Talk:List of pagans

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot). There is absolutely no sense in listing pagans of antiquity, which was a pagan culture. And "emerging Christianity" was a very obscure religion in large parts of the Mediterranean World well into the Common Era. So, please, be sensible and delete the section on the Graeco Roman World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.217.242 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please move people who the Pagan community consider to be fluffy into a catogory (or mark them as fluffy) to distinguish between serious practitioners, and authors, and those who consider Paganisum, and Witchcraft as a fad,

exsamples include:

• Horne, Fiona - continues to premote witchcraft as a fad, [1]
• Ravenwolf, Silver - used to be a good auther, however has gone down hill, from about her book "Solitary Witch"[2]

SkippyUK 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a very stale comment line at 9 years old but I thought it worth noting that there are many in the Pagan community who recognize RavenWolf as an author of some reasonable quality despite some of her notable faults. I've even know Trad Wiccans who dislike her work as a whole, but aren't willing to discard it as entirely without merit. Many modern Pagans, Wiccan and otherwise, got their start, for better or worse, through RavenWolf. However, I would agree on someone who views it as merely a fad and writes material merely to cater to that fad and not as an earnest work for actual followers of the faith. That sort of individual is no more a Pagan than the Bible Money Code authors are Christians. aremisasling (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my native language so could someone please explain why we have "List of pagans" instead of "List of Pagans". I thought the names of religions always was written with capitals in English. It may be considered offensive by some Pagans. // Liftarn

A difficult call - I renamed the page to the uncapitalized form. Note that the

Talk:Pagan). -- Hotlorp

Nott all Pagans are Neopagans. Some are Mesopagans or Paleopagans... So I think "Pagan" should be used. I'd hate to think that only some religions are seen as "real" enough to deserve to be capitalized. // Liftarn

As a Pagan, (one who folows a Pagan religion) I capitalise my religion, in the same way as followers of Christ (Christians) capitalise Christanity. ergo my vote goes to "List of Pagans" SkippyUK 10:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following entries from the list. This is because 1) I can find no evidence that these people are actual practicing or believing pagans, as opposed to writing fiction about it 2) This web site [3] lists them as non-pagans or rumoured pagans.

• Marion Zimmer Bradley - author, fantasy and science fiction, magazine editor.
• Timothy Leary - author
• Donna Haraway - philosopher and sociologist

DJ Clayworth 16:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

All people listed here are Neopagans. Unless we want to start including

No, there are several that aren't modern time, but you have a point. I'll add those. // Liftarn

So will we be including all articles on non-Jews who died before the 3rd Century AD? I think there's a point at which this list becomes too broad to be meaningful; is it really significant to note that Julius Caesar (or Homer!) was a pagan? Nae'blis 22:44:57, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

As you can see I have tried to sort them according to religion. When the list gets too long we can split it into several articles. // Liftarn

Seems to me the list was intended originally as one of people calling themselves Pagans or pagans (many of whom will not call thenmselves neopagans). Did Julius Caesar or Homer ever apply either label to themselves? Perhaps the article should be List of modern pagans. Laurel Bush 09:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

No, I don't see the point in splitting it according to time, but when it has grown larger it would perhaps be an ide to split according to relgions, i.e. creating

List of Wiccans et.c. // Liftarn

It is pointless to add random Greco-Romans or Egyptian pharaohs. We have a list of pharaohs -- will you copy-paste the entire list here, together with the complete list of Hittite, Assyrian, Elamite and early Germanic rulers? please. I am removing all those random pre-Christian entries. I am also removing all people whose article does not specifically state, prefeably citing some reference, that they self-describe as 'pagan'. 81.63.63.37 09:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is is pointless? I have readded them and please do no remove them again until you can come up with a good reason. // Liftarn

my reason is, why the hell do you insist on Aristotle, Homer, the Psammtichuses and Pybba, and not the whole list of Anglo-Saxon monarchs and the whole list of Pharaohs, and the whole list of classical Greek philosophers? That is totally unsystematic, and just a little bit weird. Every individual prior to 30 AD, and every one of the billion or so Hindus, is "pagan", it is completely unreasonable to list every person who never even came in contact with an Abrahamic religion. At least restrict your list to people who were notable for being pagan, in the face of Christianization efforts. Psammetichus certainly doesn't qualify for that, nor does Homer or Aristotle. 83.79.189.191 11:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got around to adding them. And I would prefer to add those who are famous for being Pagans, like

yes? so? why do you keep reverting?

Hypatia of Alexandria would be a fine addition, I admit. Until you do get around to adding him, I have got around to cleaning up the gratuitous pharaohs. Baad 13:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Hypatia was added, it was you who deleted the entry. // Liftarn

did I? probably because you added the bleeding Psammetichuses, again. Look, I am actually chuckling over this. Your edits don't do a lot of damage, they are just completely random and cranky. What is your thing with Homer and the Psammetichuses in particular? I would add other random pharaohs and Sumerian notables if I was in a surreal mood, but that would be WP:POINT. 83.77.216.101 17:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed people with no reference to their being pagan in their articles. Before you re-add any of them, describe their being pagan, citing sources, on their article. Just havin an interest in the occult, fantasy or science fiction, being lesbian or libertarian is not enough: these people need to unambiguously self-describe as 'pagan', 'wiccan', 'druid', 'heathen' or whatever. Also, there shouldn't be people listed here without an article, since that makes it hard to verify. Also, we have serious notability issues here. Why would seemingly random people like Marion Woolley even have Wikipedia articles? 81.63.63.37 10:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this article to the correct capitalization as requested above. When I went to delete the old copy, I noticed that a copy/paste move was done four years ago, so I have fixed this. This is my first attempt at such a thing ... and it looks like everything is right ... but feel free to yell and scream loudly if I did it wrong. ;) --BigDT 02:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice. Thanks. // Liftarn

Should we include fictional Pagans here or perhaps have them in a separate article? Like

My gut reaction is no. At least not in this article. Whereas it's easier to find out what sort of Pagan an actual, living (or even dead) person considers (or considered) themselves, doing so for fictional characters could get a bit iffy. Especially as, in fiction, the portrayal of a character's religion may be wildly inaccurate for the label the author gave them. And what on earth makes you list the Orisha as "fictional"? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dab (𒁳) 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I am definitely opposed to listing comic book characters. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At all or just on this page? I'm leaning more towards creating a separate page for it. // Liftarn

If you must add a "list of fictional pagans", I won't stop you, but make sure that only characters are listed who on their own articles are clearly identified as "pagan", with some sort of reference. The word "pagan" does not appear on

As I wrote the list comes from http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/comic_book_religion.html and they are considered a reliable source. Storm is Storm (Marvel Comics)[5] and Cleopatra is http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/cleopat.htm Dr. Druid does indeed practice druidism[6]. // Liftarn

tell you what, why don't you go ahead and create

dab (𒁳) 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think

List of Jewish superheroes, but it's now a redirect. // Liftarn

I'm curious as to why the Celtic and Germanic pagans are listed under "Christianisation". I was thinking of adding Athanaric, a staunch pagan and noted persecutor of Christians, but have second thoughts about contributing to the list as currently titled. Is this to say that their paganism was only notable in light of their not being Christian? Help me out here...—Aryaman (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted the list by types of paganism. This should make listing considerably easier and, I feel, is also considerably more logical. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Bloodofox! —Aryaman (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I'd like to say that this is a ridiculous list. Why don't we add all the ancient Greek philosophers, all the Roman Emperors up to Constantine, all the Egyptian pharaohs, and basically any name of any person from antiquity that we know. For example, what possible justification is there for having Pontius Pilate here? The sources that mention him - the Bible, Josephus, and a single inscription, do not mention his religion at all. He may have been an atheist. Or anything at all. We just don't know. His fame in history has got nothing whatsoever to do with his religion. TharkunColl (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you might consider reading the actual article before calling it ridiculous? It is perfectly aware of your point, and for this reason lists only "individuals of the Common Era who were 'pagan' in contrast to emerging Christianity." --

dab (𒁳) 10:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As I pointed out above, there is no evidence at all that Pontius Pilate was a Pagan. TharkunColl (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so you tacitly drop the first part of your comment, "First of all I'd like to say that this is a ridiculous list. Why don't we add all the ancient Greek philosophers, all the Roman Emperors up to Constantine, all the Egyptian pharaohs, and basically any name of any person from antiquity that we know", and would like to inquire about evidence that Pilate is considered "a pagan" in particular? That's a simple

dab (𒁳) 11:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The list is not a list of non-Christians or people from Pagan societies during the rise of Christianity. And it's also not a list of Pagans who oppressed or opposed Christianity or Judaism. It is a list of people notable for being Pagan. The colloquial definition of Pagan as "not Abrahamic" would cover a wide variety of people who are not Pagans.

A section devoted to those who are famous only for having persecuted Christians, but without noting anything regarding their faith itself is not in keeping with the subject of the list regardless of the wording. If there is no such list already in existence, I would recommend you start a List of Persecutors of Early Christianity or something of the like. To the original point of this comment, the list as stated in the introduction, could include a good number of people that were both Pagan and famous.

I would propose they would have to be Pagan in a time and place in which it was unusual to be so, therefore making them not just notable and Pagan, but notable for being Pagan. This is the case in the modern section as modern Pagans are very much in the minority in nearly any society and their faith would be sufficiently noteworthy enough to merit inclusion on the list. That definition leaves room for those who tried to restore ancient Paganism or preserve it as well as notable scholars on theology in their culture. It would also allow for those who were last remaining Pagan monarchs or last known Pagans of their particular society. They were, in fact, notable for being Pagan, not merely for being not Christian. aremisasling (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that your note that Pontius Pilate requires a "citation needed" is a reasonable one. However the suggestion that the assumption of his faith on the basis of the predominant faith of the state at the time is sufficient to overcome the necessity for a citation is not correct. Some time needs to be put into citing most inclusions on this list, but they are not immune to that requirement by virtue of the time and place in which they lived. There were entire Roman cities in places like Carthage in which much of the elite was not Greco-Roman Pagan, but adherents of Baal. Numerous Roman citizens of various statures in Roman Gaul continued to worship the Gaulish deities long after becoming part of the empire. You are most likely correct, but it's not self-evident enough to obviate the need for citation. aremisasling (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "as opposed to Abrahamic religion" from the introduction as there are numerous faiths that are neither Abrahamic nor Pagan, so Paganism is neither 'opposed to Abrahamic religion' nor simple non-Abrahamic. And as noted earlier, that definition opens up this article to additions who we may have no evidence for their actual religious beliefs merely because we DO know that they weren't Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. Non-Christian or non-Abrahamic is a meaning of the term in general use, but it isn't the meaning used for this article or any of the other articles covering the topic of Paganism, nor is it the meaning used in scholarly research on the topic. aremisasling (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some "be bold"-type edits in lieu of the above. If someone feels strongly that persecution of Christians is sufficient to make one notable as a Pagan I'm open to the discussion. And there's some opening for perhaps creating a separate list of Pagan Persecutors of Christians. But as it stood it seemed a clear enough departure from the title and intent of the article to merit removing much of the "Christianized in ...." and notes about their fame for having known, supported, or persecuted famous Christians. Many of them should likely be removed from the list altogether and I can spend some time on it. As stated above, Paganism is a faith group unto itself and is not defined by the fact that it isn't Christianity. aremisasling (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the conventional definition of "pagan" in many dictionaries is essentially the same as that of "heathen", namely "not of an Abrahamic religion" (or equivalent wording, e.g. "not of the faith of the God of the Bible"). Here are several from Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster.com, OxfordDictionaries.com, etc. (figurative and redundant adjectival definitions elided):

• "one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. ... a member of a religious, spiritual, or cultural community based on the worship of nature or the earth; a neopagan ... a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim; a heathen"
• "a member of a group professing a polytheistic religion or any religion other than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam"
• "heathen; especially: a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)"
• "A person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions."
• Plus extended definitions that include the irreligious.

That last quoted one is a looser definition, and would exclude probably Hindus and Buddhists from "pagan". The traditional, including disparaging, use of both "pagan" and "heathen" intentionally included Eastern Asian religions. Modern use generally does not, and refers to non-Abrahamic Europeans (in Europe or in the European disapora) primarily, and secondarily to native adherents of the various indigenous minority faiths around the world.

This illustrates the problem with this article's scope. There are three different meanings, and if it's not more narrowly defined with

inclusion criteria it cannot possibly be useful, since it would ultimately consist of a list of every biographical article subject on WP (and perhaps even non-notables) who qualifies as "a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions", from modern times back to ancient history. That's essentially a neverending list of trivia, like "List of people with brown hair". Is this list meant to be a list of neopagans? Rename it. Is it meant to be a list of pagans/heathens who were not followers of Abrahamic religions but living in places dominated by these religions? What is the purpose of this list?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd agree with the scope issues. It's an issue that plagues the topic of Paganism to a large degree well beyond the bounds of Wikipedia. Yet the topic is a meaningful one despite the vague edges. But while many of the Wiki pages regarding Paganism acknowledge "non-Abrahamic" as an origin for the term and one common use, most articles on the subject use as a working definition the more restrictive approach once the etymological origins have been addressed. The line is blurry, but useful. Broadening the scope to "non-Abrahamic" however, is far less useful as including Bhuddists, Zoroastrians, Baha'i, etc in the definition of "Pagan" makes it less useful, not more. Further, while the non-Abrahamic definition was useful for Christians in the late Roman Empire and the Crusades, the commonly understood meaning I'd argue has shifted to where, in the English-speaking world at least, when someone says they are Pagan or than Ancient Romans were Pagans that the intended meaning is more restrictive than "not Christian". I disagree, as well, that even though the definition is blurry around the edges that it is unworkably vague. The problem, I'd argue, is more in defining what qualifies for notability, which is why I suggest inclusion on this list to require some degree of notability because of their faith and not just otherwise notable while also Pagan. Clearly we'd have to include the better part of ancient and even early modern Europe if such a distinction wasn't made. aremisasling (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid the previously noted issue of including anyone and everyone in Pagan antiquity I started cleaning the list a bit to remove historical Pagans whose faith itself isn't particularly notale. A lot more needs to be done. I'm trying to do what makes sense for the article and not put a personal stamp on it so by all means if anyone sees it differently than I do, feel free to chime in. I note that only because the article has seen minimal activity for some time so it will likely appear I'm taking ownership of it. That's not my intent.

To illustrate what I was thinking made sense I removed Nero as his notable actions were more in defense of the Roman state against uprisings and as scapegoating for the fires of Rome (allegedly) than motivated by any particular Pagan religious devotion.

Hadrian, on the other hand, made efforts to strengthen ties between Roman and Greek traditions, restored deity cults in some cities, and completed temples that had been in progress for sometimes centuries prior to his rule. Therefore at least some part of his notability was directly driven by his faith. aremisasling (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: During the AfD I boldly moved the content is the Slavic section to Outline of Slavic history and culture. It belongs in the target but I also rm it from the article and added a hat. If this was premature and discussion is merited, please rv me and it can be discussed.

On a second note, I Support moving content into a good target and making this into a set index. // Timothy :: talk  02:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've split off List of modern pagans. I don't have enough familiarity with the subject matter to identify good targets for the remainder of the list. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]