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

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

message: This page has been cut and paste moved from List of people believing themselves deities. Could some kind admin perform a page history merge. I don't think it's edited at this point, so it would probably just work to revert the old page pre-redirect, delete this, and move the old page here again.
Thanks! Shane King 06:55, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
:Done! Do move pages using the move function if possible. Cool Hand Luke 08:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge page history 

message: Is there really a 2000 year pause inbetween self-proclaimed deities?  I haven't been able to find any myself...must have been someone :)
: woot! found one :)   *Hong Xiuquan claimed to be the second son of God, brother to Jesus Christ.  - Alterego 11/13/04
Aren't the emperors of Japan divine? Or are they not deities as such? Dr Zen 02:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Emperors of Japan doesn't mention anything.  Do you have a citation we can research further?  --Alterego 02:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Despite Truman's desire to have Hirohito tried for war crimes, Truman consented, and Hirohito kept his status, though he was forced to disavow the emperor's previous claims of being a "arahitogami, living god"." In the section called "World War II". See arahitogami. See this also. If Hirohito "renounced the claim", someone must have made it. So you can certainly establish that Hirohito thought he was a living god and I think it's reasonable, given that his claim to be one was because of his unbroken descent from Amateratsu. I'm not certain but I think Kojiki makes explicit the belief that the emperors were divine. Hope this helps.Dr Zen 03:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhh... there is already a listing that encompasses all practitioners of Shinto.  The Arahitogami article at least belongs on the "see also" section, though. --Alterego 03:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but there's divinity and divinity, no?Dr Zen 05:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 year self-proclaimed deity break? 

message: I can't figure out how to color the timeline...I have one that looks extremely ugly but is functionally better than the one currently in the article.  It could be a very informative timeline if we can get it going.  Here is the current (warning, very fugly :P) version:  User:Alterego/List of people claiming to be deities timeline
:It isn't that fugly.  Definitely usable, even if you can't color it.  --Corvun 22:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timline 

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

message: Should there really be an asterisk next to the late Dr. LaVey's name?  I wouldn't really say that he had many "followers", as the Church of Satan (hence, LaVeyan Satanism) discourages the concept of "followers", even though the political structure of the church is hierarchal.  Satanism does teach that each person is his/her own diety, but this is also a metaphorical term in such a sense, as "true" dieties are not believed to exist within the context of Satanism in aught more than an allegorical or archetypical sense.  I suppose I would question whether the late Dr. LaVey (or Shinto practitioners, for that matter) should even be on the list at all, as their belief that "everyone is a god/ess" sort of defeats the whole intent of this list -- which is a compilation of people who have claimed to be somehow "above" the level of "mere mortals" like you and I.  Then again, they do in all technicality consider themselves dieties, whether in such a way as to truly fit my percieved intent of this article or not.  Am I the only one who feels conflicted on this matter? --Corvun 08:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but while I support the removal of Shintoism, I think Anton leVey is likely an appropriate entry. I must admit he is the most dubious of them all however, outside of shintoism. Kami are very diferent from gods.  14:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anton LaVey 

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

message: Following Alterego suggestion to be bold and work on the article, I have proceeded to re-format the  article according to WP style guidelines. The benefits are obvious: Clearer, compact and simple to maintaina dn or edit.
Modified somewhat also the caveat text for the Jesus entry. If no references are provided to substantiate the inclusion of the following names, I would delete them from the article. I would think that 5 days is enough. 
* David Koresh ("The Lamb" would mean to be Jesus, not a deity)
* Anton LaVey (Text does not support the "self-proclamation" criteria)
* Charles Manson (He said he may be Jesus Christ, not that he was a deity)
* Jim Jones (He claimed to be the reincarnation of many hiostorical figures, but did not claim to be a deity)
* Lu Sheng-yen (Claims to be a living buddha, not a diety)
--Zappaz 04:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no material or textual evidence supporting the claim that Jesus self-proclaimed to be deity. But there isn't. Show me a Biblical text in which Jesus claims to be God. Regarding me "destroying" the article, please note that I am aware of pride of authorship, and I know it is not easy when someone comes and "meddles" with the work that you and others have done. But I am confident that if we remain civil, this article will benefit from this exchange. We have alredy cleaned up some names that were not appropriate. At least acknowledge that. Please note also that I have not inserted any POV to the article. If I have, please let me know where. That is not my intention. My intention is to make this article an excelent one. Good night now. --Zappaz 04:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Zappaz you are ruining this article. You cannot add statements like There is no material or textual evidence supporting the claim that Jesus self-proclaimed to be deity to Wikipedia. You don't know if that is true. I am asking you to stop ruining this article. You have inserted so much POV and you are making unreasonable demands. You have put four templates on this article in one day. You have ruined the layout that has been tweaked and perfected by users over many months. Please, please stop. --Alterego 04:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
:There is no material or textual evidence supporting the claim that Jesus self-proclaimed to be deity. But there isn't. Show me a Biblical text in which Jesus claims to be God. Regarding me "destroying" the article, please note that I am aware of pride of authorship, and I know it is not easy when someone comes and "meddles" with the work that you and others have done. But I am confident that if we remain civil, this article will benefit from this exchange. We have alredy cleaned up some names that were not appropriate. At least acknowledge that. Please note also that I have not inserted any POV to the article. If I have, please let me know where. That is not my intention. My intention is to make this article an excelent one. Good night now. --Zappaz 04:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also note that it is not polite to place the article on RfC, without commenting here. I am surprised that you did, because the only remaining template is the , and for reasons clearly explained. All the other issues have been cleared (format voting pending). As you have placed the article on RfC, it is now your duty to make a summary of the dispute, so that editors can understand the nature of the disagreement and what we are asking them to comment on. Thanks. --Zappaz 04:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zappaz please stop