think that the name fits the contents. Yes, the case of Sathya Sai Baba is very strong, and the case of Jesus somewhat less strong but still strong enough to be included, at least, that is what I think on the basis of material and textual evidence and in the eyes of billions of Christians. I see no problems with somewhat less strong claims as long as they are explained in the comments. There is always discussion possible about any concept including kings; even small tribes have their kings. Andries 20:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (amended)

OK, then simply add, "Sometimes there is controversy as to whether someone was historically self-proclaimed, or whether this was simply attributed to them later." The point of NPOV on Wikipedia is not to cut everything down to only the noncontroversial bits, but on the contrary to include all sorts of controversial and wildly disputed stuff. For example, the Allah article mentions how some believe that "Allah" actually stands for "Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head".--Pharos 21:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I am all for "inclusiveness: in WP, But that does not mean to compromise NPOV. I am adding some text to the intro to make me feel comfortable about removing the disputed tag, although I am still convinced that there is a discrepancy between title and content that breaks NPOV. I will ask other editors to come and have a look. --Zappaz 21:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess I am back. Replace the article title now or I will. Zappaz, it is you against everyone and this is fucking ridiculous. --Alterego 23:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki templates go on the BOTTOM of articles. --Alterego 23:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Replace the original paragraph so that it is an exact copy from Deity. THAT IS HOW WE MAINTAIN NPOV IN THIS ARTICLE. And yes, I do swear when I am pissed off. FYI, this is all getting reverted. --Alterego 23:40, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please remain civil and stay cool, otherwise you rob the fun of editing WP. The article title is now more appropriate, if your intention is to keep all the people in the list. If you want to keep the previous title, then we are back in the dispute, disputed tag get slapped back and we continue the conversation about criteria for inclusion. And if you have problems with this and are unwilling to discuss, please use dispute resolution. Thanks. I will move the Interwiki at the bottom.--Zappaz 00:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

:I think you are now making it a different list. This was a list of self-proclaimed deities which is different from a list of people who were later seen as a deity. The latter is far more broader. Andries 06:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Godly

I'm worried about the word "godly" in the title and criteria. Here is a dictionary entry:

god·ly adjective

1. Having great reverence for God; pious.
2. Divine.

god'li·ness n.

Thesaurus entry for "godly"

1. Deeply concerned with God and the beliefs and practice of religion: devotional, devout, holy, pietistic, pietistical, pious, prayerful, religious, saintly. See religion.
2. Of, from, like, or being a god or God: deific, divine, godlike, heavenly, holy. See religion.

Most of us know the motto "cleanliness is next to godliness" and there is a cliche for the middle of the night being "an ungodly hour". Otherwise the word isn't used much anymore outside of the pulpit. And we're not even using its primary meaning. Do we really mean "people who have announced their divinity"? I suggest we find a better word or phrase than "godly". Regarding where to draw the line: is it enough to sit at the right hand of God? To be in the pantheon? Maybe we should go broadly and include all heavenly creatures. Being an angel or seraphim may be comparable to being an avatar. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Will. I think that a more inclusive list will have more value than a narrow one. Regarding "godly", pls note that the title refers to "godly status", as in "divine status". Do you think that changing "godly" for "divine" will be less ambiguos for readers? What do you think? --Zappaz 14:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that "divine" is much clearer than "godly." I think that saying "claim divinity" might be simpler than "claim divine status", though there is a subtle difference in meaning. -Willmcw 22:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

List sorting

I propose to change the current sort from alpha sort to a date sort. That will give a much better picture to readers. --Zappaz 04:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's not broken, don't fix it. Additionally there is a timeline in the article that has been commented out. --Alterego 18:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Reverts by Alterego

Please explain your reverts here, or place the article in dispute resolution if you are unwilling to discuss. This article is not yours. There are other contributing editors as well. Thanks. --Zappaz 17:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, two administrators have reverted your edits and one of them banned you. I certainly don't feel this is my article and I am most certainly not the only one upset by your edits.

Today, I did not revert anything (until now when I moved the article back). I replaced relevant text and rephrased bulletpoint items so that they are a paragraph, which is more appealing. When you reverted my edits just now you reverted a legitimate fix of the color alternation in addition to punctuation and phrasing of the entries. --Alterego

I am unaware of any adminstrators banning me. If they have, they have not explained their reasons. I have been conducting discussions with you and other editors in a civilized manner and explained each one of my edits. If an admin has any issues with my edits, I would expect to be consulted, unless you have been talking to admins behind my back, and making false statements about my involvement in this article.If this is the case, Alterego, please note that I will take this all the way through the conflict resolution process. --Zappaz 18:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

#3RR violation - perhaps it was just a notice and not a banning, but now you shouldn't wonder why people are interested. --Alterego 18:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Title is unsuitable

I believe the title of this article is unsuitable, in particular the combined use of "self-proclaimed" and "deity". I see that this has been discussed recently, but I propose to reconsider the title. Some titles that could be evaluated for suitability, follow:

• List of people claiming divine origin
• List of people known to claim divine origin

--38.119.107.72 15:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It will be a understatement to say that I agree with you, Anon, but I made a promise to Alterego to behave... :) --Zappaz 15:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the word "origin" in the title because some claimants assert that they became divine thru sadhanic purfication. List of people claiming to be divine would be better I think. Andries 16:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This does not happens often, but on this one I agree with Andries! List of people claiming to be divine works for me... --Zappaz 16:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The point is fallacious. List of anthropologists does not contain a correllary list of fictional anthropologists, just because they were mentioned in a fairy tell. The title implicitly connotes that they are or were persons. List of messiah claimants, carries that connotation as well. List of British pop musicians of the 1980s does not contain anyone who was not an actual British pop musician of the 1980s. There is an absolutely clear distinction between the List of presidents of The United States of America and List of fictional American Presidents. That said, you are more than welcome to start List of fictional self-proclaimed deities. --Alterego 16:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

A possible undesired effect of the title "List of sef-proclaimed deities" is that it allows objects normally considers to be innate to be included. For example, if I find a reference in a mythological story that Mother Earth claimed to be divine then it can go into the "List of self-proclaimed deities". Andries 16:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? There could be two tables, one for fictional and one for real. Of course, figures who'se historicity is uncertain would go in the "real" table =) --Alterego 16:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Article name

Alterego is unhappy about the change of name. The proposal I made, (with the inclusion of input by Willmcw) is not name this article List of people that claim or claimed divine status. This name will allow us to expand the criteria so that we can keep the current list as is. Untils such time in which we make a change to the title or eliminate people that do not fin in the criteria, I am placing back the disputed tag. If there are any other proposals, please state them below. Thanks. --Zappaz 18:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the edit history, Zappaz? Rdsmith4 reverted the article title, and you reverted him, and I reverted you. That's the second admin you have reverted, and no, I did not ask him or anyone else to. --Alterego 18:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Three different names in two days, four different templates in three days, and you have been reverted by a handful of separate users. Please check your behavior. --Alterego 18:26, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

If an admin reverts without an explanation of his/ger reasons, that is too bad. An admin has prerrogatives but also have responsibilties. I will take up this issue with Rdsmith4. Regarding behavior:

• You are the one cursing
• You are the one that does not want to engage in constructive conversations
• You are the one that reverts withot explaining why.

So don't talk to me about behavior. Thanks. --Zappaz 18:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have asked Rdmsimth4 to explain the reasons for his involvement. If rdsmith has interviened as an admin or as an editor, an explanation of his reasons will be welcome. --Zappaz 18:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. This is absurd. Read above, and look how long my explanations are and how short yours are. All you do is make demands. Now you have put FIVE TEMPLATES on this article in three days. You have moved it to two different names. You literally trashed the beautiful layout, and in a comment above you said that we are going to have to deal with you on that again later. You decide what goes in this article, by simply demanding that things go in it. You decide what doesn't go in this article by simply demanding that things are removed. And then you remove them. Take a look at some of the amazing dicussions that took place before you came here. We discussed around a dozen different people, and only one serious argument arose and it was short lived. NEVER during that time was a template placed on this article. I have spent so much of my free time while you toy with me and everyone else here. I realize you are bored but don't make blind accusations at me. My comments make up the majority of this talk page - you have no right to say that I don't want to engage in constructive conversations. I have put so god damned much of my free time into trying to talk with you and all you do is DECONSTRUCT this article. --Alterego 18:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK. No problems. Let's see if we can expand the scope of the article as discussed above. --Zappaz 19:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said anybody has intervened as an administrator, however, even after someone else reverted your edits, you posted a brand new third level header about how it was ME who didn't want you to change the article title. That was not the case. This is not a debate between you and me - it is a bunch of people watching you completely DECONSTRUCT this article, and not at a slow pace either. You do realize that things happen around here slowly, right? Many little changes over time, and well thought out discussions preempt larger changes. YOU DONT JUST MAKE THEM. You can't just come here and start trainwrecking everything. There is no room for wonder why I am upset. You said on your talk page that you are going to slow down but there has been absolutely no indication of that. I can't even keep up with all of your demands because you demand them, and change the article, and then begin reverting everything. HOW MUCH MORE OF MY TIME DO I HAVE TO DONATE TO YOU THIS WEEK? If I had been on vacation, I would have come back and you would have completely wrecked this article. GO FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION SOMEWHERE ELSE. Progress needs to be made slowly. Am I making myself clear? Have I given you enough of my time? Read up and look at how many demands you have made. What am I supposed to do? Look at how long I my comments to you have been, and even when I reasoned as carefully as possible you ignored them and went on making changes towards your own point of view. --Alterego 18:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I read you. I will take it easier and slow down a bit. Thanks. --Zappaz

Explanation, as requested on my talk page: I moved it back because the new title was much more convoluted, and no more informative or neutral, than the old one. — Dan | Talk 18:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --Zappaz 19:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)