Talk:List of demigods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mythology (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Hey, there's been some vandalism to this page I deleted what I found, but there's probably more. Specifically, the vandalism is the addition of members of the rap group "Demigodz".

Hindu Demigods?[edit]

demigod referes to Hindu demigods. does anybody know about these? -- (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) so, yeah —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


I know she was hinted to be Ares's daughter in one episode..but it was made pretty clear that this was not actually the case. I don't remember seeing any hints that she was Zeus's or Hades's daughter. Perhaps this should be removed or there needs to at least be a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


Please see the main article before adding this. The usual definition of demigod is not "one parent is a god, one parent is human"; it's much more complicated and Jesus doesn't obviously fit the definitions given. The term should not be applied haphazardly in novel ways to people who have not been described as that. That is original research. -Lo2u (TC) 20:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the user Geomiles re-added the assertion, presumably after a Google trawl for evidence, and was reverted by another editor. The source is clearly unreliable and doesn't even support the assertion.
  • The source commences with this warning: "has been questioned by numerous theists and nontheists alike... document was included for historical purposes; readers should be extremely cautious in trusting anything in this book. "
  • Although the section title begins "JESUS CHRIST A DEMIGOD, ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN WRITERS", the chapter actually asserts that early Christians worshipped him in the same way and "placed him on a level" with a demigod. The writer isn't saying they actually believed Christ was a demigod. --Lo2u (TC) 16:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Good enough for Merriam-Webster:


an extremely impressive or important person : a person who seems like a god in some way
a person in mythology who has some of the powers of a god : a being in mythology who is part god and part human.

Therefore, Jesus counts. 3XF4LIFE (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the definitions you provide above, anyone impressive or important would count. What your source doesn't do is say Jesus is a demigod. Demigod is not part of Christian or Jewish vocabulary and your insertion is an obvious violation of WP:SYNTH: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." --Lo2u (TC) 19:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


I'm thinking we might want to divide by source, ie: Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Modern Fiction, etc. There are a lot more than can be added. Dennis Brown - 19:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Paul August, since you have reverted the removal of all four tags after I made a change to the scope of the article, under WP:BRD, please tell me why each belongs. Trivia in particular is hard to understand. Sources is difficult to understand because it is now a list of articles here only, so the sources would be in the main articles, or you could challenge the inclusion of that entry. Original research makes no sense if the articles linked have the same info. And I'm curious how you feel this doesn't meet the criteria for notability. You could of course simply take it to WP:AFD and that question would be answered. Dennis Brown - 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose AFD would be the correct thing to do, but I'm reluctant to go there. The biggist problem I see has to do with the term "demigod" itself, which does not have a very precise meaning, see our article demigod. In particular, In the case of Greek mythology, my only area of expertise here, it does not mean having one mortal and one divine parent, which is I suspect is the "definition" being used by those adding entries to this list. No Greek figure should be added to this list unless some ancient source calls them a hemitheoi, a term only very rarely used. Either that or the list needs to change it's name and make clear what its definition is. Paul August 10:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Google defines it as: "a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank." which is fairly broad, and I would add the word "fictional" in the definition myself. I don't think there is any chance of it being deleted at AFD, as demigod is a reasonable category of fictional character, there are plenty of subcategories, and lists are not prohibited just because you can also have a category: they provide more info. This list is sorely lacking, undoubtedly, but that was my objective, to shore it up a bit. I think what we should do is first agree on a definition and incorporate that into the criteria and let that be our guide. Obviously, I would limit it to entries that already have articles on Wikipedia, which makes sources less of a problem as long as it is sourced in the article. This will help turn this into a meaningful and useful list of "lesser gods, et. al.". Dennis Brown - 15:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, my main concern is with Greek entries: quoting from our article:
In the ancient Greek and Roman world, the word did not have a consistent definition and was rarely used.[1][2]
The earliest recorded use of the term is by the archaic Greek poets Homer and Hesiod. Both describe dead heroes as 'hemitheoi', or "half gods". In these cases, the word did not mean that these figures had one parent who was divine and one who was mortal.[3] Instead, those who demonstrated "strength, power, good family, and good behavior" were termed heroes, and after death they could be called hemitheoi, a process that has been referred to as "heroization".[4] Pindar also used the term frequently as a synonym for hero.[5]
So in Greek mythology a "demigod" i.e. a hemitheoi was generally a generic term for any hero. But I think there will be few—if any— figures for which you can find a source which explicitly calls them a a hemitheoi, which is what you would need I think to add them to this list as currently named.
Paul August 17:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Talbert, Charles H. (1 January 1975). "The Concept of Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity". Journal of Biblical Literature. 94 (3): 419–436. doi:10.2307/3265162. ISSN 0021-9231. 
  2. ^ Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles (1980). An Elementary Latin Dictionary (Revised ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 767. ISBN 9780198642015. 
  3. ^ William, Hansen (2005). Classical Mythology: A Guide to the Mythical World of the Greeks and Romans. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 199. ISBN 0195300351. 
  4. ^ Price, Theodora Hadzisteliou (1 January 1973). "Hero-Cult and Homer". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 22 (2): 129–144. ISSN 0018-2311. 
  5. ^ Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert (1894). A Greek–English Lexicon (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 596. 
    • This is why I'm trying to find a good criteria, which may in fact be broad and included a few different definitions since mythology doesn't have a single source. The idea of a list of "lesser gods" is a valid idea, but what I'm seeing is more effort spent on trimming the article and less on creating a criteria that is useful and inclusive enough to be useful. I'm also not opposed to a name change if it was needed, although I think it would still have to be generic enough to be inclusive. Watching the article being stripped to a stub looks more like prepping it for AFD than trying to rehabilitate it, however. Dennis Brown - 14:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
In the case of Greek mythology, I don't think we really need a "lesser gods" list, since that topic is well covered in other lists. As for removing the Greek entires, I think it is important not to have any entries in a list of "demigods" which do not have ancient sources which call them that (which, as far as I can tell is virtually none). Strictly from the point of view of Greek mythology I have no problem with the current list as it now stands, since I think it no longer contains any Greek entries. Although I would expect there might be similar problems regarding entries for other mythologies. As for proposing a new definition and name for the list, be my guest. Paul August 15:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Now a list of offspring of gods with mortals, so change the name?[edit]

Recent changes now make this a list of offspring of gods with mortals. Given that the term demigod has a wider (and not particularly consistent or well-defined) meaning, perhaps we should change the name of this list? Paul August 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  • To me, "demigod" means "half god". Not by any dictionary meaning, but by common usage by the average reader. ie: WP:COMMONNAME I'm open to discussing, but whatever is chosen should be at least as common or more common than "demigod", and I'm just not aware of any. Dennis Brown - 16:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
We don't need a single term, why not just call it a "List of offspring of gods with mortals"? As it is the term "demigod" is vague, confusing and not well defined. Paul August 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • And so there is no confusion, I'm personally not against expanding the criteria a bit to include all characters that are less than a full god but more than human. The goal isn't insuring all are 50% "god", the goal is to create a list of names of characters who are part god/part man, to be a research and navigational aid. And I'm still confused why we have the "sources" and "notability" tag. Most lists don't use sources if they link directly to articles that already have sources, and if we insist on "notability", I may just take it to AFD to answer that question, as I'm more than sure it will survive intact as a list. Dennis Brown - 16:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
However you choose to define this list it needs to be precise enough so that it's clear what belongs on it and what doesn't. The sourcing issue depends on the definition of the list. If we are going to define the list to be just offspring of gods with mortals, then we can probably rely on the articles to supply sources for that. But if, for the Greek case for example, we define the list to mean those that were referred to as a demigod (i.e. "hemitheoi") then that would need a specific ancient source for that, which won't generally be found in the entries article. Paul August 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Then a few may require individual sources or tags, which doesn't surprise me. Putting a general tag on the article doesn't help editors know which ones need it, we need to tag specific entries so they can be located for just those that need it. A couple may even needs *notes to explain, as the sources may use a synonym rather than the word "demigod", to make sure we don't fall into WP:OR with the claim. No rush, but having the individual names tagged with {{cn}} is a good place to start. Dennis Brown - 17:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, since the list now says it is just a list of offspring of gods with mortals, I've removed the general tags. But what about changing the list's name to "List of offspring of gods with mortals"? Paul August 18:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
That is accurate if you don't expand the scope but seems a bit cumbersome, plus I'm still mulling over the idea of expanding the criteria a bit. The problem with "a great mortal hero with god-like valour and skills (who sometimes attains divine status after death)" is the fact that this would be a nightmare to police. For today, tagging the obvious ones that need cites is good. We might need some outside opinions when it comes to a title, maybe advertise a request at some projects and get some outside perspectives. Dennis Brown - 18:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Better accurate than inaccurate, vague and misleading. Paul August 20:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree and trust you, that's why I said tag them and if it isn't possible to source it reasonably well, I will delete them myself. But the outside opinions are still a good idea to get input for the scope and title. Dennis Brown - 23:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)