Jim, the definition of the word "deity" is pretty cut and dry, for any particular cultural application.
The importance of understanding the difference between deities and mere mythical creatures and what purposes they serve in the culture at hand is of great importance if there is to be any understanding of the weapons under consideration here.
A discussion of the merits of Wikipedia entries is indeed pertinent as well. I also use Wikipedia quite often for quick references when seeking information, but am wary enough to take such info with a grain of salt. It is NOT a credible source for academic study, period. This isn't to say that it isn't useful. As i mentioned before, some entries are better researched with a multitude of references and footnotes. Others, like the kastane entry not so much. What i objected to in Ibrahiim's last posting of his wikipedia entry was that it was being presented as a "culminating note…unveiled by Wikepedia the famous on line encyclopedia" firstly, without full disclosure that it is indeed of his own hand and opinion (sorry, his previous admission to this is buried in a ten page thread that has long since fallen off the main page and does indeed need restating for full transparency) and it is full of errors and speculation. Ibrahiim responds to my questioning with the following:
"I add that since my involvement as a contributor on Forum to this subject that the Wikepedia entry has been considerably and accurately updated with the latest current information researched by me. It stands therefor as a pinnacle of finely tuned detail in parallel with the latest doctrine on the subject...
Surely you would be delighted with that..from the Forum viewpoint?"
No, Ibrahiim, i am not delighted from the "Forum viewpoint". What is written in the wiki article is not "a pinnacle of finely tuned detail in parallel with the latest doctrine on the subject…", it is merely your opinion and some of it is incorrect. It is not the culminated consensus point of view that has come as the fruit of these forum thread discussions on the subject so why should it please me from the Forum viewpoint?
Jim, we will probably, as usual, have to agree to disagree on these points, but i call it like i see it and will continue to do so. It is not an attempt to be dismissive or counterproductive, but rather to keep a sense of transparency and accountability in these threads and allow those with other opinions the room to speak them rather than be carried away by the avalanche of words that seem to dominate the discussion most of the time. If you continue to disregard the number of forum members who have been turned away from this discussion because of this you do so at your own peril of researching a complex subject with a minimum of forum input.