Talk:Imperial cult

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Religion Top‑importance Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm afraid that this article is about the historical worship of Roman emperors and has nothing to do with anything your group is concerned about. I am making the weblinks added here not autolinking, and I hope not to find dozens of them elsewhere on Wikipedia. Smerdis of Tlön 04:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll split off most of the 'Ancient Rome' section to

Done!

Imperial cult (Ancient Rome)--Hippalus 08:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Should the Euhemerus reference be included? The way it reads it suggests that Euhemerus himself was worshiped. After reading the article on Euhemerus, I see the point the entry is attempting to make, but it still seems unclear. I almost changed the wording myself to euhemeristic, but I'm not sure that is a word. The information about Euhemerus and his inclusion in the article seems helpful, but its presentation is a little clunky. Trippz 08:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euhemerisation is the substantive I believe. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to open a discussion on the agreed definition of Imperial Cult for purposes of this article. My understanding is that the venerated figure(s) in question must be (or have been) the leader(s) of a politically or geographically recognized nation. The nation in question may not necessarily fit the definition of being an Empire, thus making the use of the word "Imperial" somewhat misleading. For example, Monarchs and Dictators may also have Imperial Cult followers. In fact, it seems to be the autocratic nature of the venerated figure or dynasty which worshipers adhere to most. I'm somewhat confused by the use of "...supranational identity in the case of a multi-ethnic state ..." as mentioned in the article, because this appears to be more like nationalism. Can someone clarify this to me? The two terms seem closely related, but I don't specifically see the distinction. Is it that the nationalistic beliefs are centered exclusively on the autocrat? Trippz 09:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have provided references for this elsewhere and thought I had here but a quick look through older versions seems to indicate not. In any case the fact tagged stuff in that § is easily sourced. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this here, apparent stray comment with unbalanced markup (corrected markup, left typos): Egyptians Pharaohs were concered to be gods because they were the proctector the people

The last sentence did seem to be a counterfactual. The dead pharoahs joined the other gods, but the living king enjoyed the status of a god on earth as well. This is in contrast to deification in Rome, or the posthumous naming of Chinese Emperors but of course the religious practices of Egypt also occurred against the real world conditions upon which dynastic turnover was based. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for the very bad use of this term in the article, see Talk:Devaraja: "Devaraja is the Hindu-Buddhist cult of deified royalty in Southeast Asia" is pure fiction, based on very poor sources.--Shivanarayana (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]