Too much speculation and personal opinion

@General - I'm fairly sure we're all just saying and rephrasing the same thing about the "death" issue here. In any case, the consensus appears to be, a mention that some gods can die and revive without implying others cannot, or point out specifically which gods have died and revived. Any preferences? I'm going to lean towards the latter.

EDIT: Uh, people, we aren't arguing about whether the "death" thing should or should not go on to the page anymore. That's already been decided a yes. The question now is just how.

@Mystickskye - You're referring to the Shakespeare thing, for the vote you took? And, were there any who happened to vote for (whatever the vote was for), and did anybody come up with a new reason for or against?

As for the Cichol comment, I'm very sure that Cichol hadn't been taking action against Shakespeare in the present day. If I remember right, the gods-going-after-Shakespeare statement had a clause in it that said it was because Shakespeare had escaped Avon, so it wouldn't make sense for Cichol's action to be judged when that was before Shakespeare's imprisonment. Though I'll have to look up the quote in question to verify, this might be a result of vague remembrances too.

And lastly, you said yourself "Only state what we know", and then after that in the same post you said "This is only from what we know", which implies we should consider what we might not know. Isn't that a contradiction? Why would, in a statement containing only facts displayed to date, unknown variables - speculation, even - need to be considered? If that statement was true, I could argue against the Morgant-said-he's-human point with a "But we don't know if he lied to get Ruairi to trust him!" and I could argue against the Lugh-wasn't-mentioned-as-a-god-frequently point with "But what about the NPCs that we can't make conversation with?" Yeah, that'd make defending a lot easier, but it's not proper.

@Pyrus - Err...I don't quite follow your assumption statement. Lugh wasn't only mentioned as a god, he was mentioned as a hero and a knight too...and I'd think it makes more sense to assume a named person is a mortal human first, if there is nothing else but the name known about the person.