Talk: God

Possible Explanation of Belief Retcon?

I was reading the "Church of the Holy Light" article and noticed the following: "Some claim that the Third War was the best thing that could have happened to the Church. The Church finally gave up its old habits and started to change. Some of the younger priests suggested that the Church take this opportunity to rebuild itself, setting aside many of its older traditions and starting new ones. They claimed that the Church had strayed from the path of the Three Virtues and needed to pare back down to essentials. According to these younger priests, their elders had lost touch with the Light and it was time to reclaim that holy communion. There are rumors of a break within the Church itself, dating to about that time. It is said that the members are fighting amongst themselves about whether to cling to the old traditions or forge new ones. It didn't help that most of the Church's texts were lost and so people have been writing new ones — some of them writing about the same things but without comparing notes or checking sources. "

Could this be alluding to the shift from believing in God to becoming a non-theistic religion? I've been looking over the information for the Warcraft III retcon that the Church of the Holy Light is non-theistical despite the first two games clearly describing the Northshire clerics and others as being "in God's service." It doesn't seem to make any sense at all, outstide of Blizzard attempting to change the series' religious beliefs to something more alien and less likely to offend real people's beliefs. This info is the only thing I've seen that might address it in-universe.

Could the "break" have been the split between Holy Light followers that believed in God and ones that were non-theistical? Maybe the younger, more liberal priests cut out all of the belief in God and just kept the values and trappings of the old church. Does anyone else have any further information? Martin 05:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)mdwall

Talk:Church of the Holy Light

New "Night Elf Goddess" in MoP

http://www.scrollsoflore.com/forums//attachment.php?attachmentid=1573&d=1338656347

--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a pandaren goddess to me... -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's night elf in aspect, he mentioned that he fished something that it's in the room that looks like Mazu and there's a night elf statue head in his room. Some speculate that it's Azshara--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Given how many night elf statues there were before the Sundering, and how many are now in pieces because of it, it could really be anybody. I don't see the connection between the goddess the pandaren talks about and a random piece of broken statuary in the room. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

He says "Beautiful, isn't she? i fished it up a few years ago - it looks just like her... ask me about it some time." asking about it leads to a conversation about Mazu, and the only thing in the room that looks like a female is that statue head. If you still don't believe me feel free to change it.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

Would it perhaps be better to give the page the name "deity?" The term "God" technically isn't incorrect, but many use it to refer to a monotheistic deity, one of which already supposedly exists in the setting. IMO, it would work better to have "deity" be the page name and give the One God its own page, among the list of other deities.--Hawki (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's only capitalized because the site forces the first letter to be capitalzed. I'd say "Deity" would be a poor fit since that term is almost never used in Warcraft materials (only Anzu's DJ and Elune's WC Enc page come to mind). The overwhelming majority of the time, these entities are referred to as "god" or "gods". I suppose the page could be "Gods", like the WC Enc page. But making it plural goes against the naming policy. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Lore conflict

@User:‎ShellShockLive As per WP:LORE, "All official sources of lore are considered valid." "Two or more sources of lore may conflict on significant points. However, it is not Wowpedia's purpose to simply ignore older lore as if it never existed, but rather show the evolution of the story, and all alternate events. Perceived discrepancies may be retcons, flavor lore, or simply errors, but it is not up to the wiki to decide which is the case. All versions should be compared and contrasted with citations, in order to portray the true publishing history."

No part of it is speculation. It is outlining what the discrepancy is between different canon sources. You don't get to decide what is canon, only Blizzard does. Everything they release is canon, except the RPG, which they explicitly declared non-canon. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

But it's not possible for everything to be canon, as per Chris Metzen himself only the latest, most recent sources should be considered canon. Titans being Aesir/Vanir for example is no longer canon even though there are still references to that in-game, because Chronicle, the most recent source about this, said so. This is called a retcon. So still using this exmaple, different sources say different things about Titans, but only the latest one counts : Titans are not Aesir or Vanir, even though that's still in-game. So when Chronicle says that Titans are "godlike beings", it means they are not gods. --ShellShockLive (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that titans are not gods. I also think Aquamonkeyeg just want to keep the text to confirm that, while some older sources call them gods, they are only actually god-likes. Both of you guys are working toward the same end IMO Xporc (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

As Xporc said, the purpose of the policy and those edits is to catalogue the change to the lore. Citation for Metzen's statement? That would be very important for Wowpedia policy.

The specific example of Aesir/Vanir came from the RPG, which isn't canon anymore. It's hardly ever mentioned in game. And even then, it never referred to the titans, it was talking about storm/earth giants. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes yes, my point was that a sentence such as "Titans, though some people believe them to be gods (I'm here referring to in-universe people here), are not gods but godlike beings as described in Chronicle (+ reference to Chronicle)" would be perfect, there's no need for a 132 paragraphs pointless section that could in addition be misleading. ShellShockLive (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Except it's not merely something in-universe (relegated to flavor lore). Out-of-universe materials called them gods. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You didn't understand. Could you explain to me how is this sentence wrong ? "Titans, though some people believe them to be gods (I'm here referring to in-universe people here), are not gods but godlike beings as described in Chronicle (+ reference to Chronicle)".

In-universe, some people (like Dwarves) believe the Titans to be gods. But in reality, in the lore (not flavor lore, but Warcraft lore), it is known that they are not gods, as per Chronicle. There is simply no debating that. The official answer is that Titans are not gods, as per Chronicle. So wowpedia should say that Titans are not gods, as per Chronicle. You totally could describe in the Trivia part for example the changes in the lore and say that previously Titans were described as gods, but the main section should say the truth, what is official, that Titans are not gods. ShellShockLive (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Because that statement isn't even true as currently cited. The current citations are out-of-universe ("Mythology of the Titans" had an out-of-universe entry on the official website). It makes no reference to who believes (flavor lore) the titans are gods. They are referred to gods out-of-universe. Those materials are still canon. I don't even know of a source that says the dwarves think the titans are gods.

I would still like a citation for Metzen saying that only the latest sources should be considered canon. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So leave the "they believe" part out ? Just "Chronicle says that Titans are godlike beings", which means they are not gods. New lore trumps old lore, as new lore represents the writers' most recent position and thinking on a subject. That's literally why wowpedia has an outofdate tag, if that were not the case we wouldn't need that. (Yes I'll look for that quote for you)ShellShockLive (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a clear distinction between between OOC knowledge and in-universe knowledge. "They believe" is irrelevant for the titans being gods. It was explicitly stated OOC that they were gods. Blizzard changed their minds and decided the titans weren't gods anymore. That's what the note catalogues. Yes, I agree that new lore trumps old lore, but that is not the policy according to WP:LORE. And tracking the changes to the lore has value, which is why the policy exists, but those changes to the canon are relegated to notes. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That's why I flag things as flavor lore and frame things as being "beliefs" or "myths" when new OOC sources contradict. It's a matter of narrative. Technically, everything stated within the universe (dialogue/thoughts from the game, novels, comics, etc.) can be classified under "flavor lore" because those people may be lying or just incorrect. We take things like dialogue or quest text at face value because we can't operate otherwise without outside knowledge. When we do have OOC knowledge like from the WC Encyclopedia, tweets, published guides, etc, then we can relegate those in-universe statements to flavor lore. The prime example is the Tribunal of Ages. That was the most definitive source we had about titans and their relation to the Old Gods prior to Chronicle. But Chronicle relegated it to flavor lore because Loken corrupted the information (something Blizzard invented to get away with changing the lore). This is the importance of citations and proper framing. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'm saying that the main article should state the truth, that Titans aren't gods, while the notes about how their status has evolved throughout the years should be part of another section such as the Trivia section. ShellShockLive (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Where the info goes doesn't really matter to me. The important part is that it is properly segregated. A separate notes section is fine, it's just that since one is lacking on the page, putting it as an addendum to the "Described as god or goddess" was more relevant. My personal style (no bearing on WP style) is to have things noted (or at least linked) where they are most relevant. Also, not having notes sections comprising of a single note, unless it is truly tangential to the entire page. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Demigods section

do we have any source on malfurion being considered a demigod? he is very powerful but he's still just a regular night elf, as far as i'm aware. could that bit have meant to say cenarius maybe? -- Eithris (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Although Malfurion Stormrage is a powerful archdruid, I'm not aware of any instances in which he's been referred to as a demigod. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 01:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)