Talk:God complex/Archive 1

VfD 2005
This article was nominated for deletion recently, with consensus being to keep. The archived discussion can be found at Votes for deletion/God complex -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

About the first external link
The link to the McLemee.com domain seems like a strange site to link to. It doesn't really describe Jung as a person with God complex as much as it just talks about how overtly obsessed he was with New Age spiritual and off-the-wall religious beliefs.

Merge from Messianic complex
Please merge any relevant content from [ Messianic complex] per Articles for deletion/Messianic complex. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-23 08:40Z 

Not sure I understand
So is this article about a specific complex, or does it refer to complexes in general? --Cronodude360 23:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I had clicked on a link to "Hero Complex" which had taken me here, which confused me. Now, however, that link actually goes to the page on the Hero complex. So question answered. --24.18.207.51 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Concept used to criticize modernity"
Is this really notable? It reads like a bunch of luddites self-promoting. Remove? 88.108.105.244 10:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding the God template?
Well, I did it, considering that the article is part of the God series, and IPSOS removed it. Am I mistaken or is IPSOS? --124.168.22.223 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've realised my IP has changed. It was revision 121387972.
 * If God actually existed, he'd curse you far adding "Him" to this ridiculously bad page. S a u d a d e 7  22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words, Unsourced Info, Oh My!!
From the article: Some believe that 'god complexes' are "particularly common in arrogant, highly educated, worldly, or powerful people." --Whoops--forgot to sign in!! FruitMart07 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yepp, if that was the formulation, then it was Weasely and not NPOV. But the article I read now is pretty good! The article is about the term "god complex", it reflects on its validity and usage. A few more citations might be needed, but I think it's time to remove the neutrality tagging (?). I think you editors have made a very good job. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is not the neutrality of the article, it is that almost nothing in the article is actually true; it is very badly written; it is not formatted properly; etc. Are "authoritarian impulses and narcissism the same thing? Not according to psychology or psychoanalysis.. Are these then the same as a "God Complex"? How could they be? What YEAR was that Richter book published that assumes that women and minorities cannot have "God Complexes"? Where is the foil to Richter's argument? Why is the ISBN information just stuck in the middle of the article and not formatted as a reference or in a Bibliography section? Is that the only "scholarly research" in the article? The whole thing is supposed to be composed of "scholarly research" not just one section. What kind of title is that for a section?! "Modernity" is not the same thing as "Modern Times". The Enlightenment might have led, in part, to the Reign of Terror, but not because all the French people had "God Complexes"! The "Reign of Terror" did not "Afflict all of Europe." "Some people" and "American grassroots political movement websites" are not adequate sources to base an analysis of the causes of the French Revolution on. Why do “modern times” need a "rationale defense from a mainstream [German] philosopher" (in German) in an article about the God Complex? Why is, again, the reference to his book just stuck in the middle of the page and not in a reference section? Then: Poor Napoleon. He is at the mercy here of "the opinion of some" who "retroactively claimed [a] god complex [sic] for him”. In fact, we learn that this "may have been in some opinions the catalyst for the twenty years of war that ensued." So is it all Napoleon's fault? No, because in the very next sentence we are told that is was the "collective god complex." You will then notice that the last sentence of this section and that of the last (modernity) are the same sentence. This is bad undergraduate writing and sourcing of references. The French Revolution comes off as a bad thing, not as though it brought people liberty, the right to divorce, freedom from religion, the middle-class, as well as all the trauma and hope of Modernity...And, what matters, is that it has almost nothing to do with the "God Complex" except in the opinions of those unnamed and unsourced "some". Finally after a list of random "See Alsos" we do get two sources, both of which are just articles, not about "God Complexes" but hey! they use the wording in their titles. That's like using an article about the Miami Dolphins as references about Sea Mammals!


 * This is literally the worst article I have ever seen on the Wiki. How can it NOT be NPOV ?!? - it doesn't even have an intelligible one! The article needs to be trashed completely and rewritten.  S a u d a d e 7  23:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I added a rewrite template. With the exception of a couple lines, it has problems I cannot begin to describe (luckily that's been covered for me). Hopefully someone will be willing to take this on. I don't want to see the topic gone, but it does need a very serious cleanup. 67.42.14.57 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is rotten...
"God Complex" is a colloquialism. Let's just link the term to "Faustian" shall we? I can't make heads or tails out this article. Idiosyncratic opinion.Vendrov 07:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I must agree. Anyone who looks at my record on the Wiki will see that I always argue to "Keep". I have defended even "minor Star Wars characters" against the axe, despite not giving a darn about such things. But as a historian of French history, and of Modernity, I can tell you there is not ONE salvageable thing on this whole damn page. It reminded me of that movie "Malice" with Alec Baldwin and Nicole Kidman...it was that BAD! Please nominate this article for deletion. Then, someone, someday can resurrect the article, beginning from scratch, untainted by the swill that I just waded through!  S a u d a d e 7  23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am reposting this part of my rant here, just in case people only look at the bottom of the page...


 * The problem is not the neutrality of the article, it is that almost nothing in the article is actually true; it is very badly written; it is not formatted properly; etc. Are "authoritarian impulses and narcissism the same thing? Not according to psychology or psychoanalysis.. Are these then the same as a "God Complex"? How could they be? What YEAR was that Richter book published that assumes that women and minorities cannot have "God Complexes"? Where is the foil to Richter's argument? Why is the ISBN information just stuck in the middle of the article and not formatted as a reference or in a Bibliography section? Is that the only "scholarly research" in the article? The whole thing is supposed to be composed of "scholarly research" not just one section. What kind of title is that for a section?! "Modernity" is not the same thing as "Modern Times". The Enlightenment might have led, in part, to the Reign of Terror, but not because all the French people had "God Complexes"! The "Reign of Terror" did not "Afflict all of Europe." "Some people" and "American grassroots political movement websites" are not adequate sources to base an analysis of the causes of the French Revolution on. Why do “modern times” need a "rationale defense from a mainstream [German] philosopher" (in German) in an article about the God Complex? Why is, again, the reference to his book just stuck in the middle of the page and not in a reference section? Then: Poor Napoleon. He is at the mercy here of "the opinion of some" who "retroactively claimed [a] god complex [sic] for him”. In fact, we learn that this "may have been in some opinions the catalyst for the twenty years of war that ensued." So is it all Napoleon's fault? No, because in the very next sentence we are told that is was the "collective god complex." You will then notice that the last sentence of this section and that of the last (modernity) are the same sentence. This is bad undergraduate writing and sourcing of references. The French Revolution comes off as a bad thing, not as though it brought people liberty, the right to divorce, freedom from religion, the middle-class, as well as all the trauma and hope of Modernity...And, what matters, is that it has almost nothing to do with the "God Complex" except in the opinions of those unnamed and unsourced "some". Finally after a list of random "See Alsos" we do get two sources, both of which are just articles, not about "God Complexes" but hey! they use the wording in their titles. That's like using an article about the Miami Dolphins as references about Sea Mammals!


 * This is literally the worst article I have ever seen on the Wiki. How can it NOT be NPOV ?!? - it doesn't even have an intelligible one! The article needs to be trashed completely and rewritten.  S a u d a d e 7  23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:OR in terms of synthesis of random elements, and written a bit like an essay, are the problems of this rubbish article, IMHO.  Merkinsmum  00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
Subject is a non-notable colloquialism. I looked for a formal definition in dictionaries, and no reliable source exists. It is not accepted as a disorder, and at most is a type of delusion. I do not think improvement is possible, so article should be deleted. Anyone think further improvement is possible? 66.157.161.196 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Challenging unsourced information
Challenging the factual accuracy of the following:

" . . . for a state of mind in which a person believes he has supernatural powers or god-like abilities."

I do not find the definition captures the essence of what is "The God Complex." So I was bold and removed it.

"The person generally believes they are above the rules of society and should be given special consideration.[citation needed] The implication that one has a "God complex" seems to imply an extreme case of narcissism/solipsism."

I have never heard this in all my years studying psychology, so I felt it should not be in the article (don't want to spread misinformation). Besides it is unsourced.

Also I removed the media section as it is against Wiki policy.

Ismouton (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that god complex means "The person generally believes they are above the rules of society and should be given special consideration."


 * Why even have this article if there is not even a definition for what it means in the lead, there is barely any text in the article, and when the article points to another article? I do not even believe that having a god complex necessarily means the person is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can find sourced information feel free to expand it. I doubt that can be done as the term is simply a precursor to the more commonly used NPD and any sources on the term will either come from the 1800s (Sigmund Freud), will be use colloquially in modern media, mentioned in passing, or just be used by those unknowledgeable in the field.  The DSM-IV-TR is one of only reliable sources on mental/personality disorders besides medical journals (but I looked and did not see this term mentioned) and its only citable based on the fact this is not mentioned(can we even do that?).


 * I still think this article can thrive at Wiktionary, but as someone said before: This article will either replicate NPD or be painfully short.  C'mon find a definition that is from a reliable source.  I would love something to work with.Ismouton (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This term "being simply a precursor to the more commonly used NPD" does not mean that we cannot use a source from that article which briefly mentions what "God complex" is supposed to mean. I am familiar with the DSM-IV-TR, and the point I am getting at is that a person having a god complex does not necessarily mean that they have narcissistic personality disorder...even though they may have a few traits of narcissistic personality disorder.


 * Also...the media section that was in here is not against Wikipedia policy. This term is not even in the DSM-IV-TR, and the media section only focused on fictional characters, and one song. It is perfectly acceptable to have a section about how this topic has been portrayed in the media...as long as it is not naming real people. Thus, I will restore that section, with tweaks, after tweaking the lead of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost all media sections have been removed from Wiki so I am fairly certain we should not put one here. On another note the next DSM will likely have a category of personality disorder more similar to the "god complex" as used in everyday slang.


 * Also I must add: Urbandictionary.com has some spectacular definitions of god complex . ;)Ismouton (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not seen most media sections removed from Wikipedia, but maybe you get around more here than I do or are talking about a specific genre. Fictional topics often have a "Media" or "In the media" section, and serious topics, such as topics about sexual orientation (as seen with Lesbian), do as well. Even articles on celebrities, as seen with featured article Angelina Jolie.


 * I came across the Urbandictionary.com definitions for god complex, but I am not sure if it is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. That site is user-edited, right? If so, as you likely know, most sites like that are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am starting a new thread as I am tired of typing colons. The media section in the lesbian article is fine. The current section was a list and Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. Such a section can be done well, but I think we should first worry about finding a suitable definition. Wouldn't you agree? I can feel what The God Complex (GC) means, but that is not good for Wikipedia enough which is partially why I am hellbent on just making this a Wiktionary article. We cannot do research on how a word is used here (we are not a dictionary as far as I know); the words meaning must be stated as fact, so we cannot interpret. Can we do research on how words are used similarly to how Webster does? What about if society has never reached consensus as to what is word means? I just think we might be treading into dictionary territory; however I do know that Freud wrote about GC, but I believe he used it without defining it well. Perhaps if you have access to his works you can look into it? I do not have access to it until class starts (in another month).

PS. I was joking about urbandictionary. Ismouton (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was intending on putting the media section of this article in regular text format, not list format, and I still plan to (but later). As for keeping this article from being a dictionary, a definition of the term would be better for this article than leaving it without a definition; right now, it is even more pointless because of that. Really, it seems that this article should have simply stayed redirected, but I would not want it redirected to the Narcissistic personality disorder article unless it was redirected to a section within which distinguishes between people with god complex in the sense of ego/superiority and the actual disorder. I will try to find some reliable information about this term. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has not been very well liked in the past as I am sure you have read above. Many people have tried to redirect to various places, but the wiki-gods have spoken.  If you want a good definition I urge you to look inside of works by Freud. I am a bit useless right now as I don't have a library, and there are no good sources on Google right now.Ismouton (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this "article" would actually fit better as a section in the narcissism article? There are a few instances of God/Messianic complex in history worth noting (David Koresh). Musing Sojourner (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I restored this article from its recent redirected state. I went ahead and added a simple definition of the term, with a reference from a book called Modern Group Book; it deals with psychological and medical topics, and mentions something about Freud's biographer. I also added the line back about people with a god complex believing "they are above the rules of society and should be given special consideration"...but with the addition of "may believe." I added this back because it is a well-known common definition for this term. We are defining this term by its slang usage, anyway, not by how it may sometimes be used to refer to narcissistic personality disorder. It may also not be a bad thing to add how it is typically defined by Urban Dictionary; the Wardrobe malfunction article, for example, partly uses Urban Dictionary to define that.

Yes, this article cannot currently be expanded beyond a stub, unless we add a big In the media section, but I feel that it should exist; it is different than narcissistic personality disorder, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any difference between god complex and Messiah complex ? I think Messiah complex ought to redirect to Grandiose delusions so maybe this should as well. --Penbat (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the Messiah complex is defined as "a state of mind in which the individual believes he/she is, or is destined to become, a savior," I would say that it is different than God complex. God complex is either about people often believing they can accomplish more than is humanly possible, that their opinion is typically above those they may disagree with, that they are above the rules of society and should be given special consideration, or all of that...not necessarily about being a savior or anything to do with Jesus. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the work of one individual suffering from some other home-made complex
This 'article' is bullshit. It has no factual value, and bases its strange claims on no worthwhile theories. Having it on Wikipedia makes me question whether or not WP is able to keep its dumbest 'contributors' from destroying what others write, as well as the overall seriousness of WP. Yautja Uzbek (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, after reading this, I'm now convinced of the god complex. I'm also convinced that both this message and the one below demonstrate the same concept under different labels: insanity. Dogmatic insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND HIS NAME IS JORDAN HUGH HEARING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.181.85 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See also linking of people
"god complex" when used as a lable is certainly pejorative, and so per WP:BIO certainly living people should not be linked to in this way and probably not any people, unless they are a well founded case with external reliable comments to that extent. Even then they should not appear in the see also section. As such I am removing this list of people as it is not helpful for readers and is against policy. |→ Spaully₪† 09:15, 10 May 2007 (GMT)

"God complex" This is another one of those psycho babble terms designed to re-label an old disease~SELF-CENTEREDNESS. To make it sound more 'fashionable,' in a world that has donned an impenetrable aversion to being dissected, the words egocentric maniac, megalomaniac, and narcissist have been balled up into this one phrase. To me it sounds like this expression was coined by a woman speaking either of her misogynistic boss, or her husband, or both. In either case, as with all personality disorders and anti-social behavior, it is not always a simple matter to define a particular person's actions without first observing this individual's personality in context.David N. Bibb (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)D Bibb

TED Video
OK to add this video into the body? It seems to provide a reasonable discussion of the source of the phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb19012 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Articles are written based on what is in reliable sources and are not merely a collection of links to interesting places. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal
How about a merge to the actual medical term, grandiose delusions? ~ MD Otley (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Mdotley (MD Otley), I oppose for reasons already noted at the previous merge proposal about this; see what is stated there. A lot of people, at one point or another, have had a god complex; it does not necessarily mean that those people had a mental disorder. A god complex, while it can be the result of a mental disorder, is significantly more of a social matter than a mental disorder matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally convinced, especially since zero real-life examples are given, the "See also" list is longer than the lead, and the list of fictional examples is many times longer than either, but I leave it to you. ~ MD Otley (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mdotley (MD Otley), what real-life examples would you expect? This is not a medical article. And even if it were, unless speaking of people in general, it is not standard practice to discuss real-life examples of people having a mental disorder in a Wikipedia medical article, especially since there is WP:BLP to consider. Or do you mean general discussion about people having a god complex? Either way, this article is a stub. And that it currently focuses so heavily on fiction and not on a legitimate mental disorder further proves my point that a god complex "is significantly more of a social matter than a mental disorder matter." And, yes, I'm aware that that the In popular culture section needs cutting down. The See also section, however, is not longer than the lead...unless you are judging by inches instead of by true WP:SIZE. Even inch-wise, the See also section is barely longer. Flyer22 (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - terrible idea. for a start 1 is an official clinical concept and the other isnt.--Penbat (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't a terrible idea. It's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, given the similarities in definition and the distinct lack of non-fictional content here. ~ MD Otley (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * er thats because God complex is the non-clinical one of the two - stands to reason. Also god complex relates to narcissism while grandiose delusions isnt related to narcissism, quite a fundamental difference. --Penbat (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture section should probably be scrapped entirely.
Impressive! The Pop Culture section is longer than the rest of the article and yet hasn't a single citation. It almost seems as if it is the product of Wikipedia editors adding characters from their favorite media.

I strongly suggest that we remove every single entry pending a citation from a reliable source saying that this character is an example of the God Complex. Unless we stringently require such citations, we simply end up encouraging lists that get out of hand, just like this one. Phiwum (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. Completely unsourced and a magnet for nonsense OR. Kuru   (talk)  01:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Such a section was removed from this article before. And I agree to this proposed removal, per the WP:Trivia guideline and the WP:"In popular culture" content essay. There are good Popular culture sections on Wikipedia, ones presented in WP:Prose format; this is clearly not one of those. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the clear consensus here, I've removed the section entirely. No objections if someone wants to work up a strongly sourced narrative based on primary examples. Kuru  (talk)  10:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kuru! Phiwum (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Deity Complex
Could the article be relabeled to Deity Complex? Because one would use god complex for a male but goddess complex for a female. Makes it more gender neutral that way.

Jdogno5 (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Who uses the term "goddess complex" and who uses the term "deity complex"? I am pretty sure "god complex" is most often used regardless of gender, because the term "god" is not inherently a gendered term.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not choose article titles based on an editor's suggestion that certain terms would or would not be used. Instead, reliable sources are consulted to see what the real world does. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I commented on Jdogno5's talk page about this. Like The Devil's Advocate and Johnuniq stated above, we are not supposed to engage in WP:Original research, which includes WP:SYNTHESIS, and we are not supposed to move articles based on faulty reasoning...such as "What if it's a woman? Then it would be a 'Goddess Complex'." Gods can also be women, though "the God" is generally considered to be male. Wikipedia has a title policy that it goes by; see Article titles. One aspect of that policy is WP:Common name. Flyer22 (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The term "god" is inherently gendered as male. If it was a female, it would be termed goddess.

Jdogno5 (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to repeat what I told you on my talk page about your assertion on this matter: "As has been stated to you on the aforementioned talk page, gods can also be women. Think of how an actor can also be a woman; she does not have to be referred to as an actress." Flyer22 (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not at all true. Goddess is gendered because it was created to distinguish female gods from male gods. Sort of like how the term "witch" originally could refer to men or women, but the term "warlock" has increasingly been introduced to distinguish male witches from female witches. The common term is "god complex" and that is the case regardless of gender.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(Note: I know this was originally discussed a long time ago but after looking at something recently, I felt it was needed to readdress this matter.) Actually actor is the male gendered term for performer, likewise actress is the female gendered term of performer. Michael Demiurgos (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This does not address any of the concerns on this page. Please do not move the page again until you have consensus. Kuru   (talk)  12:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , why shouldn't we consider that you are the indefinitely blocked Jdogno5, who has returned to move the article against WP:Consensus and use wording similar to Jdogno5's wording in the lead of the article (as seen here)? Flyer22 (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * After all, look at this edit (which shows you asking "Can I get an answer already?", and the time stamp of that edit before a new post) compared to your very first edit, which was an edit to User talk:Betty Logan. Flyer22 (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The "Unrelated technically" result at Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive is not convincing to me at all, especially since you've now acted like Jdogno5 in yet another way by moving this article/editing the lead in the way that you did. Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and Risker, after this latest incident, do you still believe that Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos are two different people? Flyer22 (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also WP:Pinging SchroCat to this discussion, since he supported Betty Logan's WP:Sockpuppet investigation on Jdogno5. A new case needs to be started on this matter. And if a WP:CheckUser block does not happen, a WP:Duck block needs to happen. These are not two different people whatsoever. Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a comprehensive review of sources but here are some quick Google checks I limited the searches to both Books and News because the hits have a higher likelihood of being reliable sources. As you can see "God complex" is by far more widely used than "Deity complex". And WP:COMMONNAME states to use the term/name that is most widely used by reliable and potentially reliable sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Google News
 * Deity complex : 12 hits
 * God complex: 4,540 hits
 * Google Books
 * Deity complex : 527 hits
 * God complex: 10,100 hits

Can someone fix the incorrect date in reference #3 please?
I tried to do it myself, but when I click 'edit' I just see 'ref list' it doesn't show the references, I'm unsure how to fix that - BUT the third reference's date is 2007, which is long after the author of said reference died (the correct date for that reference is 1923, which can be seen when viewing the reference)

Thanks to all wiki editors!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.77.58 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Jerusalem syndrome
this article does not deserve an article on its own and it is basically the same thing as Jerusalem syndrome Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Jonnymoon96, Jerusalem syndrome is a religious topic. God complex is not. These are not the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not related Councilscribe (talk)


 * Oppose. Jerusalem Syndrome is a distinct condition, associated with a specific place, whose suffers believe themselves literally to be Biblical figures. This has as much in common with the pop-psych concept of "god complex" as it does to "Peter Pan Syndrome". I call closure as per WP:SNOW--HidariMigi (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC) }}

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on God complex. 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/20050214073944/http://mclemee.com/id97.html to http://www.mclemee.com/id97.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018
2605:A601:410:4400:1153:474C:2C95:8F6A (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 01:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates of Ernest Jones
The dates of Ernest Jones were 1879 to 1958, not the dates suggested in this article. If the article cites these dates to mean dates when works by Ernest Jones were published, this needs to be clarified. Vorbee (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Should this article be semi-protected?
I noticed that one or more vandals added Kanye West and Vladimir Putin to the “See Also” section. I came to this article from an online article listing that this page was vandalized in the past. Did anyone watching this article notice a history of vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitweird (talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)