Talk:List of people who have been considered deities/Archive 5

A skin of a bear is not a bear!

When people are declared to be a manifestation of Holy Ghost and such, they are not considered to be GOD! That means the following persons don't belong into the list:

• Zoroaster/Zarathushtra
• Father Divine
• Henry James Prince
• Juanita Peraza (Mita)
• Feliksa Kozłowska

Doubtably also:

• Bhumibol Adulyadej considered a demi-god.

I claim, as a Christian, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit, are not equal to God, but three personae (not persons in modern meaning), parts of God. Like "Son of GOD"/"Massyah" is a title, a "manifestation of Holy Ghost is" a title or a description, that explains that this person reflects the Holy Ghost perfectly. There are no such things as three-Gods-in-One in Christianity. The article reflects the common misconception about Christianity. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And the skin on the beer is not the beer either, by the way! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's quite impossible for Zoroaster to of been proclamining to be a manifestation of the Holy Ghost as described in Christianity, as he was alive long before Christianity existed, and other religions may define what a manifestation of God is differently. Henry James is described as referring to himself as Elijah as well as the Holy Ghost, and Elijah certainly is a name of God, though I admit, the reference for this person is extremely tenuous, "Article" by someone really doesn't say much, i'd be inclined to delete the entry for that reason. I fixed the Father divine entry, the ref was dead, and the new one I found affirms that his followers considered him to be God. The religion Mita started looks to be a haphazard mix of Eastern thinking and Catholicism, Mita's article describes her belief as the idea that she needed to choose a successor for God to somehow reincarnate in, so it sounds like she believed God incarnated as her. On Feliska, the MSN group for the religion started around her doesn't seem to actually affirm that they believe Feliska to be God or a manifestation of God at all, and the Wikipedia article therefore seems unreferenced, so it looks like she can be removed from this list, she doesn't have a reference with her anyway. Bhumibol's status seems very unclear to me, i've left a note on his talk page asking about him, his bio appears to be an FA, somebody more familiar with him might be able to clear this up. Homestarmy 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Zoroaster is not recorded as calling himself a Manifestation of God as far as I know. We Baha'i however believe that he is, but a Manifestation of God in no way qualifies as a deity in the Baha'I faith, I would like to remove Zoroaster for this reason, as no religion holds him to be God/Ahura Mazda. Aeroplane 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Block quote

Bhumibol Adulyadej considered a demi-god.

The Buddhist concept of God is very nebulous, indeed, as may be seen at Brahma (Buddhism), but the kings of Siam and Thailand derive their 'deity', such as it is, not from Brahma or Brahman but from Rama. The Thai word for God is Pra-Jao or Pra-Chao, roughly meaning Reverend Lord. One of the styles of the Kings of Siam and of Thailand is Pra-Jao-Yoo-Hua, roughly, Reverend-Lord-At-(the)Head (of the Land). The Kings of Siam and Thailand have always been ex officio heads of the Imperial cult of Rama in their kingdom, and are themselves semi-divine in so far as Buddhists believe in any divinity at all. Lee 10:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Zoroaster, Feliksa Kozłowska, Henry James Prince, Bhumibol Adulyadej

Per the comments above, I have removed these entries. If you would like to see them put back in, please provide authoritative external citations. --Alterego 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• s'OK with me, as long as you leave my Talk about Bhumibol Adulyadej alone. Lee 15:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sangjenim and Manco Capac

Is there any evidence that these people ever lived? --Alterego 19:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed, as I see no convincing evidence (or much evidence at all!) --Alterego 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk

If Bhumibol does ever get included, perhaps Ataturk ought to be included too...? Mrdini 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

no mythological individuals

deities for whom historicity is merely claimed{{fact}} (such as "Krishna, 4000 BC") do not belong here. dab (𒁳) 16:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That would include Jesus, not that I personally have a problem with it. Luis Dantas 10:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

no, historical Jesus has support in mainstream academia. The criterion should be, widely considered historical. If only a small minority doubts historicity, this shouldn't prevent us from listing the individual. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

individuals who were only deified posthumously should be listed separately (since there is no end to them, and posthumous deification has a completely different quality). Divine kings within imperial cults should not be listed separately. dab (𒁳) 16:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Baha'u'llah

I have removed Baha'u'llah, as he is not seen as God himself, but Baha'is consider him, along with many other personages, as Manifestations of God. The concept of the Manifestation of God, as explained by Juan Cole:

"According to the Bahá'í writings, the manifestation of God is not an incarnation of God, as the transcendent Godhead can never incarnate itself in a mere mortal frame. But neither is the manifestation of God an ordinary, sinful mortal. He acts as a pure mirror to reflect the attributes of the Deity into this temporal plane."

Cole, Juan (1982). "The Concept of Manifestation in the Bahá'í Writings". Bahá'í Studies. monograph 9: pp. 1-38. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

that's splitting hairs, imho, and purely a matter of terminology. "deity" is the more malleable term by far than "[monotheistic/transcendent] God". Baha'u'llah's claim of being the "supreme manifestation" of God is rather taller than Commodus' comparatively modest identification with Hercules. This list necessarily conflates incompatible notions of "divinity". Baha'u'llah certainly fulfills even the most stringent requirements for "self-deification". Sai Baba also claims to be an "avatar" of God. "avatar", "incarnation", "supreme manifestation", same difference. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's splitting hairs. Baha'u'llah doesn't claim to be a deity either. I believe it's the term Manifestation that is causing problems, but the term Manifestion is not being used as one would normally define it as; the term is equivalent to prophet as used in other religious traditions (from the above source). The source above clearly states the personages termed Manifestations of God are not considered incarnations of God. The term "Manifestation of God", as explained in the Baha'i teachings (through Baha'u'llah's books and letters) clearly state that God himself is unknowable and that Manifestations of God are channels through which God can be known, but are not God themselves. The above quote is a secondary source, and here is a primary source:

"To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men....

"The door of the knowledge of the Ancient of Days [God] being thus closed in the face of all beings, the Source of infinite grace, according to His saying: “His grace hath transcended all things; My grace hath encompassed them all” hath caused those luminous Gems of Holiness [Manifestations of God] to appear out of the realm of the spirit, in the noble form of the human temple, and be made manifest unto all men, that they may impart unto the world the mysteries of the unchangeable Being, and tell of the subtleties of His imperishable Essence."

Bahá'u'lláh (2003) [1862]. Kitáb-i-Íqán: The Book of Certitude. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. pp. p. 98-99. ISBN 1931847088. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

The sources above don't allow for inclusion of Baha'u'llah as a deity, and thus his inclusion in this page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem. But then what about "incarnation"? What about "avatar"? Did Commodus claim he was a "deity"? This may be a problem, but it is a problem that doesn't just concern Baha'u'llah. I have introduced sections to begin addressing precisely such issues. Now, "list of people who have been considered deities" is complicated enough as a title. Do you suggest we further complicate it by making it "list of people who have been considered as possessing divinity or certain aspects thereof"? dab (𒁳) 18:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The sections help, but self-deification is not a great term for this case, or other prophets many religious traditions, because it alludes to that person believing they were God. Some people in the current list in the subsection fit that description, but others don't. Maybe a different subsection. Regards, -- Jeff3000 18:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm mostly ok with the changes that have been made, but watching this conversation, I strongly suggest not changing the title, at least right away. This article has gone through many titles, and had reached something of an equilibrium. It can definitely be improved, however, you will be surprised as to the the number of people who crawl out of the woodwork when you start making large changes. People who worship some of those on the page will make the process nearly impossible. The best approach I've found is to make changes relatively slowly. It is, after all, a contentious topic. Just some advice... --Alterego 19:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a little; what about a section title something like "claimed revelation from a deity". Baha'u'llah would fit in there along with some others in this list, as well as others such as Muhammad and Moses. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

that would just translate to prophecy. We may have to drop Baha'u'llah, but I don't see why we shouldn't keep him around with proper disclaimers. I do propose Baha'u'llah claimed divinity. Whether that makes him a "deity" is open for debate, which is why the table has a "comments" section. I do suggest we should think about splitting this article. Imperial cult isn't the same (but related) as hero worship, and that is again different from avatars, bodhisattvas, or people with a Messiah or God complex or founders of new religious movements. dab (𒁳) 22:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My problem is not including Baha'u'llah per se, but that including Baha'u'llah without including some other personages that would also fit the same reasons as why Baha'u'llah is included, such as Muhammad and Moses, makes it seem like Baha'u'llah claimed something significantly different than others. They started (or led to a start of) religious movements based on a claimed revelation from God to do so. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with the subsections style, as I think it adds necessary clarification to cultural distinctions. I would prefer that this article remain, for the most part, a higher level overview of the humans throughout history that have been considered, by someone, to be a deity. This comes in many flavors, and deserves to be analyzed at a higher level. This article already has several spinoffs, however. I'm not exactly sure as to what their relationships should be, but am willing to help hash it out. I'm not really convinced that the imperial cults section belongs in that article. Perhaps if it was of a higher quality, and there were more examples, it would merit its own list. But I think for the time being it's better left here. Typically, when having discussions with folks (IRL) about the subjects they think would belong on such an article, some of the members of the imperial cults are the first that they name. I'm not sure that admitting that the article deserves to be subcategorized is equivalent to saying that it should be turned into multiple different articles. Depending on their respective backgrounds, folks from around the world will read this article and have differing ideas about who belongs on it. I think the best compromise is to reflect all of them. I think the new expanded intro does a fairly good job an introducing that notion. If you think there is a better title to reflect this idea, i'm game to discuss it. I'm just hesitant to actually change it without having a really strong candidate due to past edit wars when the title has been changed. --Alterego 23:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

David Koresh of The Branch Davidians

Didnt David Koresh also claim he was "God"??

Bill

Oct 7, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.191.43 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion of David Koresh in the talk page archives. --Alterego 03:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some questions

What about Gautama Buddha? I know that some Buddhist sects do not believe him to be a god, but, other Buddhists sects do. Also Hindus consider him to be an avatar of Vishnu.

I agree. I think that Buddha should be added to the list, & also Mahavira.--174.95.63.5 (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Vishnu, what about Krishna? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.53.126 (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

1. What is the rationale for the exclusion criteria of "Not listed are people claiming godhead in the context of Unio Mystica (Theosis, Advaita) such as Master Eckhart"?
2. Why Sathya Sai Baba is the only "considered avatar" listed here instead of in List of people who have been considered avatars?

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, what about the Pope, as in "...the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power."", "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.", and "The Pope is God and canot be judged"

There is also a reference to "Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam" ("Our Lord God the Pope"), which was present in two editions of the Extravagantes and was later censored and excised as it was considered to be heretic. It was presented in The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum. Inter, title 14, chapter 4. In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes;, dated 1584, these words occur in column 153, and in a later edition (Paris, 1612) in column 140. All other editions after that date the word "Deum" (God) has been omitted.

The Pope is neither believed to be a god, nor is worshipped as such. The Pope is the Successor of St. Peter the Apostle, whom Christ Chose as His Rock. The reason I know this is because I am a practicing Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.63.5 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please reference the conversations regarding the pope listed in the talk page archives. I am of the opinion that he doesn't belong. You'll have to talk with Dbachmann about the rationale behind his edits. --Alterego 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the archives, and at that time we did not have the required sources, which we do now. We ought to add the named Popes to this list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the discussion in the archives took place when this article described self-proclamation of being a deity only, which is no longer the case. Please provide new arguments why these named Popes cannot be added to this list, as many other individuals in the list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The statements seem clear enough to me, but I hold a lot of doubt. I'm staying out of this one. Add them at your own risk :) --Alterego 04:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the doubt? If we have good sources that say Pope X said or was considered a God, we need to add them to this list as per the other entries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The quotes in question are direct statements, and when interpreted directly, it gives those with a catholic axe to grind the ability to claim that certain popes thought they were god. But in my mind, a statement such as "The Pope is God and canot be judged." does not in fact say that "The Pope is God" in the literal sense, but rather, "The Pope is Christ's representative on earth, and thusly deserves all the respect that one would give God." This feeling of doubt is bolstered by the fact that it has never been the case that a significant number of people believed any pope was god, despite their prominent positions in society. It simply is the case that the pope is god's representative, and thus, by extension, "is god," at least as far as we mere mortals are concerned. But like I said, it's up to you. --Alterego 00:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not up to me, but up to editors actively working in this article. It seems unfair and not NPOV to treat other individuals in this list in a different manner than these popes that asserted "the Pope is as it were God on earth", "The Pope and God are the same", "Our Lord God the Pope", and "The Pope is God and cannot be judged." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your first citation is authored by Uriah Smith - hardly neutral. It was authored before 1900. The second citation, "Heresies Exposed" was written in 1917, and is an extremely biased accounting of other belief systems from the point of view of fundamentalist Christianity. The next citation is a direct quote from a pope, and is ambiguous; it's meaning is completely open to interpretation. The fourth citation, which I was able to find online here, merely redirects us to the primary source of quotes that are open to interpretation. None of these are adequate for inclusion of a high profile personage such as a Pope. If there were reason beyond a doubt to believe that a pope considered themselves to be god, scholarly accounts would be easy to turn up. Adding as a matter of fact or even likelihood that a pope thought they were god based solely on direct quotes would be original research. In most cases in this article, the context makes it clear as to how the words should be interpreted. In this case, Catholic canon holds that the pope is "Christ's representative on earth," and as far as I'm concerned, that's the bottom line on the issue. --Alterego 05:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We have individuals in this list based on similar sources, an similar primary sources. My point is that we may be applying double standards in excluding some and including others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of personal questions

Far as I can tell, not too many non-Abrahamic religions actually have clear-cut distictions between honored people and deities. Hinduism particularly, and even more so Shinto, sort of blend the two categories together. If I am not mistaken all females are considered to be emanations of Shakti to some degree, for instance, so it is kinda weird to see someone listed on the article solely on grounds of making that claim for herself. Also, I don't think it is very wise to call Buddhist Bodhisatva emanations "people who have been considered deities". Bodhisatvas are not deities, and their emanations much less so. For this article to have any real meaning at all one should either use a rigid and crystal-clear concept of deity or (preferably) mention various levels of rigor for considering someone as such. Be prepared to acknowledge that the same people may be praised in differing levels by different religions, as well as to realize that deity is a very arbitrary concept indeed. Luis Dantas 01:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? Who are you talking about? And where are the personal questions? --Alterego 02:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorta forgot to formulate them, I guess. They would be just about "Are you sure you want to force the concept of deity into non-Abrahamic religions?", "What meaning will it have then?", "Why do you think bodisatvas/avatars/kami should be considered deities?" and somesuch. As for being specific, the penultimate entry in the list at this moment is Mother Meera, on the somewhat prosaic grounds that she claims to be an Avatar of Shakti; pretty much any healthy and balanced woman can be considered an emanation (if not an Avatar outright) of Shakti at some moment or another. It is very much a matter of personal interpretation, though. Luis Dantas 06:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your argument presents a long-standing and pervasive problem with this article, as attested by the many past discussions in the archives. Simply put, we are mixing apples with oranges when we try to describe "deity" across cultural/religious contexts, specifically looking at the concept of God from an Abrahamic religion perspective and apply that concept of deity to other religious-cultural domains such as in the Dharmic tradition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's about the measure of the matter; Kami, Tenno, Bodisatvas - and for that matter Popes and even Devas and their Avatars - are at best arguably comparable to the Abrahamic deities. Since there is not even consensus among Abrahamic worshippers on whether the Son, the Father and the Holy Ghost are separately qualified to be considered deities, this article is somewhat pointless. Actually, that is not quite true either; the talk page can be very informative and enlightening, so long as one does not hope too much for a consensus. Luis Dantas 06:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Actually," your sweeping statements have a dearth of factual information and well reasoned arguments. Your premise is that there is no consensus that the holy trinity contains one or three deities. Your conclusion is that the entire article is pointless. I fail to see the connection. I also fail to see your citations. This is most likely due to the connection not existing, on this talk page or objectively. Jossi claims that the same notion of deity is contextualized in abrahamic religions and then generalized to all belief systems. This is patently false - each entry is put into its own historical context. The notion of what a deity is can be found in that article, and is decidedly not specific to any belief system. Rather, it is "a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings." Dozens of belief systems around the world, whether abrahamic or not, have considered notable people to be deities under this definition. The wide ranging claims of systemic bias are thus unfounded. --Alterego 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I continue to disagree as per the arguments made. Maybe it is time to seek input from other editors via an RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, your claim is that the word "deity" only applies to abrahamic religions. That is false, and you have not substantiated the claim. I'm not sure where the clarification is going to come from, but more input into the article in general is always welcome. --Alterego 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume you didn't understand me, Alterego. Deities do exist in other religions, but as concepts not very much alike that of Abrahamic religions at all. Also, their roles in their respective religions tend to be not too much alike that of the Abrahamic god either, although there are always exceptions. The notion that someone is noteworthy _because_ someone claims its divinity is, however, quite a bit Abrahamic-centric. As for substantiating my claims, well, I do not see any reason to accept your invitation for reversing the responsibility of evidencing the claims. Different religions have different ideas of what a deity happens to be - assuming that they even universally have any, which in fact they do not. Don't be angry with me just because I point such a simple and obvious fact. Luis Dantas 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To Alterego

Your premise is that there is no consensus that the holy trinity contains one or three deities.

That is indeed a well-documented fact, and has been ever since the concept of the Trinity was established. How could it ever be any different anyway?

Your conclusion is that the entire article is pointless.

Almost completely true. There IS little point to the article indeed, but it does still manage to put some light to certain cultural biases. That is even more true, and in a more transparent way, of this Talk page.

I fail to see the connection.

Surely you can appreciate that an article with a vague, biased dubious premise (such as this one) has a hard time proving that it has a point.

I also fail to see your citations.

That's because I did not see fit to include any. Non-abrahamic religions are well-documented enough without my pitching in.

This is most likely due to the connection not existing, on this talk page or objectively.

Suuuuuree... sorry, Alterego, but this talk page does deserve a bit more serious an atitude from you.

Jossi claims that the same notion of deity is contextualized in abrahamic religions and then generalized to all belief systems. This is patently false - each entry is put into its own historical context.

Nope. Jossi is spot-on. I agree completely with his point.

The notion of what a deity is can be found in that article, and is decidedly not specific to any belief system. Rather, it is "a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings."

That is indeed not specific, but neither does it have any clear meaning either. AND it still manages to leave exclude quite some people that have been included in the article; many of them do not have "significant power", for instance.

Dozens of belief systems around the world, whether abrahamic or not, have considered notable people to be deities under this definition. The wide ranging claims of systemic bias are thus unfounded

You are not serious. Luis Dantas 00:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag added. I think that it is about time these concerns are properly addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out that Jossi's conclusion did not follow from the premise. It doesn't follow from the trinity dispute that the article is pointless, especially without a long line of reasoning inbetween those two statements. Luis Dantas has done little more here than add another voice behind Jossi's argument, but hasn't really added validity to the argument itself. The most that has been done is to say, again without good premise, that "the article is pointless indeed." You are free to continue saying that. I am unwilling to argue with you about whether or not the article has a point. If you feel like it has no point, please nominate it for deletion. If you have some constructive feedback about how the article might be modified, I'm willing to discuss that. I'm not willing to discuss the topic with you further under this subject heading because of your taunting tone. Please keep in mind that you are also free to edit the article. Why not sit down and hash out exactly what the relevant distinctions are, and assist in further subcategorization? I'd rather work with you than against you. --Alterego 05:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider the "dispute" tag helpful, since nothing here is actually disputed, it is just unclear how the facts should best be presented. Since nobody appears to object to the "mergeto" tag, I think I'll proceed by moving the deified rulers under "imperial cult" to their main article, so this one is already rid of that particular brand of divinity. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good first step. Other list items should be moved to their appropriate articles as well. 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)

Let's do this one person at a time, starting with Jesus Christ

Please explain to me why the term apotheosis applies to Jesus Christ, who was an incarnation of a god while he was still living, and provide citations, since the article on apotheosis does not. --Alterego 06:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

um, he was declared "an incarnation of a god while he was still living", at a point in time when he was long dead (see Christology). Obviously, the list takes no position on whether this is "true", we simply mention the fact. --dab (𒁳) 08:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not fact, it's bad history. Just how bad depends on what you mean by "long". I'd take a bet you're thinking of Nicea. 24.15.192.213 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that isn't correct. The Bible, being the main historical text about Jesus Christ to take into consideration, says that he admitted he is God. When Caiaphas asked him "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"(Mark 14:61), Jesus answered "I am"(Mark 14:62). So, Jesus was not posthumously deified. He claimed to be a God. What would be the best category for him? Calandrensis (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Christ" is the Greek word for "Messiah". It does not mean "God". Calling someone the "Son of the Blessed", or other terms related to "Son of God", was also another way of saying they were the Messiah and didn't literally mean that they were a deity. I don't think there are any mainstream Biblical historians who say that Jesus called himself God during his life. Even the popular conservative ones who believe that Jesus was God (N.T. Wright, for example) base that on what Jesus did and what Christians said about him afterwards, but don't believe that he said it explicitly himself.Dankster (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If it can be a disambiguation page, it will remain a list.

I contest the notion that this article should be reduced to a disambiguation page. This article is intended to be a list of all the people who fall under the relevant headings listed in the split template, and who further meet the criteria implied by the title. Suggesting that they be put in a disambig page under this title is equal to admitting that they belong in this list. There is no reason that a B class list should be thusly reduced, and no good argument has been presented for it. --Alterego 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

it isn't so bad now, but the point is that this list requires so much explanation that this really ceases to be a pure "list" article, and should perhaps lose the "list of" designator (people who have been considered deities). However, an article "people who have been considered deities" has pretty much the same scope as apotheosis, so that we're looking at a WP:CFORK. --dab (𒁳) 08:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Xerxes I

Didn't Xerxes I consider himself a god? I don't see his name on the list and I thought he needed adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.200.236 (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ramanuja

Ramanuja is considered by C.W. Leadbeater to be Jesus reincarnated. See Master Jesus.--Filll (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hongxiuquan.jpg

The image Image:Hongxiuquan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Khufu.jpg
• Image:Jehovah Wanyonyi.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Emperors

The table row is a gross distortion in that it doesn't distinguish between the emperors who were postumously declared divine (a common practice only for those well remembered) and those who declared themselved divine (commonly considered an act of madness even in the late Empire). Tiberius is especially glaring in this respect as he is well known to have refused to deify his mother after her death and to have generally been contemptuous of the practice.72.228.150.44 (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Norris

Please consider.--Frozenport (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus of Nazareth

Notpietru keeps removing Jesus of Nazareth from the list of posthumously deified figures, since s/he believes Jesus is still alive. Now, it seems to me that most figures revered as gods posthumously are considered by their followers to be immortal, so why make an exception for Jesus? But maybe I'm mistaken in this; in which case, should there be a separate category (and, if so, what)? Whatever we decide, he should be included in this list. garik (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe I misunderstood the rationale? There is the question (which I notice was raised above) of whether he was deified posthumously or in his lifetime (and, if the latter, whether or not he declared himself a deity). I see that this may be a trickier question, but we should probably find some way of resolving it, even if that involves adding a separate category. He is, after all, a particularly prominent example of a person who has been considered a deity. garik (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Notpietru once again removed Jesus from the article without providing rationale on the talk page - If he disputes which category Jesus belongs in then he should discuss it here. For now I´m reverting his changes, as it amounts to vandilism if he keeps doing this without providing rationale. Watercracker (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Blessed Virgin Mary

Although the Blessed Virgin Mary is highly venerated in both the Catholic & Orthodox Christian Churches, as the Mother of God,she is not worshipped, as that it reserved for God Alone. Including her in this list strongly implies that she is viewed as a goddess by both Catholics & Orthodox. So please remove her from the list. Thank you.--Splashen (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agreed - I am quite familiar with the term Theotokos in its religious context, and it is a statement about who Christ is that in no way implies that Mary herself was divine. The Wikipedia page on Theotokos is clear on this point. I kept her on the list due to the Collyridianism sect, but removed the references to Theotokos and Catholic/Orthodox Christianity.Dankster (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Robbie Fowler

It was widespread among Liverpool fans that this man was God — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan McBrazil Burger (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ezra Hasofer has never been considered a son of G-d!!!

That's a muslim lie made by Muhammad in order to make jews look like heatens, and in order to present muslims as the only believers in one g-d. Ezra was one of the greatest sages, but was not even considered a prophet. It was never claimed he has never died, more than that, his tomb is well known to be located in Basra, Iraq. Yemenite Jews have a tradition their ancestors were cursed to be poor by Ezra, because they refused to leave Yemen for the Holy Land in order to build the Second Temple, as they were asked by him. Therefore, it was claimed by Jacob Saphir, a 19th century jewish traveller to Yemen, they weren't really fond of him, let alone they didn't worship him, as a few muslim scholars falsely claimed.

According to the jewish law anyone who idolize/worshipp or even claim there's other god or that G-d has son and such ridiculous ideas, deserve a DEATH PENALTY, and any Jewish kid knows that.

This is not an Islamic encyclopedia, so please delete his name from this list. It hurts us as Jews, as we all believe in one G-d and have always fought and died for this belief throughout all history, long before such a man as Muhammad appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JewishMan333 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — JewishMan333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you look up a couple of subcategories, you will notice I made the same request, concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary. In fact, I even tried to edit out the category from the list, but, it was reinstated, & so far, my request has been ignored. So, don't worry, you guys are not alone here.--Splashen (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources given here do support your point, JewishMan333, that this belief seems to come from the Quran. I've adjusted the text accordingly. If other editors can find better sources for the claim, please provide them. As for the Virgin Mary: the claim is that she is considered Theotokos by some Christians, and as a Goddess by one very small sect, which the Catholic Church condemned as heretical. Are these claims false? They appear to be true. Remember that this is not a list of individuals who are deities. It is enough that some group somewhere has considered them so, or has been claimed to in a significant source. garik (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The title, Theotokos does not mean that Mary is believed to be a goddess. Rather, it is her official Title, God Bearer, or rather, Mother Of God, as she Bore the Incarnate Jesus Christ. Although, the article mentions that it was only one small sect which the Catholic Church condemned, it does not make it clear enough that neither the Catholic, nor the Orthodox Churches worship her as a goddess, but rather, venerate her as Our Queen Saint. To say that we worship her, would be akin to saying that Muslims worship Muhammad.--Splashen (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, and the article doesn't say that Theotokos means Mary is believed to be a goddess; in fact it's very clear about what the term means. But I think you have to admit that to claim someone is the mother of a God is a rather dramatic claim, relevant to the topic of this article. Second, the article says the cult who considered her a goddess was heavily condemned as heretical by the Catholic Church. How much clearer do you want it to be that the Catholic Church don't share the Collyridian view of her? garik (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As acknowledged in the list, we believe that the Lord Jesus Christ Is God Incarnate; hence the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother Of God. However, she had a singular nature, which was human, whereas her Son Had a Dual Nature: One Human and One Divine. How much clearer should the article be, concerning our reverence for Mary, you ask? Where it says "Some Christians, especially in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches regard the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos or (Mother of God). " This should say "They do not, however, believe that she herself is a goddess."--Splashen (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable enough addition, and I've made the change. You may be right that some readers don't understand the difference without it being made abundantly clear to them. Incidentally, I think you would both get a better response on talk pages if you were slightly less aggressive in tone. Coming in with all guns blazing, talking about "Muslim lies" doesn't endear you to anyone and immediately makes other editors defensive. With regard to the inclusion of Mary in this article: the Collyridian view of her is sufficient justification for her inclusion, so removing her from the article entirely is an inappropriately extreme solution, and calling for that in the first instance doesn't help your case. garik (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the appropriate change, & yes, I do realize now, that when I originally tried to edit the Blessed Mother out, was out of line on my part.--Splashen (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kingdom of Nepal.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kingdom of Nepal.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Mola Ali.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mola Ali.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mola Ali.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Kanye West

I'm rather surprised no one has jumped on this one yet! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Kim's in North Korea

Why isn't that on this list?

Archived discussions

Discussions about list members may be found in archive index. Pleasant pathways, Painius  04:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Saint Teresa of Kolkata

I think it might be better to have her classified under "Involuntary deification," rather than "Posthumous deification." I don't think she became worshipped after she died. I'm certain she was worshipped as an Avatar of the goddess Lakshmi, by some Hindus in Kolkata, back when she was alive.--Splashen (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you can reference to a reliable source supporting the idea that she was deified while alive, then by all means, make the move.--isacdaavid 23:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Lenin

whoever lived in a communist country, knows that Lenin was a kind of deity and should be listed as deified after death. Especially in Soviet Union there were countless pilgrimages to his grave and he was claimed to.be "eternally alive". So please add him to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.111.233.134 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The following holds for any existing or new entry, and really for most kind of statements in Wikipedia articles: we simply need a few citations to reliable sources that are supportive of the fact to be inserted before it can be inserted. Also, you can start editing yourself and learn this kind of guidelines as you go. --isacdaavid 23:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of people who have been considered deities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eng.taoism.org.hk/religious-activities%26rituals/daoist-folk-customs/pg4-8-22.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130327053334/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/976/cu3.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/976/cu3.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesus

According to many religions such as Islam and the Bahai faith Jesus would be considered as involuntarily deificated, as he didn't claim to be a deity but people just claimed he was. Can we move him or something? 92.16.237.72 (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Technically there is no reason a person couldn't be in more than one group on the list. --Alterego (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The idea is:

• posthumous: was deified only after death. This would be the best category for Jesus, with links to Christology articles.
• "involuntary": only for people who were deified while alive and how can be verified as having rejected or at least refused to confirm this.
• "self-deification": Not posthumous, not involuntary. Jesus doesn't really belong here, he is certainly reported to have claimed Messiah status, but the Christological doctrine of Trinitarianism is not part of the gospel.

Apart from the special case of Jesus (different interpretations of the gospel of John, lengthy arguments about the prefiguration of Trinitarianism in the NT, etc...) I don't really see how the categories can be argued to overlap. --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

So Jesus never wrote down his self-perception. Whatever the outcome of posthumous vs proclaimed, can we agree that apart from current scholarly commentary and maybe early New Testament reports attributing him the act of self-deification, there's no place for 4th century councils and Christian consensus (maybe not even Paul's opinion as opposed to quotation) on an entry filed under the "self-deification" category? One could probably move all characters to the "self-deification" category by simply citing the opinion of those who believe divinity was self-claimed. I agree that categories easily could (and should) be made trichotomous, and also happen to think that Jesus better fits the "posthumous" bill, but that doesn't take away the fact that Christians are likely to disagree and make their case (mostly by citing the youngest and least reliable of all gospels, I predict); resulting in an edit war. So maybe there's a purpose to having Jesus inhabit both categories, each referencing and linking to sources of its own kind. --isacdaavid 00:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's my proposal. --isacdaavid 01:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Is on the list TWICE. I think He should be taken off of the "Posthumous deification," & left on the "Self deification."--Splashen (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of people who have been considered deities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518020045/http://www.jllib.cn/refer/zhenghe/01_article_cont.asp?id=1526 to http://www.jllib.cn/refer/zhenghe/01_article_cont.asp?id=1526
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120709063405/http://etor.h1.ru/castrati.html to http://etor.h1.ru/castrati.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417024254/http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/yahweh_cult/14.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/yahweh_cult/14.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313200255/http://afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/article.php?id=117291 to http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/article.php?id=117291

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

North Korean leaders

I'm shocked to see the North Korean leaders are not on this list. They are considered deities in North Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12F0:2370:9928:E3E7:3B75:B3B7 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people who have been considered deities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125135648/http://cgunson.com/extras/matayoshi.html to http://cgunson.com/extras/matayoshi.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro

Should Ben Shapiro be here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.44.106 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Chabad messiah candidates

I removed Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn and Menachem Mendel Schneerson from the "involuntary deification" section. Even though they are claimed as the Jewish Messiah by adherents of Chabad messianism, I don't see any evidence that they are considered gods. Even though Christians consider Jesus the Messiah and God incarnate, one title does not imply the other. The Jewish idea of Messiah does not involve deification. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I can remember when Bahaullah used to be on the list, because Baha'is said he was manifestation of God. However, they said that being a manifestation of God didn't equal being an incarnation of God, so he was removed from the list.--Splashen (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Since you guys reinstated Rebbe Schneeson, might I suggest placing him in the "Posthumous Deification" list, as opposed to the "Involuntary" list. As it is noted in the box, he became deified, after he had passed away.--Splashen (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump

The sources used to provide evidence that Mr. Trump is perceived as a deity are inadequate.

Source 11 states that a single individual worships Mr. Trump as a deity. Were we to include every person considered a deity by a single individual we would need to add nearly every person that has appeared in the public spotlight.

Source 12 is coverage of a radio personality using a metaphor in which he compares the opinion of the Israeli public on Mr. Trump to that of the biblical Kings of Israel. No claim is made that Mr. Trump is literally viewed as biblical King of Israel or as divine by any individual.

Source13 is a statement by a single individual that in the future a cult of personality could form around Mr. Trump. There is no claim made that there is a current cult of personality around Mr. Trump nor does it in anyway associate Mr. Trump with divinity.

Source 14 is the only source which actually claims that there is a current and active cult of personality around Mr. Trump which involves a significant number of individuals. Regardless of the accuracy of that claim there remains no statement or implication that Mr.Trump is associated with divinity by any individual.

I would like to invite discussion on the removal of Mr. Trump from this list.

Absolutely agree. But since I'm not even sure I'm responding correctly and since this is a potentially politically charged edit I'll only comment and won't make the change myself. Rogerwilley (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this may receive a political response, but until the claim is properly backed by citations it does not have a place here. I will remove it. Hopefully if there is an inappropriate response those who are better versed on how to handle such things will step in. Paulfromironclad (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ataturk's cult of personality

I added the below but worry it might be objected to or deleted by some users:

In the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kamal Ataturk has his own cult following and is such a revered hero by a certain portion of the population, to the point that it reaches worship and belief that he is the creator of the Turkish nation|. His picture can be seen hanging in every government office and many businesses. His bust can be found in all public schools and educational institutions. By law, insulting him carries a fine and imprisonment.

176.55.95.51 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing you've cited suggests that he is considered a deity, which is a whole other level of worship. Elizium23 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Chinese emperors

Chinese Emperors didn’t claim they were deities. The Chinese believed that they were humans giving the right to rule by the gods. CycoMa (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Putting George Floyd in this article is absolutely ridiculous.

In no way did he ever proclaim himself as a deity. Nobody knew who he was before he died. People building alters for media attention does NOT count as being deified. Michaelsteele3 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The source does not support the claim of deification. There is no mention in the article about anybody calling Floyd a god, and all mentions of God appears to refer to the Christian God. There is mentions of baptisms and miracles, but not attributed to Floyd himself, and even if they were that does not make him more of a deity than Catholic saints who often have miracles attributed to them. Sjö (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed George Floyd as unsourced, per my comment above. It is not entirely impossible that some people have or will consider him a deity, and if their faith is directly referenced by reliable sources it can be restored. I also believe this is a WP:BLP matter, as this is a contentious issue and Floyd is covered by the policy as recently dead. Sjö (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Cao Dai

Since Zamenhof is considered as an Oomoto deity, should the Cao Dai saints like Victor Hugo and Sun Yatsen be included. I can't compare Oomoto deities and Cao Dai saints, but they seem similar. --Error (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Kanye West

Should Kanye West be included? I say this because of an interview with Zane Lowe in 2013 when he was explaining a song (made by Kanye) titled I am God https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge33hrlN2Uc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Clapton and Maradona - not deities

Clapton is God was a piece of graffiti sprayed on a wall in London in the Sixties. It was implying he was a God amongst guitar players not an actual deity. It became popularised due to media attention and copycat graffiti and became a piece of social/music history

The Iglesia Maradoniana is a parody religion set up by Maradona football fans to worship the memory of Maradona as a man and, in their opinion, the greatest football player, not as a deity. Andrew ranfurly (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree; both of those are clearly using "is God" in hyperbolic reverence, rather than literally. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Apollo Quiboloy wiki.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vissarion portrait (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Joseph Kony 3.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Taking into consideration that it was after Menachem Mendel Schneerson passed, would it not be a better subcategory to have him under the "Posthumous deification," as opposed to the "Involuntary deification?"--Splashen (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hong Xiuquan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Original research

I have tagged this list as containing original research. Many of the entries have no citations, making it impossible to verify whether these individuals have been deified in the way that they are listed. It may be necessary to remove these entries if they cannot be verified. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2014-04-16 正德宮清水祖師公.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 林默娘公園林默娘像.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)