Talk:List of Pagans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

List of Pagans

Contents

[edit] Listing pagans in a pagan culture

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)

[edit] Fluffy Wiccan's?

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]

I know these refrances seem to come from a narrow source, however they are a recognised site, google will find more refrances as well.

SkippyUK 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pagans or Pagans?

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 Pagan (small p!) page talks about the 1st millennium AD kind of pagan, distinct from the Neopaganism which is sometimes the name given to the present-day religion. In its present state the list is about modern Pagans, who should perhaps be given a capital, but then the list should be List of Neopagans to be consistent and more precise, even if not all modern Pagans appreciate the term (see 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)

[edit] Remove People

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.

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

[edit] Neopagans or Pagans?

All people listed here are Neopagans. Unless we want to start including Homer, Julius Caesar, Muwatalli, Psammetichus and Aristotle, I propose a move to list of Neopagans. dab (ᛏ) 11:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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).

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

[edit] ancient (pre-Chrisianization) pagans

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)

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)

I haven't got around to adding them. And I would prefer to add those who are famous for being Pagans, like Gwenc'hlan, Hypatia of Alexandria and Lalli or notable in some other way. By the way, Hindus are listed in List of Hindus (and note that they also include people who are not mainly known for their religion). // Liftarn

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)
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)

[edit] unsubstantiated

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)

[edit] Move from List of pagans

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)

Looks nice. Thanks. // Liftarn

[edit] Including fictional Pagans?

Should we include fictional Pagans here or perhaps have them in a separate article? Like Tarot, Allure, Willow Rosenberg and Zatanna (Wiccan), Ham - the Weather Wizard Druid (Cadre of the Immortal) and Doctor Druid (Druidism obviously), Eleggua, Chango, Oya, Ogun and Oshun (Santeria), Leslie Thompkins, Alchemiss and Storm ("Goddess-Worshippers"), Osiris (Cadre of the Immortal), Birdman, Black Adam, Cleopatra , Hawkman, Hawkgirl, Khonshu, Moon Knight, Kemit Kutie and Isis (Egyptian classical religion)[4] // Liftarn

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)
Wikipedia:Notability. Seriously, Moon Knight?? At best provide a list of notable pagan characters in actual literature, such as Röde Orm (who incidentially converts to Christianity in his 20s). As with historical people (we don't list Naram-Sin), only consider characters who are notable for being pagan in contradistinction to Christianity. dab (𒁳) 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like List of fictitious Jews and Orisha is listed because of The Orishas (DC Comics). I got the list from http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/comic_book_religion.html so that's why there is so few (i.e. none) from literature. // Liftarn

I am definitely opposed to listing comic book characters. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
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 Moon Knight, and I don't know why this character should be considered pagan. Most of your links (Cleopatra, Isis, Storm...) don't even point to fictional characters. Even "Doctor Druid" has no mention of Druidism. Instead, it is noted that "Doctor Druid" was renamed from "Doctor Droom" to avoid confusion with "Doctor Doom". What does this have to do with Druidism or paganism? It appears your list will need a lot more research first. In fact, there is not a single entry in your list that could qualify as "fictional pagan". dab (𒁳) 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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 Comic book religion and see if it is AfD'd. No need to ask for permission first. dab (𒁳) 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think List of fictitious Pagans would be better since ther already are simmilar articles. There was a List of Jewish superheroes, but it's now a redirect. // Liftarn

[edit] Blanking

I have difficulty accepting the summary blanking of the "Modern" section on grounds of "WP:V" and "WP:BLP". First of all, not all of the people listed are "living". Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson or Else Christensen are just as deceased as Decius. If it is so terrible that we are not citing a "source" that Christensen was a "pagan", we'll need to blank Decius' entries on the same grounds. Further, it is ludicrous to blank an entry like Isaac Bonewits as violating WP:V or WP:BLP, when a simple click on the link establishes that this individual's notability is entirely due to his adherence to Neo-Druidism. And so on for all other entries. Obviously we should only list people here whose adherence to (neo)paganism is mentioned and referenced in their article. Blanking content because such references haven't been copy-pasted here is disruptive and blatant misuse of the BLP directive. We could mutilate most list articles on Wikipedia into uselessness on the very same grounds. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianisation?

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)

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)
Good job, Bloodofox! —Aryaman (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad to help! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pontius Pilate etc.

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)

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)
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)
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 WP:CITE request then, and as such fully justified. As it happens, the Roman Empire in the 1st century had an imperial cult, and it would have been unthinkable for anyone to rise to any office if they had not participated in the Roman state religion. This wouldn't need a specific reference assuming a literate public with some historical background knowledge, but of course on Wikipedia anything at all needs to be slapped with a footnote. Pilate is notable as the only pagan ever considered a saint in a Christian church (the Ethiopian one). A quick google search gives me a reference that Pilate dedicated a temple to the imperial cult of Tiberius (A New Inscription Which Mentions Pilate as "Prefect", by Jerry Vardaman, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1962). A simple google book search of Pilate pagan immediately results in hits such as "Pilate, a pagan, absolves Christ", or "He was the first procurator of Judea to use pagan religious symbols", or "because, of course, Pilate was a pagan". I do find it questionable to impose on my time to explain things that you could have researched on your own armed with google and half a minute of your time. Furthermore, Pilate and his religious disposition was very much a topic of interest to early Christian authors, notably Tertullian, as presented e.g. in A Letter from Pontius Pilate, by Paul Winter, Novum Testamentum, 1964 (see also here). Per WP:TRUTH, the question isn't "what did Pilate believe in his heart of hearts", but "is the matter of Pilate being a Roman imperial pagan a matter of verifiable record". I hope I have been able to allay your concerns in this respect. dab (𒁳) 11:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)