Talk:List of people who have been considered deities/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Big POV problem

George Bush has not proclaimed himself to be a deity. Or, at least, not in such certain terms that Wikipedia can endorse the point of view that he has done so.

We need to go through each entry and seriously - not jokingly or in a partisan way - determine which ones have clearly called themselves a deity of any sort.

We might even want to make categories, like:

ancient emperors like Caesar
modern "crazy" criminals, like son of sam or the beltway sniper

The case of Christ is a special one.

Related to Christ is anyone claiming to be a messiah or the Messiah.

so what you mean is, this has to be written from a christian-centric POV, and we just all have to agree that christ was the god, not just some other wack job--172.166.153.55 15:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite. I don't see why Christ should be a special case 212.101.64.4 16:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why you're hiding behind an IP address--ChadThomson 09:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV policy

Recall, please, that Wikipedia articles must not endorse any particulal point of view on religious subjects. And when there is a controversy on a subject, such as politics, we must also be careful to distinguish objective fact from "POV". Uncle Ed 15:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ed here. In fact, when I initially saw this page, I did not even see George W was on it. Should there be a seperate List of alleged self-proclaimed deities? --Phroziac (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That entry was added by anonIP User:172.166.153.55. And subsequently removed by myself. No blanking, locking, or protecting required. jglc | t | c 15:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

We're having a very unfortunate clash of coincidences here: Ed Poor decides to review this article for neutrality in the same instance as a vandal hitting the page with a spurious insertion of George W. Bush. Stay calm and watch the histories, everyone. And Ed, please don't just blank talk pages if you're too lazy to archive. This is... well, lazy. The previous page had a tasklist and a ton of discussion on the neutrality of the article, so you're being disingenuous at best. JRM · Talk 16:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, here's what has to happen: the anonymous IP needs to be blocked (I believe there are grounds for this), the links below to the archived talk pages must be fixed - as I said on your talk page, Ed, you know that's bullshit, plus, the way to review an article is not to do a repeat of your WP:VfD stunt and blank it - and we start discussing the neutrality again, in the exact same manner that people were, before Ed decided to go against WP:POINT again, damn it. jglc | t | c 16:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Ed has more of a problem with this article then the George W Bush entry. I brought the dates on the Jesus Christ entry to his attention, because it sure sounds more specific then anyone could possibly know. Also, I'm pretty sure that using circa keeps you from needing a 3 or 4 year range. I should've mentioned this in my last post, but, I forgot! Ed was the one that blanked the talk page? heh. I wouldn't consider that anything more then lazy, it's not like it's that big of a deal. --Phroziac (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Possibly due to inclusion of Sun Myung Moon? Secretlondon 16:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Question?

If someone claims; to talk to god, speak for him, and claims to recive prayers directed at him, does this qualify as SELF proclaimed?--172.166.153.55 15:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No. At best that would be a self-proclaimed high priest. JRM · Talk 16:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Stars and daggers, etc.

These don't go anywhere. What are they supposed to mean?

Task List

Who puts stuff on the task list (template:todo), and how are these followed up?

Anyone can. See the article edit history if you would like to know how prolific I am in validation. --Alterego 22:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

In what way is he among "notable human beings who have made unequivocal statements about being a god"?

Given that the Trinity is such a tangled issue for Christians and non-Christians, it would be better to take Jesus off this list and simply put "See Jesus Christ" somewhere at the bottom.

Also, it expresses a point of view to include Jesus in the same list as beltway snipers and other crackpots.

Finally (or once again), the Wikipedia must not endorse the POV that Jesus made an unequivocal statment about being a god. For those of you who don't know Christian theology, I should point out that discussion on this point began in the 2nd or 3rd century and has not stopped to date! Uncle Ed 16:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, calling the Beltway Snipers crackpots does not have the ring of neutrality to it. It is your own low perceptions of them and your high perceptions of Jesus which interact to form the illusion of external POV. In fact, it is internal. If you have not read the Historicity of Jesus you need to do so now. It makes the case very clear. It is unambgious that more than 2 billion Christians - right now - believe that the words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are of him making the statement that he is the Son of God. Whether or not that is true is covered in the Historicity of Jesus article and is not up to us to debate. --Alterego 22:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am posting a previous comment on the Jesus discussion which I find to be relevant. Note that this comment was made regarding a discussion as to whether or not Jesus belongs in the article. It is available in the archives. --Alterego 22:49, August 11, 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)

I was reading the article on Jesus, and apparently there's a POV that he didn't even exist. I don't know all that much about this stuff, however. --Phroziac (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a minority viewpoint. With Jesus, there is usually someone who believes almost anything - that he didn't exist, that he was an extraterrestrial, that he was the head of a magic mushroom cult, that he founded a bloodline that will save the world. DJ Clayworth

Ed, I think the documentation of Jesus' claims to be God are at least as solid as those of Alexander or Caesar. Haven't we put enough disclaimers with 'according to Christian interpretation of the Gospels' in the statement? Remember that around 2 billion people believe that Jesus stated this. DJ Clayworth 17:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

actially, Yeshua didnt profess to be god, orthe son of god or an such thing, he wasimply a philosiphor. the claims that he was the son of adiety otr a diety himself were added a few hunbdred years later. Im sorry, but since i sawthis on TV, during a special , i cant provide a source. what convinced me oift his was when i did some reseach on roman custom. It eems that durintgthe years that Yeshua waas imaplaedt o wood, crosses werent used, it was poles back then, one nail, through both wrists, above the head. It was changed to a cross later, in part becasue ofthe fact that the crusified pose looks like a gesture of supplicationm ( if thats the right word) and also in part becaseu the romans were using crosses when this alteration was made.Gavin the Chosen 17:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Also see here and here for previous discussion on Jesus' inclusion, so we won't... or at least have the possibility... of not repeating arguments. JRM · Talk 17:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please let's not try to repeat those arguments - block capitals and all. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a seperate article for List of self-proclaimed reincarnations of Jesus Christ ???? Allegrorondo 18:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved from talk:Ed Poor

um, yeah, blanking of articles for no particular reason is usually considered a bad thing, and putting a 'totally disputed' tag doesn't mean you can totally blank it--172.166.153.55 15:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And, damn it, so is blanking the talk page. Just because you're one of Wikipedia's ol' boys doesn't mean that you can run around and expect others to clean up after you. If it had to be archived, why didn't you just do the damn thing? jglc | t | c 15:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Has your account been hijacked, or are you trying to de-admin yourself by pretending not to have spotted vandalism? JRM · Talk 15:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

and now he just locked the entire article on his own authority--172.166.153.55 15:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The only difference between your "version before edit war" and the last version by User:JRM are a handful of dates and links... which should have been kept. Why didn't you just block User:172.166.153.55? jglc | t | c 15:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
All things considered I'm amazed I can still edit right now, yet the article itself has been blocked, that seems a little odd--172.166.153.55 16:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed. I too question your decision to protect this page. The edit war was not yet severe enough to warrant this. 172... will either listen to reason or violate the 3RR soon enough. Can I suggest you unprotect it and see what happens? DJ Clayworth 16:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute. Do you think 172. had a serious point and the rest of us were unduly censoring him? JRM · Talk 16:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed wrote, after he blanked the talk page, "George Bush has not proclaimed himself to be a deity. Or, at least, not in such certain terms that Wikipedia can endorse the point of view that he has done so." It seems that he does not agree with 172.*. jglc | t | c 16:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I'm waiting patiently for Ed to acknowledge all this so he or I can fix the damage. I do not care for doing so while there is a chance of starting a cycle. JRM · Talk 16:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm waiting for any acknowledgment from Ed, too. jglc | t | c 16:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I restored the archives and tasklist on the talk page, DJ Clayworth unprotected. Remaining problems with the neutrality of this article should be handled in the usual way, that is, adding {{POV}} to the top of the article while leaving the rest alone. JRM · Talk 16:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Reincarnation before death?

How can Jim Jones be a reincarnation of Father Divine, if he was born 30 years before Father Divine died? --Phroziac (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

walk-ins, spiritual possession, etc perhapsGavin the Chosen 18:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. But that wouldn't exactly be a reincarnation. --Phroziac (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Divine beings dont need to follow the laws of time. Allegrorondo 15:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This is true. However, our perceptions of their actions must conform to the Kantian Category of linear time. As "reincarnation" is simply the human perception of an instantiation of divinity, is it thus not a prerequisite of any "reincarnation" that an external, human observer sees it as such? jglc | t | c 15:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

I see there is a template directing me to relevant discussion on this talk page. However, there doesn't seem to be any. I have gathered from a brief overview that someone "archived" the talk page without following the procedure of linking to the conversations so that we do not beat dead horses. Until such a time as this happens I will be pasting the older conversations back here since they are all extremely relevant to the article. Additionally the todo list is gone. It contains a wealth of information that make topics I was actively pursuing easier to get back up to speed with. That too, is returning. Since I see no discussion on this talk page which explicitly makes a case that resembles any sort of an actual, logic and reason satisfying dispute, that template too is leaving. I have additionally gathered that an administrator for Wikipedia may have thought that there was a bit of seriousness to the president of the united states being added to the article. I find that to be absolutely absurd and would beg of that person and any others to please not sacrifice themselves in what what could only be seen as a large exothermic oxidation process. If there is a person here who has a reasonable complaint, I would ask them to please articulate it, using as many words as they can and as effectively as they can, while preferably backing it up with sources external to the encyclopedia. One sentence does not constitute a neutrality disagreement. If I do not see an actual argument presented, with all the work put into citing and validating the facts in this article, I will not consider it a valid complaint regarding the neutrality of the article - or anything else for that matter. --Alterego 21:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor blanked the page, asking others to archive the old version. I did so: /Archive 2, and placed the link at the top. I copied a very recent discussion to the page because it was clearly not finished. I restored the tasklist while removing the timeline (as it was taking up much room for no good reason). Someone else then took out the tasklist again. Then you came along... and you know the rest. :-) JRM · Talk 17:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks..I still have work to do here in case anyone thought I had dissapeared. I was at Wikimania last week, Italy these last few days, and tomorrow I am going to visit a friend in Bulgaria. I hope the standards for argumentation, if there must be some, do not lower in that time. There has been extensive discussions in the past, and a passive sort of comment to the effect of "having Jesus in the same list as so and so - who, in my opinion, is a crackpot - offends my sensibilities" does not do it justice. I think the article has been progressing nicely these last few months and would benefit from some honest hard work. That's what I want to do here and if others want to contribute I would suggest the same. Cheers all. --Alterego 22:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

New citation format

I am posting this here partially to remind myself. I would like to attempt the citation format as shown in the Tasmanian Devil article to see if it is any easier to maintain and if it is a better presentation of the information. The current citations are out of whack since folks have been editing the article willy-nilly --Alterego 23:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Done. I like it. The automatic numbering is very handy. --Alterego 21:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Jesus does not fit the new criteria either. He never claimed to be God, his many followers believe is a God, but do not attribute statements of to him if being God, neither his "entire culture" assumed he was one. --ZappaZ 22:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Why was the word "unequivocal" inserted in the intro? Can this word go? Andries 23:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Because unequivocal, means unequivocal: Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous. --ZappaZ

05:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

After reading previous discussions on Jesus I don't see how your question adds anything substantial to them. Your question at first appears to relate to the new criteria. But then you state that your real position is that "He [Jesus] never claimed to be God". By making the statement that Jesus never claimed to be a God, you are expressing that a very specific POV be inserted into the article. --Alterego 02:59, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

...and asserting that he did claim he was God is another POV. I do not care about previous discussions becase these were made before we came to an agreement on criteria for inclusion. If the current criteria stands, Jesus does not belong.--ZappaZ

05:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

To say that the previous discussions on Jesus are not relevant is being disingenuous, as one is just a few conversations above. You have failed to address my previous point: Your assertion is that there are two points of view 1) "He [Jesus] never claimed to be God" and 2) "that he did claim he was God". These two points of view are well known and have been debated ad nauseum (of note is that you express your own point of view by starting this conversation - you said you feel he never claimed to be god). You have failed to illustrate how the new criteria - which are not altogether different - adds a new and interesting perspective to these points of view which makes them worth arguing - again. Further, you simply state that If the current criteria stands, Jesus does not belong. I hope you recognize this is a conclusion, not an Logical argument. A conclusion to an argument that has neither been effectively brought about, nor exists in any substantially new way in the first place. Stop wasting our time zappaz and give us some content to think about instead of spinning a web of POV. --Alterego 19:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Can you please remain civil and avoid making personal attacks? And please do not use a plural "our time", because you can only speak for yourself. Thank you.

I am reading the criteria that says:

The list of self-proclaimed deities consists of those notable human beings who have made unequivocal statements about being a god. It additionally contains those whose historicity may be uncertain, yet have many followers who have attributed the statements [unequivocal statements about being a god] to them, and also those whose entire culture assumed they were a deity, such as with the Pharaohs.

So, unless you or someone else finds a quote in which Jesus unequivocally says he is God, or a quoutes from followers that said that Jesus unequivocally said he was God, he does not belong to this article, as well as others currently included. Note that the fact that millions of people consider Jesus to be God, is not the same as saying that millions of people attribute to Jesus a statement of being God. Subtle but significant difference. So unless you find such a quote, his name needs to be removed. I will not edit the article and do it myself because I find the table format a pain in the ass to edit in, as you need to change row colors, etc. So you do it. --ZappaZ

Why don't we just remove the word "enequivocal" from the intro then Jesus can stay and the whole dispute is over? Andries 18:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The word unequivocal came from Zappaz in the first place --Alterego 19:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

removed inappropriate comments about Zappaz by User:Andries Andries 19:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that you have a real problem and that you resort to personal attacks for no other reason that you have no arguments to make. You can keep your ideas about me to yourself. --ZappaZ

20:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for my personal comments about you. I removed the comments. Andries 07:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the word "unequivocal" which means that for me the debate about Jesus is over i.e. I have no doubts that he should stay here on the list with the new intro. Andries 20:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

17:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus claiming to be God is a doctrine of the Christian church since its beginnings. Now I can give you the full biblical explanation, and quote the relevant passages if that is important to you. Quotes from followers who attribute this claim to Jesus is even easier. Any good apologetics book, or even a mediocre one, will cover the matter. It's also completely clear that Jesus' contemporary followers considered him to be God. It's hard to argue that we, at 2000 years distance, know more about what he claimed than his contemporaries. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz clearly has no argument, and has expressed the point of view he holds for us to see:Jesus does not fit the new criteria either. He never claimed to be God, his many followers believe is a God, but do not attribute statements of to him if being God, neither his "entire culture" assumed he was one. --Alterego 19:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I would invite Zappaz to read the articles linked here. --Alterego 19:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I did and that is why I am making this argument. From Names and titles of Jesus:

The Gospels and Acts frequently use "Lord" as a title for Jesus. Jesus himself never seems to have claimed the title – it is only ascribed to him by others, which has led to various interpretations. Different scholars have come up with various explanations: some believe that Jesus' disciples called him lord, but not because he was divine; this was merely a title used when students addressed their teachers. Some believe that the New Testament uses the term lord to mean divine, but that it was only after Jesus' death and resurrection that his followers ascribed to him divinity. Others argue that neither Jesus nor his disciples used the Aramaic term for lord, mara, and that the Greek term kyrios (meaning, "the Lord") was borrowed from pagan Hellenic usage by early Gentile converts to Christianity. The Hebrew Bible distinguishes between "lord" (adon) and "God"; the word "lord" does not necessarily imply divinity, although God is often described as "the Lord". Surviving inter-testamental Aramaic texts frequently use the Aramaic mara to mean "the Lord", that is, God – but they also provide evidence of people using mara and kyrios as personal titles (for example, used to address a husband, father, or king). There is little evidence that either term was used specifically to mean "teacher", but there is much evidence of students using the term "mar" to refer to their teachers respectfully, or to refer to an especially respected and authoritative teacher. A close reading of the Gospels suggests to historians that most people addressed Jesus as lord as a sign of respect for a miracle-worker (especially in Mark and Matthew) or as a teacher (especially in Luke). In most cases one can substitute the words "sir" or "teacher" for "lord", and the meaning of the passage in question will not change.

I do not see anywhere in that article "Jesus the God". I am also reverting your unilateral change of criteria. --ZappaZ

19:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, do you want to go read the books or do you want me to explain it to you? DJ Clayworth 20:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You said It's also completely clear that Jesus' contemporary followers considered him to be God., but I am not disputing that (How could I!). What I am arguing is that the criteria for inclusion in this list is not "A list of people that others believe them to be God", but a list of "notable human beings who have made unequivocal statements about being a god." Thus, the stated criteria cannot be applied to Jesus. --ZappaZ

00:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote yourself you asked for "quoutes from followers that said that Jesus unequivocally said he was God". Now it would seem to me that if Jesus contemporary followers believed that he was God, he must have said or done something to give them that idea, and given the impact of the belief it must have been fairly unequivocal. You have correctly noted that Jesus did not (even according to the Gospels) go round shouting "I am God! Worship Me!", and that he had good reasons for not doing that, but he may have indicated his divinity in more subtle ways. If those subtle ways were made clear would that be enough evidence for you? DJ Clayworth 15:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Look up proclaim (Wiktionary). You can't proclaim subtly. Rd232 08:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not looking for "evidence". Note that this article is not a polemc discussion about what people thought or did not 2000 years ago. This article has the very specific purpose that is to list people that uniquevocally say or said they are a god. Jesus, based on the Gospels and apocryphal texts, did never said he was God, and his disciples never said that he said he was God. Did they believe he was God? Most probably. From New Testament view on Jesus' life

According to the Gospels, his unpopularity among the leadership of the area was because he criticised it, and, moreover, because Jesus' followers held the controversial and inflammatory view that he was not only the Messiah but God Himself.

But that is not in dispute (and can never be, we can only speculate and infer), what is in dispute is the fact that Jesus never said he was god, neither his followers said that he said he was god. --ZappaZ 17:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

They believe he said he was god. Look up my quote from C.S. Lewis in earlier discussion. End of conversation. --Alterego 21:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, just the beginning. A comment by Christain apologetic such as C S Lewis, or others do not warrant inclusion of Jesus. Read the criteria for inclusion. I am asking other editors to comment via an RfC. --ZappaZ

21:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Most christians believe the concept of the Holy Trinity. The Father (God), The Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit (Jesus as preturnatural entity) are all one, and therefore are all different aspects of God. Now what you are looking specifically for is proof that Jesus Christ made specific claims as to his own divinity. Always difficult to pin down dead people for a direct quote, but there has to be something in the old bible that even vaguely speaks to the issue. Something like "In me ye shall be reborn" or summat or maybe what he said on the cross, "Father, why has thou forsaken me?" In the sense that it is excepted that he wasn't speaking to God in anything less than his own father. In the broadest sense, he would be aknowledging his own divinity. Historically, the Trinitarian view has been affirmed as an article of faith by the Nicene (325) and Athanasian creeds (circa 500), which attempted to standardize belief in the face of disagreements on the subject. These creeds were formulated and ratified by the Church of the third and fourth centuries in reaction to heterodox theologies, some involving the nature of the Trinity, and Christ's position in it. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 version) is still affirmed by the Orthodox Church; it is affirmed with one change by the Roman Catholic Church, and has been retained in some form by most Protestant denominations. Food for thought. Any ideas? Hamster Sandwich 21:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Any list of self-proclaimed deities on an English encyclopedia that fails to mention the most famous one known to English speakers is just pointless. If you accept the Gospels as true, he proclaimed himself. If you want to argue semantics or historicity or etc., mention that in his entry, don;t just remove him completely. DreamGuy 21:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not one of "divinity", it is one of self-proclamations of being God. We could change the article name and criteria and then we could include Jesus and others. For example List of people of divine origin or List of people claiming divine origin, etc. And replacing the criteria with "...those notable human beings who have made statements about being of divine origin." My argument is that the current title and current criteria' makes it impossible to include Jesus and others. --ZappaZ

22:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose removing the word unequivocal from the intro

I think including the word "unequivocal" was never a good idea. I did not remove the word only to exclude Jesus but to solve a dispute. Who agrees with removing? Andries 20:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is actually a great idea ... if your intention is to be accurate and NPOV. Unequivocal means just that: admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion; If you don't use such a distiction, you are opening the door to interpretation, ambiguity and eventually editwarring. Read the discussions about this above. --ZappaZ

20:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

the dispute has not stopped by adding the word "unequivocal" I propose removing it. Andries 20:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The only reason that the dispute has not stopped, is because editors that have agreed to a certain criteria for inclusion, do not apply the criteria to people in the list. If editors would abide by the agreements made in this page, it will be an easy thing to decide if a person fits or doesn't fit. That is the reason for the qualifier "unequivocal". If it is so, it will be darn easy to add/remove people in the list. Without the qualifier, anybody can make a case for or against inclusion. Why the attraction to ambiguity? It just leads to quarreling and editwarring. --ZappaZ

00:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz inserted the word unequivocal. He is arguing with himself. --Alterego 21:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The word should go. It just makes the article too strict to be helpful and would get a good portion of the list removed without a clear purpose if followed exactly. DreamGuy 21:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Including the the word "unequivocal" in the intro may mean that the list becomes short, boring and uninformative. Very few people made totally unequivocal claims i.e. Krishna, Sathya Sai Baba. Jehovah Wanyonyi, Father Divine Ted R. Kurts and that is it. Andries 09:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, then. We will finally have an accurate and NPOV article! Fascinating the use of the term "boring" as if "encyclopedic" is that .... --ZappaZ

15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete "unequivocal" from the article. Do it again, and I will slap a {{disputed}} tag on this article. Note that I have placed an RfC for this, let us see if other editors give their opinion on this matter. --ZappaZ 19:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Why the contention? Is there anybody here interested in a civil discussion, or bullying your POV by editwarring is the only alternative left? Sheesh! --ZappaZ 20:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

...you inserted the word unequivocal. If it is violating the spirit of the article by forcing us to remove people who obviously belong then it shouldn't be here. Everyone here by now has a good idea about the general requirements for the article and you are just making attaining that goal in actuality a real pain. If you want to have a "civil discussion" follow my lead. I do it by editing constructively. --Alterego 04:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rfc comments

Rfc comment.

Keep "unequivocal", which helps delineate clearly the purpose of the list. (If that makes big inroads in the present list, then subdivide it into unequivocal and not.)
Exclude Jesus, who in quotes attributed to him never claims to be anything other than the Son of Man. Since the list is about selfproclamation, what the Church thinks is irrelevant. (It might be worth adding a note on Jesus in the article, if people expect him to be there, but don't include him in the list.)
Consider changing the title, which risks endorsing the claims of the people listed, by describing them as "deities". Perhaps List of people who have claimed to be God or List of people who have claimed to be divine. Rd232 21:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the Christian interpretation of the words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels, he said he was the Son of God. I can't say this any more clearly. To deny this significant POV, held by billions, would be for the article to hold the exact opposite POV. Please also read the archives about the usage of the word divinity. Claiming to be a deity, or god, is not the same as saying you are divine. I went over it very carefully with exerpts from the OED. It has been agreed upon that the title should be changed already, btw. The word claim won't be used in it. Thanks for your suggestions. --Alterego 04:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your pride of authorship, but when we ask an RfC, you ought to listen, not just dismmiss with a "thanks for your suggestions". Rd232, is expressing exactly my concern. The current article, with its current title, criteria and list, is factually innaccurate. And I consider this argument to be part of constructive editing. Not addressing these concerns, will likely result on a factual innacuracy tag added to the article, by me or by other editors. --ZappaZ

05:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

... "Pride of authorship" ...? Who owns the word unequivocal here? I just ask that folks read the archives, and I do appreciate his suggestions. So bug off. By the way, according to the Christian interpretation of the words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels, he said he was the Son of God. --Alterego 12:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

This debate has been going nowhere for quite some time, though a number of interesting suggestions have been floated. I've taken the liberty of adding another vital piece to the Jesus equation: without mentioning the Trinity, it's unclear why many people would consider the "son of God" to be God. Of course, the concept of the Trinity postdates Jesus, so you can still argue Jesus didn't proclaim himself a deity factually, but this makes it clearer that many people do have that POV. The only recourse if this is still deemed insufficient is to remove Jesus as a separate entry and devote a section to why some would include him and others would not. JRM · Talk 12:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we all understand the situation. Zappaz told us all when he started this that he believes Jesus did not say he was a god. Of course it can't be proven one way or another so we shouldn't cater to Zappaz' POV that Jesus didn't say it or the Christian POV that he did say it. We can put as much boilerplate into the description as we need to for assisting in clarification. I think the general point is that no one knows whether or not Jesus said it, but ~ 2 billion folks believe he did and they have outlined the words where he said it so based on that he deserves to be included. --Alterego 21:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with JRM, Alterego and others above who have said the same thing. DreamGuy 21:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

A clarification. It's not very useful to shift the POV that Jesus did not proclaim himself a deity to Zappaz alone (implying, of course, that he's a stubborn loner and the rest is right). What we know or do not know is largely irrelevant; all that matters is what we can source. Rd232's comment that "since the list is about selfproclamation, what the Church thinks is irrelevant" is insightful because it is does not apply to the list as it currently is: the dispute is not over what Jesus said to the letter, but about what people believe he meant when he said it. Again: it is misleading in this regard to claim "facts", when Wikipedia's primary duty is to be a secondary (or tertiary) source and relay POVs. Facts quickly stop being facts when they're disputed.

There is a caveat in this: it does require that we can source belief in self-proclamation, that is, it's not sufficient to say "X was considered a God by many (source)". We need "X said Y (source) which was interpreted by many as a declaration of godhood (source)". This list generates so much heat because this point is unhelpfully subtle. Obviously we can include people who literally said "I am God/a god" directly because there will be no dispute about what they meant, and you could even conceive of a list that only includes people who literally said "I am God/a god/<deity>" irrespective of what people believe it meant, but as it stands, this isn't it.

Jesus never said, quote, "I am God", or more accurately, there are no sources for this. I think this isn't disputed by anybody. There is a source for Jesus saying "I am the son of God", and there are additionally sources for a signifcant number of people believing this implied Jesus was God, through the doctrine of the Trinity. I think this also isn't disputed by anybody. The argument therefore is about what this list is: is it a list of people who made proclamations interpreted by a notable number of people to be claims of deityhood, or a list of people who made proclamations of which nobody disputes they were claims of deityhood? Zappaz (and others) seem to be taking the latter interpretation, most seem to be taking the former. Am I summing things up right so far? JRM · Talk 22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

JRM - you'll also find people who believe that when Jesus said that the Father and him were one, that was a statement that he was, in fact, God. Hipocrite 22:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I suspect this belief is quite easily sourced as well, as are beliefs to the contrary. The main problem people seem to have with Jesus on this list is not that he's on the list, but that the POVs about whether he is or isn't a self-proclaimed deity aren't well represented. Rather than point-blank removal, we should try integrating them. If this makes the entry too large, we might even need a separate article... (ouch). We do refer to historicity of Jesus, but this doesn't seem to touch the subject. I am way out of my league in matters theological and I half suspect this is a separate topic that might have its own coverage on Wikipedia, but I don't know. JRM · Talk 22:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

JRM I think it's a pretty good summary. I have specifically not done any citation seeking or validation for Jesus external to Wikipedia because it wavers very closely on research and pov. But if we have a very clear mission, e.g., to cite very, very authoritative sources for the points you mentioned, and Hipocrite's as well, then I think it would be a good thing. --Alterego 22:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% with JRM's The argument therefore is about what this list is: is it a list of people who made proclamations interpreted by a notable number of people to be claims of deityhood, or a list of people who made proclamations of which nobody disputes they were claims of deityhood?. Once we make that decision, and abide by it, we will be done with this dispute. Not addressing this very crucial distinction, will lead to continuous dispute, editwarring and animosity. That is all the point I have been trying to make all along: the current title and stated criteria is factually incorrect with the list of people included. --ZappaZ 22:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think citing the title as a problem in this case is very helpful, as we have already stated that it needs to be changed. I propose renaming the article to List of people who have said they are a god. Verbose, yes, but it seems to address our issues. A point of note: You inserted the word unequivocal and are practically the only person who takes the contrary position here, which relies pretty much on that word for it's basis. Just get rid of it. I'll support anyone who comes up with a new title that doesn't use the words divine or claim in it. At least this one can be put up against the test of time. Our current title has failed. --Alterego 23:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mm, the issue seem to be what do we mean by 'God' and what do we mean by 'unequivocal claim'. Zappa's wrong to sat this is about a claim to be God and not divinity. Alexander, the Pharaoh, Caligula weren’t claiming to be God in the monotheistic sense they were simply claiming to be immortals. Divinity is a slippery concept in antiquity. Is Jesus a 'self-proclaimed' divinity? Is it unequivocal? Well, do we mean, ‘are the claims he made unequivocal claims of divinity’ - or do we mean, ‘is it unequivocal that he made them’? There are two questions here 1) do the words that the gospels attribute to Jesus unequivocally constitute a claim to divinity (an interpretative matter). 2) are the gospels right to attribute those words to Jesus (an historical matter). I think it's fair to say, taking divinity in a broad sense, that the answer to the first question is 'yes' – and most certainly in the gospel of John. Most scholars (whatever their beliefs) would conclude that John's Jesus is claiming divinity. The second question is more POV - and depends on your reconstruction of Jesus and view of the accuracy of the gospel accounts. I don't think you can get round that. I'd suggest keeping Jesus, but with the caveat 'according to the gospel accounts' he claimed divinity. That leaves the POV out of it. --Doc (?) 18:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit Summaries:

Apologies for my unclear edit summary. "rv Who Removes The Jesus," implies that I was reverting the removal of The Jesus, but I could have been more clear. Hipocrite 21:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Gavin may have an apt point. It would be better for us to say that Jesus Christ is God the Son in the Trinity and Jesus Christ in the Godhead than simply the son of God. I'll implement this, but it should not be considered a resolution to anything besides Gavin's edit summary. --Alterego 23:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Content and definition

Alright, if we all agree on the issue at hand, we can take a stab at moving forward. I'll call the "list of people who made proclamations interpreted by a notable number of people to be claims of deityhood" the white list (because it includes anyone for which there's a sourceable claim of self-proclamation) and the "list of people who made proclamations of which nobody disputes they were claims of deityhood" the green list (because it includes anyone for which there's a sourceable claim of self-proclamation and no sources that dispute them).

Looking at the current content, this list is the white list: entries like those of Alexander the Great, the Egyptian Pharaohs and Jesus indicate that sources for notable POVs of others about the subject having proclaimed deityhood (or in case of the Pharaohs, not having made any attempt at disavowing culture), are deemed sufficient.

Now, I'd like to argue we should indeed have the white list and not the green list: the white list has a better potential for being stable and informative. If there are disputes about whether someone "really" proclaimed themselves a deity, the white list can give sources pro and con and indicate why some believe statement X by person Y was a self-proclamation, and others do not. By contrast, the green list cannot give sources for why entries were removed, because they're not there! If I strike the name of Jesus off the green list on grounds of it being disputed, someone else is going to come along and reinsert it because they're not aware of the dispute (or perversely unwilling to acknowledge it). Without the ability to source explicitly, the green list would quickly degenerate into arguments that can only be substantiated on the talk page.

This is all notwithstanding that the current definition of the list is wrong, or at least incomplete; you'd indeed be tempted to think it's the green list and not the white list. We can fix this, if we all agree this is what the list should look like, and we can commit to backing up the controversial entries with all notable POVs, not just those that support self-proclamation. It's tempting to say a title change would also be nice, but it's hard to come up with one that still conveys the idea without being ten miles long (and most lists seem to get along with good definitions even if the title is a not completely unambiguous).

Comments? I think the white list is the way to go, but maybe I'm overlooking something. JRM · Talk 23:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I would ask that no one make any rash edits to the article as I am working on a mockup which I will link to shortly and hope to have solve these aims. --Alterego Prototype is forming at User:Alterego/sandbox/List of people who have said they are a god --Alterego 23:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

JRM I am somewhat confused by your categorization. I don't see how Jesus and the Pharaohs belong on the same list. There is no other POV regarding the Pharaohs, e.g., it is not up to interpretation it just is, whereas with Alexander and with Jesus the claim to godhood is based on a POV perspective of their words. --Alterego 23:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You don't? But Jesus and the Pharaohs are on the same list! :-P OK, seriously now. I wasn't arguing Jesus and the Pharaohs were in any way comparable as far as disputes go. The point I was making is that technically the entry for the Pharaohs doesn't source that they proclaimed themselves gods. It says their culture considered them gods—of course this is the only notable POV and nobody disputes that the Pharaohs didn't consider themselves deities (because, gosh, you'd expect that they'd say so if they thought everyone was wrong, and pick less grandiose titles), but, technically, we're not substantiating that they proclaimed themselves deities. If this list were truly pedantic, the Pharaohs would have to be kicked out—not because people dispute their claims, but because we don't argue they made them in the first place. (Again, I stress this is a technicality and I can't imagine anyone seriously advocating this line of thought, but I couldn't help but see and mention it.) JRM · Talk 00:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say that both lists "white" and "green" cannot coexist in the same article without further disputes. My view is that there are two articles in the making, one for the "green" list and one for the "white" list. The Green list on List of people who have said they are a god and the "white" list List of people believed to be a God. --ZappaZ

00:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a natural dichotomy. Any article covering this topic should not use weasel words, and having two very similar and only different in nuance titles is the epitome of what weasel words are. We have great information presentation thus far, a simple sub-categorization will suffice. Keep in mind that a "List of people believed to be a god" is over-inclusive, as not only does it categorize those who said they are a god, but also those who said they are a god and have people who believe them to be a god. We achieve this with the double dagger already. We need one straightforward title, e.g., "List of people who said they are a god". "Saying" can be in speech or writing, basically any communication. Since language can be ambiguous, ambiguity such as we are encountering here is par for the course. I do not want us to make the mistake that other articles have made in the past of judging the relative strength of claims and am happy to recognize that there are two simple categorical claims (which we have already recognized). The most simple way I can think of expressing it is that we add another symbol for Jesus and Alexander (and perhaps others) or perhaps tint their rows a shade of another color. Our solution should be elegant and not drastic. --Alterego 02:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with elegant vs. drastic. I am talking about NOPV and factual accuracy. As for ambiguity and language, we tried but you did not like the term "unequivocal". --ZappaZ

04:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It has everything to do with elegant vs. drastic. We have identified a difference in the article that has nothing to do with npov or factual accuracy (*anymore*), but rather how we present the information. A list with two entrants is an absurd idea and I am opposed to it. I feel that if all of the claims for Jesus are cited as JRM suggested the article would be fine. The claims for Alexander are already cited fairly well. Krishna et al. need work. Unfortunately there is a lot of literature on these folks. If no one objects now I might move the article title tomorrow. I think that change will make a big difference in the overall perception of the article. "List of people who have said they are a god"...? --Alterego 04:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I continue to disagree together with other editors. Added factual dipute tag. --ZappaZ 16:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying really, really hard not to be cynical. All of your past arguments have been rebuked, so instead of simply telling us "i'm angry" or "i don't like this", please explain what it is, precisely, that you are disputing now. I'm going to approach your complaint seriously, and i'm going to spend a lot of time on my answer, so if it is just a conclusion, or a "i don't like this", expect to be ignored. I'm a full time+ college student with a full time research position on top of it, and I don't have time for one-liners. If you really dispute what's in the article, let's hear what you dispute clearly. --Alterego 16:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

That is very unfair. I have made my arguments above in this page quite extensively, as other editors have. You have chosen to ignore these, thus the disputed tag. --ZappaZ

01:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You started your argument by saying you don't think Jesus said it. The rest of your argument aims to prove that point. I don't really care about that point, because it's not up to us to argue. It is because of that statement that I gave you the opportunity to start over, and I said I am willing to confront an argument that doesn't have the aim of satisfying a POV seriously. My position is that Jesus belongs in the article with the current description, which presents all sides very clearly. --Alterego 01:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Read the comments/proposals by myself, User:JRM, and User:Rd232. --ZappaZ

01:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I explained why your white and green lists are incoherent. --Alterego 01:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but your inability to accept input from other editors, and your unilateral edits such as moving the article to another name and changing the criteria for inclusion, all of that while we are discussing theses subjects, is unacceptable behavior and contrary to the Wikipedia concept of collaboration and consensus. --ZappaZ

02:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The decision that the article needed a new title has been uncontested for a really long time. There was no suitable alternative. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current title except that it is wordy. But it says exactly what it contains. I accept input from other editors all the time. Usually they express their opinion by making an edit to the article that is worth keeping. You just like arguing. I'm willing to argue with you, but you shouldn't get offended when I point out that most of the time you are trying to prove a point of view that you privately hold. I don't have a POV one way or the other on any of these entrants and my aim is to base decisions on the facts. I don't know why you are throwing policy at me either, I can just as easily cite be bold. Most of my edits are uncontested, btw. --Alterego 02:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Whyy remove joshua

(Copied from Talk:Editing List of people who have said they are a god, now deleted) its simple. , he , in the texts, is cited as the SON of god, not a god himself, even he clims this. ttrinity and evangelicals aside, this seems to disqualify him for this list. Gavin the Chosen 00:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this touches on anything in the present description of Jesus. Here it is: The most popular Christian views of Jesus hold that in the Canonical Gospels he said he was God Incarnate, who took on human nature and human flesh and is the second person of the Holy Trinity. One commonly cited statement attributed to Jesus on his godhood is John 14:10 - "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.(KJB)" Other similar religious perspectives on Jesus include the Bahá'í Faith, who consider Jesus to be a manifestation of God, and some Hindus, who equate Jesus with an avatar - an incarnation of God on earth - along with Rama and Krishna. Others believe that Jesus' words have been misinterpreted - that he never actually said he was a god - and still others that the historicity of Jesus is doubtful - that he never existed. --Alterego 01:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thats got nothing to do with it. what other people view people as has nothing o do with if people claimed to be a god or not. he never claimed to BE a god. just the son of one.Gavin the Chosen 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, again I think you're trying to put (your version of) The Truth into the article. The Truth is not something we can all agree on, so we use verifiable information instead. It's readily verifiable what the Bible says, and it's easily verifiable how people interpret it. Many, many people believe that the Bible does say that Jesus said he was God. We can argue all day long about whether that's correct, but it doesn't help us write an encyclopedia. In truth, we don't have a good, accurate way of knowing everything he did or did not say. I am saddened that you continue editing by brute force rather than by consensus. Friday (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A couple ideas, for the community.

How about an entry here on David Koresh? I seem to recall something about his belief in himself as a manifestation of Jesus Christ. Probably worth a bullet mention in this article.
I think the title of this article is very unweildy and awkward. Theres no elegance or flow to its structure now, and well... just seems a little off. "List of self-proclaimed dieties" had at least a flow, a certain cadence, but really, the "List of" part was superfluous. The title could have easily been "Self proclaimed dieties". The title now is kind of..well who says things? People. People are the only beings that can say anything (provable). It just seems redundant to say so. So I suggest a change back to "Self proclaimed dieties" OR "Self proclaimed gods". I prefer dieties, "gods" seems overtly slanted towards greco-judeo-christian ethos, whereas dieties seems more all-encompassing. Just a couple ideas. See ya 'round! Hamster Sandwich 05:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the reason David Koresh isn't in the article. Basically, he belongs on the "List of messiah claimaints" but not here. By the way, Alex (parrot) can talk, so not provable. He even uses words creatively. --Alterego 06:03, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Title

This title is still awkward, and I still prefer the previous one since "claim" is purely descriptive. Wikipedia cannot possibly account for the innumerable connotations of every phrase in the English language when determining neutral wording. — Dan | Talk 05:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, would you state your suggestion for a new title for this article? Hamster Sandwich 05:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No one is attempting to "account for the innumerable connotations of every phrase in the English language." To say someone claimed to do something is to recognize that they might not have done it. We don't want to take that step - we only want to say that they said it and let the reader draw their own conclusions. We aren't saying "they said it, but who knows". We are just saying "they said it". There is a problem beyond that, however. "self-proclaimed" is used very frequently by skeptics and the like to deride someones statement about their godhood. In fact, that's the only context it occurs in. So not only does it contain the word claim but it is a loaded phrase to begin with. I am not a stickler for this version of the title, I just ask that a new one not use the word claim and that it describe exactly what we are talking about. --Alterego 05:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Any takers for "self-declared deities"? (I really hope "declare" doesn't have any nuances of which I'm unaware.) — Dan | Talk 06:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the precedent footsteps that we would want to walk in. Reading uses of "self-anything", easily available on the internet, makes the bias easily available. I think in IRC you said that Google doesn't matter, but the fact is Google does matter and the Google test is frequently employed. Saying someone is a "self-declared expert" or "self-proclaimed expert", for example has a clear negative connotation. It's the nature of the phrase. I am very sorry that I ever thought it up and can only think it was in my head because validating these entries require I read some of these skeptical websites. A residual mistake. --Alterego 06:11, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Results are cluttered with these. These both come from the same page on Adi Da, one of our entrants:

Like many self-proclaimed Messiahs, peel back a few layers of their yack and what you discover is a matrix for chaos, such that naive and susceptible listeners who have not attained a mature sense of self (the pre-requisite for transcending that very sense) will be mind-swoggled. It is a kind of insidious dissembling for which the CIA/State Dept/Defense Dept./Executive Branch et al have become notorious in complicity, for example, and has infected so much political discourse over the last few decades. The Art of the Spin.

His greatness, according to the second part of his teaching, lies not in what you have realized from him, for which many of us feel grateful, but from what you "will" realize and have not realized yet. So the self declared greatness he claims is based on what he has not given, rather than what he has given, on what he only promises, on what he has not proved he can deliver on, in other words, the usual imaginative stuff of the ordinary search. That’s the switch, and it entraps those who fall for it in and endless dependence on frank.

This was not simply cherry picked. They are easily available. --Alterego 06:14, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

A term is not loaded simply because a non-neutral source uses it. Consider the dictionary entry for declare - no nuances. Again, you're accounting for a connotation which this term has acquired among certain people, but let me assure you (as one of those exempt) that it is by no means universal. — Dan | Talk 06:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

- I have to agree with Rd on the issue of nuances. The words "declare" or "proclaim" are just synonyms for "people who say" something. Theres nothing really loaded about them, to an impartial reader. Either term is simply going to look better on the page, and be less (I'll say it again) unweildy. To me the purpose of editing is not merely to gather facts and references and arcana, thats certainly a large part of it, but editing is also about improving the language, pace and flow of articles. It's only my opinion, but I feel the title of this piece just dosen't do any justice to the article itself. Its a lovely article, and one that I can see being referenced by a wide range of people. If I was a student and I had to research something like this topic, I would be looking for "Self proclaimed dieties", with apologies to RD and his suggestion of "Self declared dieties". How about a compromise and say something like "Self identified dieties". I was thinking "List of messianic humans" but thats as bad or worse than anything we've discussed on quite a few levels! I'm not adverse to kicking this around a bit more. Any other ideas brave editors? Hamster Sandwich 06:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

We aren't dealing with the words declare and proclaim, we are dealing with the phrases self-declare and self-proclaim. Please talk about my argument when you argue against it and not something else (with the exception of the word claim, which has been shown throughout the article to be unnecessary). I have shown that those who are skeptical of these people use these phrases all the time. People who have been in these cults edit this article and they are familiar with these phrases. Read the old history for examples of them coming here and expressing their dissent. It is an issue if we use the skeptical way of talking about them as the primary way of describing them because that is how they approach the article - as a place to vent a dissenting POV. In spirit this isn't a list of people that self-proclaim or self-declare anything. It is a list of people who said or wrote something (which are both captured with said), or were interpreted as having done so. I have suggested more concise titles in the past but folks did not like them, so please read through the history to see them. I would personally accept List of human deities. The List of deities recognizes that they may not actually be deities and doesn't insult the readers intelligence by being wordy and suggesting the fact. I don't think there is an issue with it, but if necessary a corellary List of fictional human deities could be crafted to account for Hercules and others (assuming it can be shown that no one thought Hercules or the subject matter ever existed, e.g., they are merely a fable, myth or protagonist to a story). --Alterego 13:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

List of people considered to be deities seems to work as well. I believe it implies by themselves or others and accurately captures the subject matter. --Alterego 17:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Forget the title

I've been away for a while... Two cents: "List of people who have said that they are gods" is exactly the same to me as "List of self-proclaimed deities", minor semantic squibbles aside which are not enough for suggesting a new focus. People who disputed earlier entries are going to dispute them on this list, too. The basic issue of did he/she really say they were God/a god/<deity> remains. OK, so using "said they were" instead of "self-proclaimed" is slightly more inclusive and less controversial. But only very slightly. In any case, you can argue about the exact title endlessly. This isn't where you should be sinking your time in. Concentrate instead on giving the list a clear focus, and the title, even if not perfect, will fit.

Let's look at the definition instead. It now reads:

The list of people who have said that they are gods consists of those notable human beings who have made statements about being a god, or have been interpreted by a significant amount of followers as having said they are a god. It additionally contains those whose historicity may be uncertain, those whose entire culture assumed they were a god, such as with the pharaohs, and those with a more inclusive view who believed others could attain godhood as well.

Muddled! Concise and clear writing isn't a luxury in this case—nor is squashing everything in a single paragraph necessarily a good idea. Suggestion (which I won't be so bold as to implement straightaway):

This is a list of self-proclaimed deities, where a "self-proclaimed deity" is defined as:
A person who literally said they were God, a god, or a specific deity or

A person who made a statement controversially interpreted to mean that by a notable amount of people.

This is irrespective of whether the person listed is believed to be a deity by others. Having an entry here does not imply the person is or is not a deity, only that they themselves are believed to have made statements to that effect.

The list does not include fictional characters, but does include people whose historicity is disputed.

Yes, lose the Pharaohs and the pantheists. They don't fit and it's not worth shoehorning in exceptions so they do. If you want them (the Pharaohs, the pantheists actually don't fit anywhere), put them on this list:

No one disputes that the pharaohs considered themselves deities. If the prose of the article is in error, making it into an ugly formatted bulleted list is not going to help that. And your suggestion wildly changes the character of the article and blows by pages of past discussions which resulted in their being listed. Just because it's on an archive page and you have to click once to get to it doesn't mean it didn't happen. --Alterego 17:33, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify my comments here: I don't think "List of people believed to be deities" is a bad title, as long as it is the only title. A list of people believed to be deities could contain people others believe to be deities and also people who believe themselves to be deities. Belief is characterized by the most common sense notion available: we have some sort of verifiable evidence that someone indicated that they really believed this person was a deity. Even if it was themselves. --Alterego 17:20, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is a list of people believed to be deities. It includes people whose deityhood is disputed by others, but not people whose deityhood is not supported by any significant amount of followers.

But if you have that list, it does make sense to restrict the list of self-proclaimed deities like this:

This is a list of self-proclaimed deities, where a "self-proclaimed deity" is defined as:
A person who literally said they were God, a god, or a specific deity or

A person who made a statement controversially interpreted to mean that by a notable amount of people.

It does not include people who are believed to be deities by a significant amount of followers (even if they affirmed that belief themselves), see list of people believed to be deities for those.

JRM · Talk 14:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the prose style in the paragraph is lacking, if only a little. For instance the sentance "those whose entire culture assumed they were a god, such as with the pharaohs" could easily be condensed to,"those who were culturally assumed to be gods, such as Egyptian pharoahs" and to be entirely accurate (pun) I would have to add the pre-Columbian Meso-American kings to that phrase, and any other "God-kings'. In removing the word "entire" we remove any subjectivity. Was every single person in Egypt under the impression the pharoah was a god? Even the poor bastard who had to carry his stool out to dispose of it? More than likely not. As I pointed out above, the title is merely unweildy and very, well, elementary to the impartial observer. Hamster Sandwich 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What is this about "impartial observers"? Simply because you are ignorant of a distinct POV does not mean it doesn't exist. No one was willing to confront my argument directly. Rather than approaching it JRM calls it a "minor semantic squibble" (although you do then admit it is better, so I don't see the merit of focus afterwards). This is even in the face of a very specific and derogatory usage the phrase "self-proclaim" and "self-declaim" in a web page about one of our subjects. It is a problem, and until you confront my argument directly it will remain a problem. As it is you have merely beaten around the bush. The entire article itself does not lack focus - there is a very specific subject matter that it attempts to capture - those people who have said that they are gods. However you want to say it, those people, and only those people, belong in the article. My last suggestion was completely ignored as well. Sorry, but this is not how you have a discussion. You have essentially suggested that we cover up the POV of the title by changing something in the article. Something characterized by Hamster as "lacking, if only a little". That's not going to do it, please return to the previous thread. Attempting to reply to this post by JRM is a nightmare. So many sweeping statements were made regarding entire cultures and other entrants that need to be handled on a case by case basis that it is impossible for me to reply in a single coherent paragraph. This has severely fractured our discussion. --Alterego 17:37, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

- - - Well since you asked me directly, I will offer the opinion that you, Alterego are behaving in a less than impartial way concerning changes to the language of this article. In the previous section you made the arguement that we were not talking about words, but rather phrases. That gave me some pause, and I wanted to wait to formulate a proper response, not only to your comment, but your suggestions as well. Of course people full of religious zeal and righteous belief that "X" is a god, made flesh, sent to earth to help, destroy, maintain or in other ways affect the mere humans who inhabit the place. And they are going to push a PPOV concerning their belief, faith, whatever you want to call it. To bad for them, right? If you can't cite a source that backs up their claim, it's not in. That is eminently correct and fair, not just here, but in 99.9% of encyclopedia articles. I feel that to characterize me as ignorant is more than slightly unfair. When I offered that people were the only beings who could potentially "proclaim" a fact, you sent me to a link to a trained bird! I got a good laugh, but it made me realize, you might not be entirely impartial, concerning the content of this article. Did you create it? Are you being defensive because you've had to revert changes made to it? I am curious to know. The terms "self-proclaimed', "self-declared", "self-defined", "self-identified" are superior in prose and mature writing style than what is there presently. Since I thought to comment on it a mere few hours ago, there has been a lot of discussion around the writing here. No one is disputing content beyond the prose. By my count, 4 distinct editors have commented on it and your responses have been stricly defensive. Except your last one which was more on the attacking side of things. But I will let that mostly slide. I may reference it again if need be. What you should try to understand is that so far during this discussion, other editors have been trying to suggest improvement to the language here. To make it seem less like an primary school style of writing. If religious zealots try to add their own candidate for godhood here without providing references, too bad for them! They don't get in! Simple as that. One of the reasons I didn't offer too much in the way of discussion about Jesus, is that I just couldn't find a place where he had said he was a god. I don't have a personal point to prove concerning that, so it's easy to let it slide, from my own POV. So I look at the way the article reads impartially, rather than the content. I don't dispute the content one iota. I don't believe anybody, any person from the past, that is now present or could be added in the future is a god. I never will, but I will defend to the death a person's right to follow or believe that any or all of them are gods. There have been several decent suggestions for a more intelligent choice of words not only regarding the title of this piece, but the content as well. I leave it at that for the time being, and of course welcome any further discussion on the issue of prose and style as concerns this article. Hamster Sandwich 17:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't characterize you as ignorant, and you saying that is unfair because it is a very deep reading of the sentence I posted, which was "Simply because you are ignorant of a distinct POV does not mean it does not exist." Clearly I didn't refer to you, because, if you've been reading my posts, I posted a very clear example from a web page critical of Adi Da that displayed this POV. Since I was under the impression that you had read my posting, I was clearly not suggesting that you were ignorant in that sense, or, as you read it, ignorant in general. I believe you did that to give strength to the rest of your argument, and I believe you were being disingenuous. Regarding the Alex, keep in mind that I study Cognitive Science and learning in Alex (and learning in general) is very similar to learning in humans, and I am well aware of that. That's how I knew where the article on Alex was - we are not the only ones capable of creative thought. Alex understands the concept of zero and I meant it seriously. I am in favor of - and not against - changes in the prose. However, I sugget those changes simply be made. Your suggested change of the pharaohs seems fine to me, an improvement even. I did start this article, and I have participated in all the discussions that have brought it to the present over the last year. Nearly every single one of those citations were done by me, and I have tried hard to maintain a strict level of integrity here. You were not present in the past discussion of the title, although they are certainly available. It was agreed upon to change it after the content had been substantially cited and improved upon. It has, and now it is time to reconcile the topic of the title. Even still no one has confronted my point (other than to call it petty or some such, which is not a way to confront a point) that I renamed the article List of self-proclaimed deities and that I believe I did so because I had been reading skeptical websites in searching out the validity of certain entries. I believe it is residual, that by searching the uses of those phrases on the internet it is clear they are only used by the skeptical point of view, which is unacceptabble, and that a more suitable title is possible. As it stands this is a meta-argument and for whatever reason no one is willing to continue the last thread, which means progress has ended. Whether or not I started the article shouldn't be relevant here. I am not promoting a particular point of view regarding any entry, and I have demanded all along that individual arguments be carried out for every particular topic (in the case of changing the wording, it is done so often that it is best to see how the new wording fits than argue it out each time - that is an opinion). I am willing to have those arguments, one by one, however long it takes, and I don't believe you will find impartiality in these discussions. I have done a considerable amount of validation work and base my arguments only on that work, never on my opinion. As you can see here, I have presented evidence again external to Wikipedia about why I believe those phrases are unsatisfactory. I have maintained this standard for argumentation all along. --Alterego 18:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith - in trouble

Almost three hours ago, Gavin the Chosen deleted Jesus from the list again in change, the comment for which was that he was typing up a reason to support the repeated reversion in Talk, and that he didn't want anyone reverting it before he finished. It's been almost three hours since, and no new discussion from his has shown up. After he made his change, I repaired the content with the request that consensus be reached ahead of time, but I find the fact that he has not posted here as promised to be another indicator of an editor working in bad faith. I feel that Gavin put that text there to delay a repair, and I'm saddened by this. - CHAIRBOY 04:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel Simon got blocked for violating 3RR. I support this block. SlimVirgin and I are trying to teach Gabriel/Gavin how to edit cooperatively.

My own edit (explained below) serves two purposes. (1) It represents what I feel is the best way to present knowledge about Jesus and people who have said that they are gods. (2) It provides a model of making a controversial change and immediately explaining it, which is a good example for Gabriel to follow. It will be my only edit today, and I won't un-revert this edit even if someone reverts it without explanation.

We all have to think about the larger issues here, particularly the integrity of Wikipedia itself. The process of wiki collaboration is a fragile one, but it can be strengthened by making a good faith effort to work together to present knowledge accurately and without bias. Uncle Ed 16:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Did Jesus say he was a god?

Regardless of the 3RR issue surrounding Gabriel, i.e. Gavin the Chosen, there are good reasons for classing Jesus Christ as a special case. In Christianity, he's considered to be the Christ (see Christology).

Moreover, there's the distinction between:

a god
God, the creator of all things Who began life on earth

It will take more space than a single table cell to make this distinction. Uncle Ed 16:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The distinction between God and god is that God specifically refers to the monotheistic, non-polytheistic God, whereas 'god' includes the monotheistic god, as well as polytheistic beliefs which entail the possibility of more than one god, i.e., it is a more general term, and the one being used primarily in the article. You are absolutely right - the article on Caelifera (grassoppers) mentions they are of the order Orthoptera. To explain the Orthoptera order in the grasshopper article would no doube involve more than one word. Luckily we have an entire article on the subject, as is the case here. You say there are good reasons for "classing Jesus Christ as a special case". That is a conclusion. Your premise is that "he's considered to be the Christ (see Christology)". As you feinted specificity, I will assume you mean to say that some Christians do not consider Jesus to be a god. I would agree with that point (if it is yours, and of that we can't be sure since you didn't say), which is why in the most recent description of Jesus, I started with the text, "The most popular Christian views of Jesus...", which all at once informs the reader that there are more Christian views of Jesus available, and precisely where they can find them. As to the distinction between god and God, the word god is linked to in the introductory sentence of the article, which links to polytheism, which explains that "The belief in many gods does not preclude the belief in an all- powerful all-knowing supreme being." Hope that clears things up. --Alterego 20:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see in retrospect that your comment here was in reply to the edit in which you replaced the entire description regarding Jesus with "Disputed - see theory of the Trinity". It is not clear how that edit corresponds with your comment here, nor how it makes the situation regarding Jesus clear to the reader. If you feel a particular and notable POV has been left out of the section on Jesus, they can surely be added, but as of yet I have not seen this presented. --Alterego

I have been bold and added the distinction between God and a god to the intro. The rest of the caveats that apply to Jesus are also there, or in His particular entry. Rich Farmbrough 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a fine change. --Alterego 22:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Objection to Double purpose

I object to the criteria having two distinctions (people that said thet are god, and people that others thing they said they are god), and the title just one. This makes the article factually innacurate and useless. --ZappaZ 00:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Changed the criteria to include "people who have said they are gods" only, as per the article's title, and removed all these that do not fit the criteria. The article is now NPOV, and factually accurate. --ZappaZ 00:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop.

Stop removing Jesus without comment. Hipocrite 12:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

jesus removed

becasue no one can actually quote "him" as saying " i am a god" or anything simmilar, with verifivbillity. there are many versions of what was said, and the most verifiable says that he said he was the SON of a god, which, again disqualifies him for this article. also there is the fact that a lot of people BELIEVE hes a god, yes, but that doesnt mean he made that claim. there is even great doubt among a great deal of people as to weather he even existed or not. all of this points to removal, which ishall do shortly.Gavin the Chosen 13:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

John 14:10 - "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." Hipocrite 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

thats a son speaking ofhis father, not someone trying to claim to BE the father.Gavin the Chosen 13:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Gavin, thank you for leaving this comment. What you say makes a lot of sense, and I hope you continue to argue your position here. However, please try to persuade the others, rather than reverting. If others want to delete it, they will, but you've deleted it too often, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

channelling the divine doesnt make one divine. demigods in all sorts of myths did superpowered things, butthey are still only demigods ( as the sn of a god would be called)Gavin the Chosen 13:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The caveats included in Jesus' entry more than make up for your misgivings about his inclusion in the list. There is no good reason for removal. android 79 13:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

that doesnt make it right to jump into the fray. see, other people other then i have removed it, hipocrite was attempting to reinsert it, without outside interfereance, it would have remained removed, but, you upset the balance of how things usually work. Other then that. loook at the article, people have been directly quoted in non controversial media with the claim they are gods, so they remain, charlie manson was removed becasue he didnt claim to ber a god. niether did jesus, he claimed to b e the son of a god. if you push aside evangelical beliefs ( which are at best unverifiable) and the holy trinity, (which DOES separate jesus from a god, but does signify him as devine in origion) then we are left with the simple fact that jesus called god daddy, and claimed to be gods son. this is why he gets removed. please undo your reversion of my removal.Gavin the Chosen 13:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Gavin, I hope I did upset the balance of how things usually work, because how things usually work is you keep reverting until you're blocked. I take your point about Jesus calling God daddy. ;-D But the fact remains that he did godlike things (healing, wine from water, fish from loaves, risen from the dead, and on it goes), and he implied that these were not accidents. As Android says, the entry is qualified to reflect the god/son confusion. Please don't revert again or you'll have violated 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? I was reinserting it EVERY TIME it got removed - because it should be there. I got duped by whatshisname doing the sequence of good removals (though he should have created the list of Jesus claimants, like I did, to put them in), and giving edit summaries for everything BUT jesus. Finally, to you factual claim - That's your opinion. The Catholic Church thinks you're wrong. So do the Pentecostals. So do the Episcopalians. There's a long discussion about why Jesus is in the list in his comment box. If you'd like to find a source worth quoting that disputes Jesus saying he is god, and insert that in his explanation box, let's do that. He's staying on the list. Hipocrite 13:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Inthe oldest versions of the book, which are the most verifiable, he makes no claim to being a god, he calls god daddy. as for being duped, well, guess what? i saw an edit summary for jesus being removed back there somewhere. as for you reverting every time it gets removed, id say that counts towars being disruptive, on the same grounds that i was supposedly disruptive. anywasy, aas i was saying, in the oldest surviving bpoooks, he calls god HIS father. that seems to preclude any modificationsthat modren people may have inserted over the years, and it seems to disarm your claim.Gavin the Chosen 13:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

(This comment was removed by accident:)

WP:NOR. Cites please. There was no edit summary for the most recent removal of Jesus prior to you. Hipocrite 13:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

as for saying it should be there, thats your opinion, hipocrite. you have yet to present any evidacne that is in any way convincing. i however, have typed to thepoint that its getting painfullGavin the Chosen 13:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the vast majority of the Christian Churches and the Catholic Church. I'm not pushing an opinion - I'm contributing to an encyclopedia. That you are not convinced by the evidence that is right there in the comments box is not my problem - it's yours. Hipocrite 13:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

got any sources that would proove without the abillioty to misinterpret , that shows good old joshua saying" i am a god" and not mentioning anything like "the father" or some such in it? as long as hes saying hes a god , and not saying anything else that could detract from it in the statement, it would be a good source.Gavin the Chosen 13:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No. Jesus used "Father," as translated, not God. The sources listed suffice. Hipocrite 13:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

the sources listed to d not suffice, for they say daddy, not god. and of course anyones going to say i am of my daddy, iuf they are proud of thier daddy. that doesnt mean he said he was agod.Gavin the Chosen 13:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you read Holy Trinity yet? Do so. Hipocrite 13:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

yup, i have, it says THE FATHER and THE SON as separate entities. that doesnt help your case any, niether does translating as father. Gavin the Chosen 13:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Could a source perhaps be provided in the entry saying he indicated he was a god, and another source arguing against this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutly. I look forward to that second source being provided. Hipocrite 13:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that the dispute has to be about the alleged STATEMENT that he is a god, not about the alleged FACT that he is a god. We don't let people who think that Sathya Sai Baba is a fraud and a charlatan remove him from the list - he's said he's a god, so he's on. Hipocrite 13:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Holy Trinity says: God is a single being existing simultaneously as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. This is central to Catholic and (AFAIK) many other Christian denominations. android 79 13:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

thats a beleifthat came long afterthebodyd of jesus supposedly died, the second time, as it were. which as next to nothing to do with what the "man" or possibly demigod said of himself. im really not sure that the concept of holy trrinity has to do with the" man" or possibly demigod's words.Gavin the Chosen 13:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

1) Jesus claimed to be the son of God. 2) In the belief of many Christians, the Son of God is part of a divine holy trinity – a single being that exists simultaneously as three entities. 3) If Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he claimed to be a part of that trinity, and therefore, claimed to be a God, in the belief of many. This is all explained in Jesus' entry on the list. I really don't understand your opposition to his inclusion, especially given this compromise. android 79 14:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

its interpretation of others that put words in his mouth, not his words themselves that put him as claiming to be a god. the others on this list said, out and out, " i am a god" no misinterpretation, or interpretation required, no beleif structures, just direct quotes.Gavin the Chosen 14:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I dont have the dead sea scrolls handy, butthey are the oldest surviving cvoy of the biblical tet, and so, they are the most unmodified. from when i saw a trnsaltion of them, it saidnthing about god being jesus. no such claim was made. pleae provide your cource.Gavin the Chosen 13:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I take it you're interpreting the "Father is in me" statement to be a claim to godhood, but is this widely accepted as such, because there's a sense in which it's original research to take primary-source material and interpret it without supplying a credible secondary source for the interpretation. I'm not trying to be difficult, and personally I don't care, but I'm wondering whether Gavin may have a point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

There's never a copy of the Dead Sea scrolls handy when you need one.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

the dead sea scrolls contain among otherthings , a reallty old copy of the bible. thats where my whole argument, on that part, comes from... ifthat helps any... oh crap, did i delete someones comments? didnt mean toGavin the Chosen 14:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not accurate. The dead sea scrolls contain, absolutly no content about Jesus. If your argument comes from a misunderstanding of what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I think we've solved our disagreement. Hipocrite 14:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite is right. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention Jesus, as the DD Scrolls only deal with the Old Testament. Jesus is in the New Testament. Acetic '^Acid 14:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The following comments removed via edit conflict:

The dead sea scrolls have nothing to do with Jesus except in the fevered minds of conspiracy theorists. Are you making things up? Hipocrite 14:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not doing said interepretation. I rely on secondary sources. In this case, my main secondary source was 2 undergraduate classes on religion. However, to prevent any accusations that my memory of this incredibly basic point is wrong, I'll provide the following web links:

I submit that Jesus meets the criteria for the list, despite misgivings about absolute claims of Godhood: It additionally contains those whose historicity may be uncertain, those whose entire culture assumed they were a god, such as with the pharaohs. android 79 14:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Are we interpreting the word 'Lord' as 'God' or 'deity?' Because, in John 13:13-14, Jesus says, "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet." Acetic '^Acid 14:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Android, I think we'd need scholarly theological sources for this, rather than websites with particular messages. I don't know what word Lord was translated from, Acetic Acid. Does anyone have a secondary, scholarly source arguing that Jesus referred to himself as a god? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

A. We don't need one - "those whose entire culture assumed they were a god"

B. [5]Hipocrite

Those aren't my comments. I believe they are Hipocrites'. Mine start with I submit that... I don't feel there's a need to show absolute proof that Jesus said "I am God" at some point, because I believe the explanatory text in the table more than makes up for any ambiguity, although I'm reasonably sure a secondary source could be provided to back this up. It's been awhile since theology class. android 79 14:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Time to start signing your edits, Hipocrite, people are getting confused! :-) android 79 14:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - I was trying to solve the edit conflict problem and fergot to hit the ~'s. Fixed. Hipocrite 14:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that's good enough for me, Android (the inclusion of "whose entire culture assumed they were a god). I was too focused on the title. Thanks for putting up with my questions. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Slim. I appreciate your efforts here. I believe we have a consensus. Would you mind unprotecting the article and restoring the Jesus-included version? android 79 14:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't unprotect against the wishes of El C, but you could post a note on his talk page, or on WP:RfPP. Actually, I'll put a note on his page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:58, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Already done. Friday (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Fix:

Unlike the POV warriors who want Jesus removed from the article, I actually care about providing valuable content in a good form. We have reached consensus on the inclusion of Jesus, but, beyond that, please fix the coloration on the table, which I have painstakingly fixed by hand. Hipocrite 14:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

there is no such consensus.Gavin the Chosen 15:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite, Slim, Acetic Acid, and I all believe that the Jesus entry should remain. You appear to be the lone objector to its inclusion. Looks like a consensus to me. android 79 15:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE FIX THE COLORS AT LEAST! Hipocrite 15:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

pretned yelling wont help anythingGavin the Chosen 15:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You come back and this is your contribution? Hipocrite 15:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree with the inclusion of Jesus, if this article is titled "People who have said that they are gods". If the article name is changed to "List of people that others believe that they say they are gods" then Jesus would belong. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The article's title may not be perfect, but this concern is already addressed in the introduction and in Jesus' entry in the list. android 79 15:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting argument. How can we actually prove that those people believe what people say they believe? We'll need to name the list to "list of people that others believe that others belive that they say they are gods." Hipocrite 15:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I already said this at the RfPP page, but I have a version with correct row colors, here. Mistercow 21:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No one has presented a comprehensive argument which expands on past arguments and successfully argues the points which I and others have made. Thus, Jesus cannot yet be considered to be removed from the article. The current version is not endorsed. --Alterego 22:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Right, and I lean towards the "include Jesus" side here, but until the page is unprotected, we might as well have it formatted correctly. Mistercow 22:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, so are we just keeping the version with a format error until the page is unprotected? Mistercow 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is this protected?

A couple things. 1) Nothing in the entire Bible is as verifiable as last week's Geraldo Rivera interview; there are no living witnessess. We go with the best we have. 2) Assuming the bible is OK to use as a source here, I direct you to John 10:30 "I and the Father are one". The subsequent verses make it very clear that the Jews hearing him at the time took this to mean Jesus was claiming to be God. I don't see where there's much room for disagreement. Most modern Christians believe he claimed to be God; the Jews at the time (according to the Bible) assumed the same thing. We can argue all day long about whether he really meant that, but our own speculation is inadmissable. The Jesus section mentions that there may be disagreement; that's fine. Removing him outright is inappropriate.

Gavin should be blocked again for disruption. And, I don't see any purpose to the page being protected; I see no larger edit war here. Friday (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

1 - john whatever you quoted and the folowing are talking aboutthier purpose being one. 2 - what people beleive of someone ifs VERY different from what the personSAID. 3 - would you stop squealing for people to block me? its getting REALLLLY annoying.Gavin the Chosen 15:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite (possibly facetiously) requested protection in an edit summary, and El_C protected the "wrong" version without explanation here. See above for discussion that I believe led to a consensus that the Jesus entry be retained. android 79 14:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I already read it, and to me the consensus for removing Jesus is far from clear. I posted in a new section mainly to avoid the ubiqitous conflicts, and to try to center a discussion firmly on the protection issue. I've also asked El_C if he cares to comment. Friday (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

For clarification, I was indeed being facetious when I requested page protection in the edit summary. Operation footbullet on my part, it seems. Hipocrite 14:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In the future, please avoid misleading edit summaries. Now, who aside from Gabriel objects to the Jesus entry? El_C 15:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

please read what i siad about why it should not be included, and make your own judgement on the validity of what i siad.Gavin the Chosen 15:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Apologies on the edit summary. Humor keeps me from breaking my monitor. Hipocrite 15:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And, in the spirit of openess, I would be willing to bet that User: Zappaz objects to Jesus' inclusion. Hipocrite 15:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That's quite alright, no harm done or time wasted on my part, but I did take your request literally. The ALL CAPS revealed to me a certain urgent distress; textual nuances are a harsh mistress. Now, again, as per my question directly above... El_C 15:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case, we would have to also include all those that argued for Jesus' inclusion in previous incarnations of this debate. The fact that Jesus was included before indicates where the consensus was prior to Gavin's reverts. android 79 15:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Removing Jesus has been discussed before. However to my knowledge there's never been a consensus other than for keeping him included. Gavin, to his credit, did start a dialogue on the talk page. However, I believe his mistake was repeated reverting without waiting for any kind of consensus. This wasn't really an edit war IMO. Friday (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

it could also indicate "warriors" like hipocrite, who admitedly " revert its deletion every time its removed" forthier own perosnal opinions.Gavin the Chosen 15:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion. WP:AGF. Like I said, I'm a Jew, and I don't care, except that the list is better with Jesus on it.Hipocrite 15:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It is your peronal opinion, as you jut stated. self contradiction aside. also its hard to assume good fiath when you revert without participating in the discussion first.Gavin the Chosen 15:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's my opinion that THE LIST IS BETTER WITH JESUS ON IT, yes. It's not my opinion about his claims, or lack of claims, about his godhood. I don't know, or really care, what he said. The list is a better list with Jesus. Without Jesus, it sucks. I reverted the removal of Jesus without comment, which I will continue to do. I have not reverted the removal of Jesus with comment unless said comment had resolved itself on the talk page already. Hipocrite 15:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain why do you think it "sucks" without Jesus included? ≈ jossi ≈ 15:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutly. For the vast majority of the world who cares, the expectation is that Jesus will be on the list. With him not on the list, the list loses credibility in their eyes - "Who excludes Jesus? Is this a list that excludes people who really are gods? Why is my god on the list?" For the people who are theologically educated enough to understand why Jesus might not make the list, they get just as much encyclopedic value out of Jesus being on the list with an explanation of his unique status. I'd also note that we have no direct evidence that Krishna was a person, or that Alexander the Great actually said that he was a god or was just present when OTHER people called him one. Hipocrite 16:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

sounds like being disruptive to me.Gavin the Chosen 15:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, cause I now see the confusion - if you remove jesus without comment, I will revert you. If you remove Jesus with comment, I will first discuss with you on the talk page why you are wrong, and then reinsert Jesus. If you can change the body of scholarship on the Trinity such that it dosen't reflect a belief that jesus said he was god, then I won't revert you. Hipocrite 15:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Gavin, in addition to Hipocrite's comments, I'd also like to add that his reversions are in-line with the consensus on this page. Yours are not. If you can establish consensus in favor of your POV, then you will have a defensible reason for removing Jebus from the list. A friendly suggestion, I hope you will entertain it. - CHAIRBOY 15:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Gavin, unless you can contribute to this discussion without making accusations of disruption or bad faith, I suggest you stop. Hipocrite clearly indicated he would continue to revert when there is no discussion. That's what he did to your initial revert. android 79 15:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

the trinity doenst matter in this article, causethis article isnt about what people beleive he is, its about what he siad he is.Gavin the Chosen 15:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of Jesus, as long as the article's title remain as is. The question that shows up for me is: what is the purpose of this list? What encyclopedic value, if any, it brings to WP? If you have a list, it should be factually accurate, otherwise is POV. To be factually accurate, the list's title & criteria should be unambiguous. The more ambiguous the criteria (not just these people that said that they are god, but also these that others think/thought they are gods, etc., etc.), the less accurate the article and the more contentious the dispute. IMO, the discussion and dispute are based on a forced ambiguity that results from editor's POVs. Remove the ambiguity in the criteria for inclusion and the dispute will dissipate in no time. I support the current version of the criteria [6].≈ jossi ≈ 15:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Then we go back to John 14:10, in which Jesus says he is god. Hipocrite 15:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

in contedxt, hes talking about the purpose by which hes there , not his very being.Gavin the Chosen 15:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Kings James version: "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." That is one beautiful rendition of an understanding that God dwells within us. But is far from saying "I am God". See also John 14:1 "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me." Jesus is making a clear disticntion between God and him. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The intro does say it includes people whose culture saw them as gods, so Jesus can be included under that criterion. The page title is a little unfortunate, but I can't think of anything succinct and accurate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

If I were the kind of person who violated WP:POINT, I'd move the page to [[List of people who people believe who people believe who people believe who people believe who people believe who people believe who people believe who people believe who people believe who people believe have said that they are gods. Hipocrite 15:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Then it's lucky for us you're too responsible an editor. ;-D I was toying with List of people regarded or who self-identified as gods. Awkward but accurate. I'm wondering whether David Icke should be included. He now denies he meant it that way, but he did once say on television that he was the son of the Godhead, which the audience took to mean he thought he was a deity. I thought he might appeal to Gavin, because he believes the world is ruled by people who are really lizards, including George Bush and the Queen Mother. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the criteria states "those whose entire culture assumed they were a god". That applies to the Pharaohs, as they were considered Gods in their culture. In Jesus' time and culture, he was not considered a God, quite the contrary... ≈ jossi ≈ 16:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Moving the page works for me, if it ends this once and for all. "List of people who are believed to have said they are gods?" Done? Hipocrite 16:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Believed to have said" by whom? In which context? Now? or are the time when they were alive? It does not make sense to me, and I still do not see the encyclopedic value of such a list, unless is just a way to portray a POV of a certain group of people. With that strategy, I could argue that we ought to make a List of people who some believe to have said they are gods, and some others believe they did not :) ≈ jossi ≈ 16:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

(sorry for edit-conflicting myselfHipocrite 16:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

I don't mind it being moved. "List of people who are believed to have said etc" or you could make it shorter by ditching the "who are" i.e. List of people believed to have said etc." Some people might argue that isn't sufficiently different from the current title, mind you. But I'm fine with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

There are better proposals in this talk page. For example: List of people claiming divine origin, List of people claiming divine status or List of people declaring divine origin, will be easy to manage, and will be unambiguous about who belongs and who does not belong in the list. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Did Jesus claim divine status, or is that one of the categories we remove him from? Hipocrite 17:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection requests

Just to be clear, I have no intention to unprotect the article right now. Certainly not before I hear from Zappaz. I also called in a favour with Dr. Essjay, hopefuly he can find the time to help out with this dispute. If he does, I'm confident it will greatly expedite a resolution. Thanks. El_C 15:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Then I have to insist you fix the shading. Hipocrite 15:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, so sure! Consider it (not) done. El_C 15:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Make Lu Sheng-yen white, make Meher Baba blue, and so on....Hipocrite 15:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's always in the last place you look! :) El_C 16:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Jesus again

OK, maybe this is foolishly optimistic. But some of the above is long and hard to follow. Could we get people to give reasons to include or not include Jesus, without discussion of other things?

I'll give a reason to include: KJV John 10:30-10:33: 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. full text of John 10.

To me, this indicates that his remarks were considered blasphemous at the time, as the Jews listening assuming he was saying he was God. I think at long as there's reasonable support for Jesus claiming to be god, he should be included even if that support is questioned. Controversies can easily be mentioned in the explanatory text, as was the case with Jesus. Friday (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Read John 10:34-10:35 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are agods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;" in which Jesus rebuts them quite clearly. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view

I have only been involved in contributing to this article in th most cursory way (inclusion of Meher Baba, some suggestions concerning prose and style) but after the bulk of the disscussion I have read here today, I thought I should comment, if only that a clearer consensus may be reached. This list is lacking in both content and style. For instance, to mention the Egyptian pharoahs and neglect say Inca, Mayan, Toltec and Aztec kings and rulers is an oversight. Fine, that can be addressed by inclusion. The crux of the current debate is the inclusion of Jesus. In my opinion he should be included, with the codicil and comments that have heretofor been placed with his inclusion. A quote from a highly regarded source has been provided, that indicates Jesus belief that he was the son of God. It has been shown that he believed himself able to create a "miracle", indeed, raising the dead back to life. It has been shown that in the view of the early adherants of Christianity, they believed he was not talking about the his Father in a mortal sense, but in the spiritual and preternatural sense. The Council of Nicea codified this belief into the Trinitarian view that most Roman Catholics believe as an article of their faith. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the Gnostic churches view that Jesus was an eternal being, present at his Father's side in a "heavenly" dimension almost from the beginning of time. There will always be a great amount of subjectivity and heated debate surrounding an issue as "prickly" as this one is, but lets face it, gentle editors, this article is unlikely to be deleted and it behooves all parties to acceed to the demands of consensus. From my point of view, Jesus is as likely a candidate for inclusion here as anybody on the list. I don't have any other opinion on this subject, other than to say, editing this artcile seems to bring out the worst aspects in people, and situation I find more than a little ironic. Good luck. Hamster Sandwich 16:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that there is a misunderstanding of the dispute in your comment above. The dispute is centered around the criteria for inclusion and the title of this article. If the article title remains List of people who have said that they are gods and the criteria remains "The list of people who have said that they are gods consists of those notable human beings who have made statements about being a god or being God.", the inclusion of Jesus (and others who claim/claimed they are Jesus) will always be in dispute. If, on the other hand, we change the title to e.g. List of people declaring divine origin and if we change the criteria accordingly, then the dispute will dissipate as it will become obvious who should be included and who shouldn't. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

If we tossed the word "are believed to" into the criteria, would that do it for you? Hipocrite 18:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

List of people declaring divine origin consensus gathering

User ≈ jossi ≈ has suggested a name change.

I can't see a problem with such a change. It will go far to solve the ambiguity problems associated with the article as it now stands. Support fully. Hamster Sandwich 17:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonably good new title to me. android 79 17:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
A clear purpose and scope of the article would be most helpful. Count me as a supporter as well. Friday (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Support - List of people declaring divine origin is a fair solution that should satisfy the original intent of the article, serve the purpose of documenting something, and to sooth the savage beast of WP:Conflict. - CHAIRBOY 17:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd support that.--Scimitar ^parley 17:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
~~I'd support that, but I'd support Divine status more, unless that causes Jesus conflict. Sons of gods have divine status, right?Hipocrite 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)~~Oppose Convinced per Alterego that Divine isn't the best choice of word.Hipocrite 18:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and so do a whole ton of kings and popes. Read my posting below and the article on the Divine Right of Kings. The word Divine is absolutely ambiguous and unsuitable for this article. --Alterego 17:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

cosider him a demigod, and i think it would work.Gavin the Chosen 17:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Support. I prefer divine origin to divine status, except I wonder whether Jesus himself actually ever claimed either, and whether we might be left with the same objections, but I won't quibble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Notwithstanding Alterego's comment below about past discussion, I am glad all of you have decided to assist with this dispute by providing useful insights. Thanks. Regarding the comment about a "ton of Kings and Popes", that would not be a problem, these can be added as well. With the new title, Jesus will fit, as he declared unequivocally to be of divine origin (i.e. stating that God was his Father)--ZappaZ 19:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
HIGHLIGHTING ABOVE - Adding a million kings and popes to the list does not serve to help it's purpose. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If the article "List of people declaring divine origin" is created, based on the content of this list, which is a list of people who have said that they are gods, and for which I have presented a logical argument to which has not been rebutted whatsoever, but instead agreed with, and you include every person, including every single king who has ever existed and had divine right, I will be forced to recreate this List of people who have said that they are gods, because it is very clearly and obviously not the same list. If my comment below is only greeted with acceptance - which is the case - then regardless of any vote with the word divine in the title, the article cannot be moved because the word divine is unsatisfactory and specifies another criteria wholly. Let me say this very clearly: Regardless of a vote, a logical argument has been presented, which not only not in whole, but not even not in part, has been rebutted. --Alterego 21:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that you reject the contributions and attempts to reach consensus made by all these editors, and that your position is unmovable? My understanding of WP editing is that it is a collaborative process based on consensus, not on unilateralism based on a claim of perceived lack of "a logical argument rebuttal". Consensus: A mutually acceptable agreement that takes into consideration the interests of all concerned parties. An agreement reached through consensus may not satisfy each participant’s interests equally or receive a similar level of support from all participants. Read also Consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I keep a very close eye on this article and this vote was started before I ever had the chance to present an argument regarding this title. This means There was no discussion regarding its wording or its merit in general. It also means that past discussions regarding the wording of titles similar to this one were rejected without explanation. --Alterego 00:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Consensus guideline is also a good read (probably), and I encourage all participants to familliarize themselevs with it. I especially caution against confusing it with majority — at worse, consensus translates into a supermajority. OK, I'm done rambling.El_C 00:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A survey was conducted before there was any discussion. I don't think there is any room whatsoever for a rebuttal of my rejection of the word divine in the title below, yet I was not given an opportunity to present it before the vote. Therefore it is invalid because there is no way it can possibly attempt to calculate consensus. --Alterego 00:23, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

A survey was conducted as part of an attempt to reach consensus on the dispute. Seems to me that so far, there is consensus to proceed as proposed, but I would expect that additional editors will cast their votes to support or oppose the proposal. Current voters may chose to respond to your last concern about the term "divine", or not. In fact, one editor already changed his vote based on your comments. You can also open an RfC to request more input from the community. No rush ... I do not see El_C unprotecting the article before there is a solid consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

A vote does not constitue a discussion - or in the case of discordance - an argument. Let me use the words of the voting article to make this more clear: "Voting is a method of decision making wherein a group such as a meeting or an electorate attempts to gauge its opinion—usually as a final step following discussions or debates." --Alterego 00:43, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

"List of people declaring divine origin consensus gathering" is fallacious

I wish people would read the archives, especially past discussions relating to the title, before making far-reaching statements. First of all, this is not an article about people of "divine origin". Where someone originated has absolutely nothing to do with this article. This is an article with the aim of making a list of everyone who has said that they are a god. We don't care if they are of divine origin - whatever that is supposed to mean. The word divine is extremely ambiguous anyway, and I have gone into it before. Please read the archives. The following is available in a section aptly titled Article Name. As I have said countless times, discussions of the title have gone on for some time and it has already been agreed that the words 'claim' and 'divine' will not be in it. I have also recently argued (it's available on this page so you won't have to click) and presented evidence showing "self-x" is a term used almost exclusively by skeptics and naysayers. Second of all, the responses to the below post were extremely acceptive, including Zappaz.--Alterego 17:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Resorting to a past argument which was not successful in swaying opinion as a reason to move the title is unsatisfactory. If you will recall, (or read the edit history if you don't recall), the page was violently moved before any point was agreed upon and an unvested third party came and reverted it back. They pointed out that if lack of clarity were a problem, the title the page had been moved to did not fix it.

I commend you on your drive to create a category of those who have claimed to be divine. This article, however, is not about people who have claimed to be divine.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the first recorded uses of the word Deity occurred in 1374 and was written by Chaucer: "But o {th}ow Ioue..Is {th}is an honour to {th}i deite," meaning "The estate or rank of a god; godhood; the personality of a god; godship; esp. with poss. pron Only slightly earlier, in 1372 it was used by William Langland: " {Th}us {th}ei drauelen on heore deys {th}e Deite to knowe.," meaning "The divine quality, character, or nature of God; Godhood, divinity; the divine nature and attributes, the Godhead."

Clearly at this point in time, the word divine was used to describe the character of God (as "He" pertained to Christians) and his nature, but not him specifically. Not him, but qualities and features of him.

The word Divine was used, again by Chaucer, in 1386: "By precept of the Messager diuyn," meaning "Given by or proceeding from God; having the sanction of or inspired by God." There are the notes, " divine right, a right conferred by or based on the ordinance or appointment of God. Divine right of kings, that claimed according to the doctrine that (legitimate) kings derive their power from God alone, unlimited by any rights on the part of their subjects. In English History, the phrase came into specific use in the 17th c., when the claim was prominently made for the Stuart kings."

It is apparant that in it's early usage, to be divine did not mean to literally be God, but to merely have characteristics of him or to be or to have something projected straight from him. The nuance between being him, and being something related to him is important and very relevant here.

According to the prescriptions of Webster's Dictionary, the primary usage of the word divine in contemporary usage is ": of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god". Note that it does not say, in the primary sense, that it is to be God or a god, but rather to relate to them or proceed directly from them. It is something wholly apart. I myself can say that I am divine. It does not mean that I am proclaiming myself to be a deity to be worshipped, but rather that I proceed directly from god or God. A very ambiguous claim, and likely not meant to be interpreted in the strong sense required for inclusion in this article.

Webster further states that the primary meaning of the word deity in contemporary usage is in line with it's original usage: "The rank or essential nature of a god". I think it is apparant after reading this that the word deity and divine are not synonymous. To be divine and To be a deity do not carry the same meaning.

Aside from that, even if they were precisely synonymous, what would cause you to prefer one over the other? The only reason would be to stir things up unnecessarily.

Any typos are apologetic (not in that sense =),--Alterego 00:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Interestng points. I hadn't mentioned the May conversation to foreclose a new conversation, only to indicate that I also agreed last time this was discussed. Words aside, what do we want the article to be about? People who think they are god? god-like? messianic? supernaturally gifted? -Willmcw 03:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Alterego, from a factual perspective there is nothing wrong with the current title (nor with the contents, possible exception is Moon) but the tone of of the expression "self-proclaimed deity" is too strong for the people who are included. Andries 10:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having established that being a deity and being divine are not the same thing, if this article title is changed to be less contrary, others need to be changed as well. Specifically, List of avatar-claimants, and any title regarding a status that someone supposedly had, according to themselves, and where the title leaves any semblance of doubt that they may have not actually had it, but only claimed to. I could agree that it would be more towards neutral.

List of deities does not make a distinction between figures verified as deities or otherwise. Perhaps it should simply be 'List of deities manifested as human or somesuch. Any recognition that they are not actually what they say to be, is, after all, only an unprovable point of view, and saying that someone merely claimed to be something which most people would find absurd and impossible does not carry the tone of being simply unknown or unverified. --Alterego 14:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Alterego for a excellent backgrounder ondeity and divine. I would agree with you about the title List of deities manifested as human, if we include a disclaimer in the article's intro along the lines of of what you wrote above. --Zappaz 2 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

I imagine somewhere down the line there would be an argument as to whether or not "deities manifested as human" includes deities who were not necessarily human beings, or even contested (historicity) as human beings (out of a story for instance), so we might want to deal with that now. I personally would like to start hacking on the list of names above, and also finding academic citations for all the names in the todo list before another major change is done to the article. An immediate article title move is going to incite a lot of discussion and we have a lot of unresolved things that have to be worked on already. --Alterego July 4, 2005 00:18 (UTC)

I think that "deitied manifested as human" violates WP:NPOV as it implies that they were, in fact, deities. A thought. - CHAIRBOY 18:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The List of deities makes the common sense assumption that the reader understands they may not have actually been a god. I think we should do the same. When I think about it, it seems as if making it very clear that they might not have been a god is actually where the pov lies. Perhaps the best thing we can do is say "this is a list of human gods." "Why are they gods? Because they said so and we are not in a position to say that they really aren't." That seems very npov to me. --Alterego 18:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to make clear that there are a few titles I would be able to get behind. I feel List of human deities and List of fictional human deities would make two good corollary lists. I am less in favor of List of deities manifested as human than I was back in July, however that title does have some merit. A modification of SlimVirgin's idea, List of people identified as gods, has some merit, however i'm not sure it is very clear that you can identify yourself as a god. It's sort of a round-about way of getting there. --Alterego 18:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Discussions and debates regarding the corollary titles "List of human deities" and "List of fictional human deities"

I would like to present two corollary candidates for the title of this article: "List of human deities" and "List of fictional human deities". For clarity - it should be noted that there has been no back-and-forth discussion regarding these titles in the past. My position is that the List of deities and List of fictional deities make the assumption that the reader understands that a given subject may not actually be a god - that is, it might just be that people thought they were a god. Likewise, with a list of human deities, it could be the fact that a significant number of people merely thought they were a god, or that they themselves thought they were a god. Clearly, with the list of deities there is no perception that the encyclopedia endorses the view that the subjects actually are deities. It is left up to the good common sense of the reader, and in fact achieves npov by doing so. The same standard should be used on these corollary child lists. These two lists would further be complementary to the List of deities, such that anyone on the two corollary lists could also be found on the parent list, but not vice versa. The List of fictional deities would cover demigods, and other godmen of notability who are the protagonists of myths and stories. A change to this title would not constitute grounds for the mass removal of subjects as per any one person's position regarding them, but would rather occur on a one by basis utilizing concensus, evidence, primary quotes, and careful reasoning and debate as has traditionally been done here. --Alterego 01:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I suspect this would cause much animosity. People who hold strong religious beliefs may take offense at seeing a 'competing' deity listed next to the one they worship. The List of people who have said that they are gods isn't perfect, but it definately provides a conduit that grounds against much of this. The one being discussed above this section goes further, in my opinion, towards that goal of being clinically detached yet straight forward enough to be helpful. As I mentioned earlier, that List of human deities is POV and assumes too much(in response to your assertion that readers would interpret it the way you posited). When I saw the list, 'I' did not read it the way you said people would, and I believe myself to be a pretty reasonable guy. 'List of fictional human deities' is an almost guaranteed religious war, and I recommend against it. - CHAIRBOY 01:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A feature of the title "List of human deities" would be that entries such as Jesus or Krishna are no longer of debate. This is because we attribute the fact that they are a deity to Christians, or whomever the followers are. It is a fact that to Christians, Jesus is a deity. Therefore he would belong on a list of human deities. His historicity is unimportant because he is believed by them to be both a human and a deity. Jesus would not belong on the List of fictional human deities, because the group to which he is a deity does not believe he is fictional. This is really just the same reasoning that allows Jesus to be listed on the List of deities. I hope I made this clear. Although one-by-one discussions would be necessary, the only additional criteria an entry would need on this list in addition to belonging on the "List of deities" is that those to whom they are considered a deity (even if it is themself) also consider them to have been human. This significantly reduces many of our current problems. I believe it is a mistake to attribute our current issues with this article to a "List of human deities", as we are effectively piggy-backing on the common sense notion of an already existing and undisputed article. --Alterego 01:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

For illustration, I created a prototype List of human deities. Note that I was able to use most of the existing description for the List of deities. Also note that the tone of the descriptions would change, as it would no longer be a stringent requirement that they actually said they were deities, so long as they are a deity to some culture. If they are not, then we need a level of verifiability which proves they were a deity at least to themselves. --Alterego 01:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Chairboy and his comments re. the potential perception of some of Alteregos suggestions. "List of people commonly identified as dieties" would be inclusive of Jesus and Krishna particularily. It would encompass pharoahs, Incas, avatars and whatever else springs readily to mind. I will take this space to commend each and every editor who has been working towards a goal of common good here. I am at this point extremely impressed by the dialogue and hard work that all of you have been engaged in the past few hours concerning this issue. Heres hoping to a continuation of same! Hamster Sandwich 02:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a problem with that title is that it may exclude some of the more interesting entries, such as Charles Manson. He really isn't commonly considered a deity - but he did say he is Jesus. Somewhere above I said I didn't mind "List of people considered to be deities", and while I find it to be less pure than List of human deities, I guess I could still get behind it. --Alterego 02:23, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

"List of people identified as dieties or of divine origin'? Hamster Sandwich 03:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the need for the phrase "divine origin"? What does it mean? --Alterego 15:55, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Presumably, it means 'created by a divine being' or 'being divine'. A person of french origin is french, for example. Through the property of transference, the object becomes 'divine' as well. Additionally, I wish to agree with Jossi's comments below regarding your 'reset' of the conversation. I request that your role be equal to other editors, and that you not assume 'control' of the conversation. Wikipedia offers tools for all of us to come to consensus, and I feel you may be using these tools to the detriment of respectful discussion. - CHAIRBOY 16:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If editors are not willing to address my arguments in debate, then there should be no vote here. There should be no phase of simply jumping to a vote in the first place before discussion has happened. If you are not willing to address my arguments directly, and instead talk about them only in meta-argumentation, then you cannot expect progress to be made. I have explained very clearly and with citations such as the Oxford English Dictionary why the word divine is innapropriate for the title. I have seen no contestation of this point - yet still it is persisted that it be used. If you cannot contest the point then the word cannot be used. You can "request my role be equal to other editors", and I certainly appreciate you doing so. That means that other editors will need to address each point in my argument on a one by one basis - just as I do with them. If you scroll up, you will see a recurring pattern of someone proposing an idea, and me asking for further clarification, and the discussion ending at that point. I am now asking for the merit of the phrase "divine origin" to be sought out, as it is loaded with meaning that, aside from my explanation of why divine is inappropriate, has not been discussed. Your argument that "a person of french origin is french" is fallacious. If a person of divine origin is divine, what does that mean? If I say I am divine, am I saying that I am god? The answer is No. I made that case very clear - and it has been uncontested. If you wish to continue arguing about argumentation, that is fine, I will gladly do so. Instead, I would prefer you stick to the facts of the case. --Alterego 16:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

What is interesting to me is to witness the ability of Alterego to dimiss input from other editors, and reset a conversation with disregard of that input. I have followed the discussions in the archives, and this pattern repeats itself. I find this quite disconcerting. At this point, and given the lack of consideration demonstrated, I am no longer interested in contributing to the resolution of this dispute. I leave this in the capable hands of SlimVirgin, EL C, Hamster Sandwich and other experienced editors like them. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I would kindly request from El C and other admins, to keep the article protected until such a time in which there is a sincere openeness by Alterego to accept and incorporate other editor's input, ideas and comments. When that happens, please post a message on my Talk page. --ZappaZ 22:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"Sincere openness"? By that, I assume you expect me to put a template on the article explaining there is discussion going on the talk page, and then leave for several days while the discussion goes on. Then, when I come back I will implement my own point of view arbitrality and call it "neutral" (if this sounds familiar, this is what you did which encited the argument leading up to the lock). Is that what you mean by sincere openness? I'm not here to be a "sincerely open editor" - I am here to edit rationally and debate the facts. If you are not willing to back up the changes you wish to be made to the article with citations and logical arguments, then 1) your idea is not ready to be implemented and 2) you are not willing to put in the work necessary. If, by "sincerely open" you mean, willing to debate with any editor on the merit of their idea, then yes, I am sincerely open. --Alterego 00:01, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

List of x discussions

I hope everyone's enjoyed a nice break..=) A cursory glance using find reveals the following titles. I've sorted them according to my own bias, with any containing 'claim', 'divine', or 'self-x' receiving the boot. I think there are some good suggestions that don't use these words, and the examples I gave in each situation have not themselves been contested. The current title, as near as I can tell, has no pov disputes attached to it, and is disliked principally because it is wordy. For that reason, I also gave the boot to longer titles. What is a concise way to say that a being was both human and a god, and not imply that they only might have been, and also not imply that they were crazy. How to go about this without giving the tone of this article, which has already attracted members from a diversity of religious groups, an incendiary tone which encourages insertion of pov (often against, but often for)? How to further go about it while being inclusive of our very interesting subject matter, and not offending anyone's sensibilities? I've taken somewhat of a purist position - we should model the List of deities and simply add the adjective of human to the noun deity. I believe this creates a noun phrase. I find it to be a simple and elegant solution in line with things that we already do. But I have commented throughout our discussion when another title was, in my view, another route to go. So I am also willing to go in what I see to be a less pure route. But if it has any smidgen of pov, I will be off the boat.

Use claim, divine, self-x...:

List of self-proclaimed deities
List of people declaring divine origin
List of people of divine origin
List of people who have claimed to be God
List of people who have claimed to be divine
List of self-identified deities
List of people claiming divine origin
List of people identified as dieties or of divine origin
List of alleged self-proclaimed deities

Too long:

List of people that others believe that they say they are gods
List of people regarded or who self-identified as gods
List of people who are believed to have said they are gods?

Wrong capitalization of god(s)

List of people that others believe them to be God
List of people believed to be a God

Misuse of Singular they

List of people who have said they are a god

Sure why not...

List of people who have said that they are gods (a bit wordy...)
List of human deities (my preference)
List of people believed to be deities (why not? believed by themselves or someone else...using the most common sense notion of believe)
List of deities manifested as human (hmm..seems to imply every deity has the characteristic of manifesting here from somewhere else...)
List of human gods (prefer deities more)
List of people identified as deities (why not? identified by themselves or someone else seems implied)
List of people commonly identified as dieties (dislike because of 'commonly', e.g., it excludes folks who were their only believer)

Sorry if I missed anyone's title. More could probably be dug out of old archives but this seemed pretty well represented. --Alterego 22:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have said my POV below, but of the above list I would prefer:

List of alleged human deities

It's shorter than the one you have now, it doesn't assume there are human deities, so alledged is a good compromise. --Mizar 17:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There are three other lists that use the word alleged:

define:alleged on Google captures some tones i'm not too fond of. e.g., alleged(a): doubtful or suspect; "these so-called experts are no help" , the word "alleged" is used to describe both the accused person and the crime of which he has been accused, Questionably true or asserted to be true.

I will have to do a cursory check for its grammatical correctness, but I believe List of stated human deities is proper. --Alterego 01:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well whaddy'a know...I went to Google to define:deity and it points me to our deity article that says, among other things, "A deity [...] is a postulated supernatural entity". So why not List of postulated human deities? --Alterego 01:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm german, so I am not too good with meanings of english words. The two suggestions you made sound good to me, better than the one you have now. -- mizar ॐ Talk 10:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Alterego, you forgot to add to the list that "List of people declaring divine origin", as proposed by jossi, was supported by a group of editors. --ZappaZ 21:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you put a template on the article saying there was discussion happening, and then left without joining the discussion, only to come back and implement your point of view (without discussing it), you must have missed the following conversation where I showed why the word divine is inappropriate for the title - a point that has never been rebutted. --Alterego 22:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

btw: Thanks Alterego for a excellent backgrounder ondeity and divine. I would agree with you about the title List of deities manifested as human, if we include a disclaimer in the article's intro along the lines of of what you wrote above. --Zappaz 2 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to was regarding "List of deities manifested as human". Now we are discussion a title that implies "divine origin" and not "divinity" per se, two very different distinctions. As for the lack of rebuttal, I would suggest that you check with some of the editors that voted for that title. My assessment is that they have given up participating due to what I would consider too strong "pride of authorship" on your part. I am mistaken to assess that you have failed to include any input given by editors unless that input was aligned with your arguments? I will tell you what: If you want, I will stop editing this article, and I will stop contributing to the discussion as well so you can add me to the List of people that were scared off by Alterego :). The decision is in your hands. --ZappaZ

22:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has discussed what "divine origin" means. Are all Christians essentially of divine origin? What about all cockroaches as seen by Buddhist monks? Our list is going to get pretty long. I made a clear distinction between "deity" and "divine". I don't see a distinction between "diving origin" and "divinity" in yours. Divinity is "of or proceeding from god". "Divine origin" is "originating or proceeding from god". These sound the exact same to me, and if they are nuanced it is not relevant to the article here. --Alterego 23:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why this page anyway? Viewing the cultural background.

I think that when you make a declaration: 'List of people who said they are God', you leave off any definition what God to these people who think this way means. This becomes very obvious when you compare the cultural context, in which these persons appear. Let s say, for a Hindu, to speak of someone being an Avatar is nothing really farfetched, indeed, in Advaita Vedanta, everything, everyone is declared to be Brahman, God anyway, only most people aren't aware of this Divinity inside, while others are, and they are looked upon God-realized in those countries. It may be said that a claim on Avatarship is more than this sense that All is God, indeed it is, but it has to be viewed against the cultural background, where this is seen as the ultimate Truth, whereas in the Dualistic religions of the West, it is simply a blasphemy, and that's how the title sounds. We are all Gods, thats my opinion, so please include me in the list, or better abondon such a list, and view the respective people within their cultural background, lets say as 'Avatars' or whatever. It makes a big difference, for example, if somone says,he is the only God, either ever, like the Christians believe of Christ, or even now, or if you think there are many Avatars on earth, even right now, even working hidden, like Mother Meera states. In this case they are moer like divine messengers doing a certain work on earth. In any case I smell a certain bias in the whole title of it and the way its put together. IMHO people should be put into categories not unrespected of the cultural context such a declaration appears. Thats also the reason I put the link off the article, because I think its deceptive.I would the suggest, since you probably want to keep the list, to put the links to it, not on the individual pages of the persons concerned, because in the way you phrase it,it sounds like you put people on some kind of pillory, but rather connect it to, let's say an Avatar page. In the individaul article will be a link to an Avatar page anyway. Still I think, this whole kind of undertaking is biased.-- Mizar

The key difference, I suspect, is the concept of notability. To make this list, the person must be notable. Second, this is a list of people who claimed they themselves were divine, so even in your example, assuming you were someone super famous, then it would be only you listed, not everyone in the world. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

My mainpoint though is not this, but that you leave out the cultural context, and any definition, what God may mean to those people.One may be an emporer, who demands that his every wish gets fulfilled, another one a mystic, who thinks that this realization is open to anybody, and who clearly accepts his/her human role. Seeing this in a western Christian culture, who views such things as plasphemious, gives the title especially a biased flavour. Keep it if you want, but don't insist to link it to each article. -- Mizar

I'm not sure I understand, are you asking that references to non-western deities be de-wiki'd so there is not a link to them? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No. Generally speaking, I don't like the list, because it puts things out of context. You have to consider the worldview against which a claim of godhead is being made. I'm not sure what you mean by 'de-wiki'd', but if you think you have to have this list for whatever reason, I don't mind if you link within the list to all the persons mentioned, but in the wiki of the person does not have to be a link to back this list, I think, because its controversial, and it may bring in a biased view. -- Mizar 18:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my confusion, but I still do not understand what you mean when you argu that context is required. This is not an article, it is a list of people who have claimed to be gods of one sort or another. There should be no offense taken where none is intended. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought I was clear. Offense is not necessarily a matter of intention, but of the wording. Whenever you put a list together, you do provide a context, because you group things. And yet this context which you create, is ignorant of the culture in which a word appears. I have seen above, somone put statements together under the subject of Ching Hai, which are commenly expressive of an eastern world-view, which belives that God is in everyone. You can't ignore such a context. It's a pantheistic world view that everything is God, and in such a world-view e.g. a 'list of people who say they are God' doesn't make any sense. All is God in such a world-view, so a list doesn't make sense. It only makes sense in a world-view where not everyone is God, were such a claim has a certain degree of exclusivity. Got it? Somebody linked this list to the article in Mother Meera and I removed it there. Here I explained why -- Mizar 18:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Varied worldviews have absolutely been taken into account. I cited Osho's own autobiography as a reason to not include him, because he made it very clear that his definition of Bhagwan is amalgamated with cultural misunderstanding. From a potential editors perspective, the character of this list should be considered as both who is listed an who is not, and there are many folks who are not listed. David Icke, for example, later explained that he has a more eastern outlook on what it means to be the son of god. I said that I was a son of God..just as all of us are "sons" and "daughters" of God - all aspects of the greater whole. Indeed that we ARE the whole if only we realised it. So he is not listed. Suma Ching Hai has made some quite wild claims, and most certainly encourages her followers to worship her as a god. She is something above and apart from her following, whether or not she holds a more eastern concept. Often these human gods say that they have attained something that others can attain too - but only after hard work (very hard), as is often the case. If someone of notability says they are a human god, using any of the definitions on our page on the subject, probably we should have a discussion about listing them. (Removing and adding entries has historically happened on a one by one basis and only after discussions). --Alterego 01:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, but do I understand you correctly, that you do not insist this list to be linked dierectly to the wiki of the concerned persons? That yo do not make it some kind of a category or substitute thereof. E.G I prefer there is a link in the individual wiki to the concept of Avatars - which in this case provides the cultural background - and then make a link to your list there. -- mizar ॐ Talk 10:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you are a follower of Mother Meera it would be helpful to the article if you could explain the situation around her to us so there is better accuracy. Probably, if the current statement or one like it that we have about her is true, her article should mention it as well and link to this one within the text. --Alterego 13:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What you wrote is actually on the wiki.(If that is so, why connect it here?) The footnote is a statement from the book, where MM identifies herself with her aspect of the Divine Mother. You should note that she does not make such statements as proclamations, but only answered the question of a devotee. MM clearly recognizes her own human aspect. She does not claim all-knowingness or omnipotency. In fact she sees herself only as one of several other Avatars on earth today. A recognition of her Avatarhood is irrelevant to her. It has no meaning for someone who has no experience of it. I have heard her say many times, that many Indian Gurus are being looked upon by their desciples as God, that this was normal, and she had obviously no objection to it. Therefore I think to publish such a link to this list on the site is irrelevant. There is already a link to Avatar, and it does put a wrong emphasis on the issue. -- mizar ॐ Talk 16:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Internal links are a good thing, that's why =) Of course it's interesting that Mother Meera does not believe she is Omniscient or Omnipotent, but you probably wouldn't expect a human deity to be those things anyway. On top of that, those are characteristics of the Christian God - not necessarily other gods (that's a bit left over from my Philosophy of Religion class;) Now, the topic of Avatar's has been discussed and I believe the current status is that more validation work is needed. However - it seems that it is walking a thin line to affirm the inquisitions of your disciples regarding your status of existence and for her to explicitly note that they worship her as a god (God?) and not object to it. Perhaps you could provide some quotes on her discussing the subject so we can have them documented and then choose based on them whether or not she has been explicit about her being a deity. It seems it could go either to from here. --Alterego 23:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In this case, the internal link is to a pseudocategory, as I have explained below. Furthermore, alterego, with almost every word you say, you show to me, that my fera is justified: Also Hinduism views Godhead to be one, but in many forms, and that Godhead is allpowerfull, omniscient etc. Sorry, but your bias shows. I don't clearly understand - it seems that it is walking a thin line to affirm the inquisitions of your disciples regarding your status of existence and for her to explicitly note that they worship her as a god (God?) and not object to it. What does o affirm the inquisitions of your disciples mean? Is this a court, and we have to defend ourselves, and have to try to exemptify ourselves? Who gives you this status? In Indian thought, again, veneration of gurus are advices by the scriptures as a part of the process of awakening, and more stress is layed on the subjugation of the ego, than on individual self-exhibition. In the case of Mother Meera, this may give you a wrong idea, because she does not demand veneration or worship, but in her upbringing, she is part of Indian culture. Again you don't seem to have any appreciation of it.To see God in human beings is part of this culture, is deeply rooted in Hinduism, and it means of venerating the Divine in a personal human form, still seeing this person as having a human frame. It is similar to the bowing down of the zen monk to his seat before meditation, it is the appreciation of the Divinity inherent in every man. As I said, according to Advaita Vedanta, we are all GOD - AHAM BRAHMASMI. -- mizar ॐ Talk 11:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mizar, for an excellent explanation of the problems with this list. I fully agree that we have an issue here of context and of the Western systemic bias of Wikipedia. I have listed this article on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks and on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion to get some more editors involved. At this point and seeing the number of iterations this article has gone through, I do not see a way out of the dispute unless (a) the Western culture bias is resolved; (b) the article removes any POV connotations resulting from such bias; (c) a tight, unambiguous criteria for inclusion is found and agreed upon; and (d) a suitable article devoid of POV, innuendo, and implied bias, is found and agreed upon. --ZappaZ

17:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz I couldn't agree more with you. I am glad there is an awareness like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. I don't see the use of this list except in creating some kind of pseudo-category, putting all kinds of people together, from mystics to psychotic mass-murderers and dictators. I don't know how this could help to elucitate the phenomemnon or cultural environment for the people concerned. Above that I fear that no-body wants to be really part of this list, which speaks volumes in itself. Since this list attempty to be a kind of pseudo-category, especially when it wants to be linked from the individual wikis, it is clear that it is not a 'natural' category. There very wording of the list, together with the type of grouping, I feel is hostile to anybody having an grounding in eastern culture. It's a list similar to 'list of all cults' and other lists to discreditate non-christian thought. Again: the intersection between the Divine realm and the human is much wider in Vedantic thought than I the west, where there are clearcut distinctions, and calling oneself 'God' is regarded as plasphmy. In Indian thought, almost any guru is being regarded as 'God' or 'Avatar' by his followers. Thus the problem of the list will be, that it is not representative at all. I could name you immediately ten more indian teachers who are called Avatar and have a fair western following. This is encouraged by indian scriptures who say: Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheshwara (Guru Gita). The goal of indian spiritaulity is to realize ones basic identity with God, which the 4 great Mahavakhyas state: Aham Brahmasmi. It is in this sense that the Guru, or Mentor serves as a focal-point for this identity, in being identified with Divinity at first. Furthermore the concept of Avatarhood depends on reincarnation. A human being is reincarnated in a process of upward evolution, to finally merge with the Divine. If someone has already reached Divinity, he may still reincarnate, but this time not to work out his individual karma, but to help further the Divine Evolution for others, similarely to the concept of the Bodhisattva in Buddhism. In fact AC Bahsham, says in 'The wonder that was India' that the Avatar-concept comes from Buddhism, from the concept of reincarnating Buddhas. I also don't see why one should participate in the discussion, how to improve the list, when one thinks that the whole idea of the list is basically flawed. Therefore I don't agree with you, alterego, that zappaz withdrew from discussion. Our objection is still valid. In short: why create a pseudocategory for people who don't want to be on such a list. Also, alterego, the way you spoke about, why you would include Ching Hai, that even though the quotes of her, as I had pointed out, are generic in nature and are pure hindu philosophy, her 'weird' behaviour would qualify her for inclusion, shows, th basically negative idea you have of the list. Its putting people on a pillory, trying to brandmark them. I just hope that this attempt will be prevented -- mizar ॐ Talk 10:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make the mistake of extrapolating from specific entries to entire cultures, or you become as guilty as you say I am. "Dear Policeman, I am God. Do not tell the media about this.", "I am the one who created Adam and Eve. I made their bodies and their blood,” [...] “I still use human beings by speaking through them, like I spoke through Jesus Christ until he went to Heaven.", "In the same way, I am God, but I have not to speak of it, because it is quite natural. Yet sometimes, I have to declare it.", "I AM GOD, but I do not have to know I am God, for I have always been that.", "Let there be one Lord, one King!", "Ted Jesus Christ GOD". Yes, clearly there is a list here. And I would appreciate if you would please never misrepresent my statements. If you wish to object to a person being on the list, then do it conventionally and create a subject heading for that person. "Flawed" "systemic bias" "npov" are blanket words which are unactionable. Every entry in this list has been discussed and their entry is the result of the discussions so far. Further discussions can happen. We are not concerned with whether or not someone wants to be on a list. It is objective in nature - either they made the statement or they didn't. In future versions it may be - either they were considered as a deity, by themselves or someone else, or they weren't. Knowledge of eastern concepts is useful, as it helps us to validate whether a subject encouraged it or not. Stating that the subject of god is simply too ambiguous to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia is being disingenuous. It must be documented as this is the resting place for the sum of all human knowledge. --Alterego 15:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Alterego, the list of quotes you give is interesting, but I guess they are all out of context. You maybe right with your assessment about certain people, but you may not be right with others. How do you know that your judgement is fair, and why do you need to judge at all? To record, each individual case is there for record. IMHO the chances a great that this list serves more to confuse than to clarify. What do you mean by 'unactionable'. Does this mean that I regard the existance of this list, which is quite arbitrary in a way, as an inevitable event of nature, which I can not critizise? I hope that this is not what you are saying. Yes, I do ask you to exclude Mother Meera from such a list, but i also find it awkward that I would have to plead for something like this. I think its assuming to call a list like this 'objective'. How could you think to be objective and devoid of subjectivity? The subject of god is ambiguous, not too ambiguous for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but certainly too ambiguous for a meta-category without distinction. Look alone on the type of differentiations you make: Is it god or God or gods? Plural or capital or only small, and then according to your own words the Christian God is omnipotent, the Hindus are not (supposedly), while a clear understanding reveals that Hindus view God as one within multiple forms. They are not polytheistic, but henotheistic. There is so much confusion just in this small dialog of ours, that I think that such a list serves only to confuse and not to clarify. Bringing the wrong things together, according to the judgements of self-declared judges, helps to cloud uand reasert prejudices. -- mizar ॐ Talk 23:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

but I guess they are all out of context'. This isn't a guessing game and it's not about chances. All the quotes are sourced and there have been discussions around most of them. If you feel one is out of context please bring your evidence for the rest of us to read. If it is agreed to be the case then that person can be removed from the list. Please put the discussion under its own heading so the conversation can be referenced later. --00:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz your recent edits to this article show you are unwilling to discuss changes with other editors. You have not participated constructively in any recent discussions regarding the title and you do not give other editors the courtesy of explaining your opinion. Why is that? --Alterego 19:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Alterego: I have make my points quite clearly and have discussed these issues with you and other editors over the last few months. There were proposals made to which six editors voted for, that you dismissed based on a request for further discussion. This discussion is now progressing quite nicely, thanks to the contributions of several new editors. Whatever your assessment of my participation is, I intend to continue to contribute to this discussion to the best of my ability. I have requested the help of other editors, that hopefully will come to our help in NPOVing this article once and for all. I would appreciate less "Zappaz-bashing" for a while. Thanks. --ZappaZ

21:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean when you recently put a template on the page saying there was discussion happening here, and then left, only to come back an unilaterally implement your point of view completely irregardless of said discussions, and further irregardless of the fact that entries are not added or removed until discussion has taken place? By contribute do you mean to repeat this same behavior? You have made sweeping statements about the article such as that it is systemically biased, NPOV, that it has innuendo, and further implied bias. But you are unable to provide concrete evidence for any of these points. Your comments are not actionable. I have always approached the bench with hard evidence (read around - I provide some in nearly every post) and its about time that you approached this article with some real-life motivation and intention to fix the facts one by one in coordination with others and not based on your perception of what is "NPOV" "POV" "systemically biased" and "implicit bias". You do not encourage coordination - it is because of your decision to edit this article without conversation that this article was locked and it is not something that I am soon going to forget. A lot of progress that could have been made has been stopped. Just so there isn't a lack of hard evidence in this post, read up a little bit in this conversation and you will see me provide citations - e.g., constructive discussion - with another user. You came along and ignored said citations making your wide sweeping unactionable claims about "systemic bias" et al. Inconceivable. --Alterego 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, Alterego. I am gone. The article is all yours. (What is inconceivable is your inability to accept input from other editors like me that may have a different style than yours. This is not a court of law, neither an argumentation excercise.) I may visit again sometime in December. Promise. Ciao. Good luck to other editors! --ZappaZ

23:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, when you come back in December, keep in mind that even when no one else is willing to discuss with me, I explain my edits on the talk page (hard evidence: consecutively, no one replied to my citation-backed reasoning for L Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, David Icke, and James I of England. You may call that talking to myself, but I call it documenting every single thing I do here and the reason I did it. I never have appreciated you stepping on all that hard work with your unilateral, unexplained and not-based-on-external-sources edits. --Alterego 23:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)