text:
Talk:List of pagans

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)

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,
 * Ravenwolf, Silver - used to be a good auther, however has gone down hill, from about her book "Solitary Witch"

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)

 * 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)

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)

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 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)

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

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)

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)

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

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) // 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)
 * 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) and Cleopatra is http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/cleopat.htm Dr. Druid does indeed practice druidism. // 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

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)

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)

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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

Paganism defined as not Abrahamic
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)

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)

 * 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 * 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)

Cleanup
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)

Requested move 20 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - pending further resolution of the issues among the pagans, Pagans and neopagans in other venues. Mike Cline (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Pagans → List of pagans – Update: Or, to List of neopagans if that really is the intended scope, per MOS:DOCTCAPS and WP:PRECISE. In the vast majority of sources other than those promoting neo-paganism, pagan is treated as a common noun, not a proper name. Even our own article at Neopagan capitalizes neither neopagan or pagan (or any derived forms). The fact that adherents to or identifiers with any loose spiritual sensibility, philosophy, school of thought, or doctrine have a strong tendency to capitalize it in their specialized, PoV sources when general-audience publications would not is the entire reason we have MOS:DOCTCAPS. PS: Someone capitalized every instance of "pagan[...]" at our Paganism main article (even falsifying many direct quotations in the process). I've reverted that, in the course of much other cleanup there. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In the case of using "neopagan", what would we do with the Ancients section? A list of ancient Graeco-Romano pagans, list of ancient druidic pagans and similar lists? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose [ List of pagans;] the capitalization severs to distinguish Paganism/Neopaganism with non-Christians, which are also called "pagans" pagan ; if we are to exclude most classes of non-Abrahamic people then we shouldn't use the lower case form, otherwise, we will end up listing those such as Hindus, South American animists, atheists, etc; if you want lowercase, it will need a parenthetical disambiguator to specify what kind of paganist is this about, instead of just a general category for sorting out the heathen. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See above about scope disputes. If this really is being limited to neopagans, then it should be at List of neopagans. The proper way to title an article to avoid ambiguity is to use the WP:PRECISE name, as a matter of policy, not to violate English orthography norms, in what many would take for a PoV-pushing exercise, that ends up failing the WP:SMALLDETAILS test anyway: The alleged difference between "Pagan" and "pagan" is not demonstrable. Not even all neopagans make this capitalization distinction; reliable sources on neopaganism do not do so consistently either; even some sources on paganism in Classical Antiquity end up capitalizing while most do not (but still a consistency problem); and virtually no one in the general public who is not deeply aware of neopaganism will even guess that "Pagans" with a capital "P" is intended to strictly mean "neopagans". The content of the article and the disputes above about its content and scope clearly demonstrate that even editors thinking carefully about the matter are unclear that this article's scope is intended to be limited to neopagans (though I've suggested myself that it should be and that this should be made more explicit. Thus we don't even capitalize it at Neopaganism. WP:NATURALDIS policy also has us prefer a natural disambiguation, like the neo- prefix, over resorting to parenthetical disambiguation.  Anyway, I've changed the nomination to suggest List of neopagans as a possibility.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the uppercased "Pagan" is not used for heathen in general, while the lowercased form "pagan" is, so dues serve to distinguish, as the uppercased form is not applicable to Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc.
 * If consensus about the scope follows 70.51.44.60 and some of the posters in previous discussions, and we exclude the ancients, then the material about them would probably be moved/merged elsewhere. We already have List of druids, so we could (maybe already do, under some title) have lists of pre-Christian Roman religious figures, pagan Greek religious figures, etc. ("pagan" may not be the best term, since it's often going to be tautological). We wouldn't lump them together as "Gr[a]eco-Roman". And "pagan druid" is redundant. The problems here are a) pagan (and neopagan) are not proper nouns, but umbrella terms for a wide range of distinct faiths, and b) this article is trying to cover unrelated topics: pagan has three meanings, but there is no direct connection between 1) modern neopagans and 2) pagans of classical antiquity in direct juxtaposition with contemporary Abrahamics; meanwhile the extra-broad definition of 3) "anyone not Abrahamic, anywhere in the world, ever" is not an encyclopedic categorization. PS: And, actually, plenty of (mostly older) sources do in fact capitalize "Pagan" in reference to the ancients. It simply is not consistently capitalized in any sense, and usually lower-cased in general-audience English in all senses, unless someone is pushing a viewpoint.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The uppercased Pagan though does not apply to non-European/Mesopotamian/Mediterranean people (ie. Shintoists, Jainists, etc), AFAICS; which does serve the exclusionary purpose of the page as it currently is. And my statement about druidic pagans is to distinguish between the people and the priestly class ("druid" also has similar issues to "pagan" with the "Druid"/"druid" usage and non-ancient-Celtic druids and we can throw in ufology as well). Well, let us see if there are more participants to discuss whether this list should be restricted to neopagans. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uppercased "Pagan" certainly has been applied that way. Various sources, current through pre-Victorian, capitalize "Pagan" (for reasons that, as detailed below, do not apply on WP). No fields of sources do so, and like most style guides, our says to avoid capitalization when in doubt, i.e. when usage is not consistent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional Oppose, as this may be the wrong place and too minor of an article to discuss the encyclopedia-wide decapitalization of the word 'Pagan'. Alerts could be given to the Pagan pages, the Wiccan pages, and whatever else is lumped into the topic. My personal thinking is that if Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and other religious segmentations are capitalized there is little or no reason that Pagan should be an exception. Muslims and Christians are divided up into sects, but still remain capitalized as a class of religious adherents. Hence 'Pagan' as a collective name (and Neopagan just segments the issue further) probably should be given consideration for permanent capitalization on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn 12:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's already decaptalized at both the pagan and even neopagan article. Ergo, the idea that it should be capitalized when we mean neopagans doesn't fly, or we'd be capitalizing that even more specific term already., by definition. They common nouns, overall classifications of more specific things, some of which are proper names at a fine-grained enough level (e.g. specific religious organizations).  It's like wanting to capitalize "Car" because "Ford Taurus" and "Toyota Corolla" are proper names. English just does not work that way.  Capitalization of "Pagan" in modern sources is almost entirely promotional. In much older sources, it reflects previous lexical rules of the early-modern form language, in which there was a strong tendency to capitalize nouns, especially for emphasis (cf. MOS:CAPS: Do not use capitalization for emphasis).  Example text from the US Declaration of Independence: "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary ... the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ..." etc, etc.  Neither emphasis nor promotionalism (i.e. emphasis again) are valid reasons to capitalize here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't be that surprised, you changed the capitalization within Paganism on October 20 (one minute before you opened this request), and on Modern paganism the move request which created that name was capitalized and then an editor decapitalized it the next day, so that one should actually be capitalized again per the closed move request. And, for example, 'Christian' is capitalized throughout in the Christian article, and List of Christians is also capitalized. All I'm saying with my conditional oppose is that this shouldn't be the page to fully discuss this question, to bring it up on those two pages and have a full discussion with editors who edit them. Here it's just you, me, and the IP editor, and I don't have a fast horse in the race (kind of a slow one, easily distracted by oats). So please consider opening a full discussion at those main-topic pages before changing this one. Thanks. Randy Kryn 10:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slavic section Split
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)
 * 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)

title: Talk:List of pagans


text:
Barbarossa

Barbarossa, a name meaning "red beard" in Italian, primarily refers to:

 * Frederick Barbarossa (1122–1190), Holy Roman Emperor
 * Hayreddin Barbarossa (c. 1478–1546), Ottoman admiral
 * Operation Barbarossa, the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union in World War II, commencing 22 June 1941

It may also refer to:

Fictional characters

 * Barbarossa Rugner, a character in the 1995 Suikoden PlayStation role-playing game
 * Barbarossa, pirate and protagonist in the 1953 film Raiders of the Seven Seas
 * Barbarossa, a character in the Legends of Dune trilogy
 * Barbarossa, a character in the book Thief Lord
 * Barbarossa, a commander in the 2014 anime Lord Marksman and Vanadis

Music

 * Barbarossa (album), a 1996 album by Cubanate
 * Barbarossa, a 2001 album by Orplid
 * "Barbarossa", a 1994 song by Sordid Humor
 * "Barbarossa", a 1993 song by Sex Gang Children
 * "Barbarossa", a 2012 song by Lamb of God

Games

 * Barbarossa (board game), a board game by Klaus Teuber
 * Barbarossa: The Russo-German War 1941-45, a 1969 board wargame published by Simulations Publications Inc.
 * Barbarossa (video game), a 1992 war simulation game released for the Super Famicom in Japan
 * Operation Barbarossa - The Struggle for Russia (PC game), a PC game

Other arts and entertainment

 * Barbarossa (film), an Italian film starring Rutger Hauer
 * The Barbaroosa, a fictional pirate ship in the Miniskirt Pirates light novel series by Yūichi Sasamoto and corresponding anime Bodacious Space Pirates
 * Barbaroslar, a Turkish TV series also known as Barbarossa

People

 * Oruç Reis (c. 1474–1518), called Barbarossa or Aruj, Ottoman Turkish captain and Bey of Algiers
 * Theodore Cotillo Barbarossa (1906–1992), American sculptor
 * Luca Barbarossa (born 1961), Italian singer-songwriter
 * David Barbarossa (born 1961), British drummer
 * Sergio Barbarossa, Italian engineer
 * Barbarossa (musician) or James Mathé, a British musician who performs under the alias Barbarossa

Ships

 * Barbarossa class ocean liner, a class of ten German ocean liners built between 1896 and 1902
 * SS Barbarossa, seized by the US during World War I and renamed USS Mercury (ID-3012)
 * SMS Kaiser Barbarossa, a German pre-dreadnought battleship launched in 1900
 * Barbaros Hayreddin, an Ottoman battleship of World War I
 * RV Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa, a Turkish seismographic research/survey vessel owned and operated by the Turkish Petroleum Corporation

Other uses

 * Barbarossa (grape), name of several Italian wine grapes
 * Barbaroux, a French wine grape that is sometimes known as Barbarossa
 * 1860 Barbarossa (1973 SK), a main-belt asteroid

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Barbarossa


text:
Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 1

Correct name of Church
Perhaps this has been debated elsewhere, but shouldn't we strive to use the correct name[s] for the Church where possible?

From http://www.lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,3899-1---15-168,00.html, we have the Church's preferences clearly stated. I have no problem with these preferences, given that we universally allow entities (both individual, corporate, and religious) to choose their own names.

Specifically, I'd like to reduce the amount of times we see "LDS Church" in favor of the correct title. And I'd like to go ahead and use "Mormonism" when this makes sense ("the Mormons" refers to a people, not the body of doctrine, history, and culture). But I'm not trying to rock the boat. Is there any consensus on this isssue? LennyG

This was debated quite a bit and archived I believe, but I haven't read it. Regardless, I feel significantly dogmatic about this subject (even if I don't apply it consistently sometimes). I'm partial to the "LDS Church" usage, just because it is more specific than "the Church" and it is nicely shorter than the full name or "the Church of Jesus Christ". However, I absolutely agree that the Church's style guide should be strictly followed: All references in wiki to "Mormon Church", "LDS Church" or "the Church of the Latter-day Saints" or the like should be changed to one of the acceptable formats. One of us interested folks should start going through the articles to make sure that they are all consistent and make changes where needed. This should include a change to "Latter-day Saints" where "Mormons" is used unless it is clear that the reference is intended to be used in a broader sense. There are also articles (many mine, I'm sure) where the a reference to the Church is followed by a parenthetical like "(LDS/Mormon)". Use of parentheticals like that is a poor practice too. B

I don't see why we have to pay attention solely to what the Church wants. Suppose the legal name of some bloke is Jeremiah Smith but he started a cult and now wishes to be solely known as The almighty ruler of the universe in bold italics. Calling him as he calls himself is a violation of NPOV for the billions of people who don't see Jeremiah as the almighty ruler of the universe. Calling him Jeremiah Smith is a violation of NPOV for him and a handful of his followers, and is clearly the lesser evil.

Similarly, the LDS Church might wish to be referred to as "the Church of Jesus Christ", but this is violating NPOV for the billions of people who consider that the LDS church is not the church at all, but rather one of a number of such churches.

I'm not saying that the wishes of the LDS Church should be ignored, but they should be weighed against other concerns, such as: Martin
 * Brevity (particularly in titles)
 * The principle of least astonishment
 * NPOV and offence-avoidance

I agree that we don't have to do "what the Church wants," and I didn't mean to imply that we should bow to their requests at any time. BUT, I do think that their request is reasonable. The difference between this and the "almighty ruler of the universe" example is that one appears reasonable while the other does not. Let me give another example, that of the "Houston Oilers" NFL franchise, which moved recently to Tennessee and became the "Titans." Do we continue to call them the "Oilers," even though that's all they were ever known as for a long span of years? The answer is "no," even though there might be a few diehard Oilers fans out there who would disagree.

And the Church has an even stronger position in many ways: it was named "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" on its founding day in 1830. The various nicknames have an important historical context and should not be erased or never mentioned; all I'm saying is that whenever possible, we should use the correct name. Perhaps from some perspective the shortened "The Church of Jesus Christ" pushes the envelope of NPOV, but there are good arguments on both sides of that point.

I do agree that the term we use to describe should be weighed against the three concerns you mention. LennyG

Hi, Martin. Thanks for joining in. Neither of us is suggesting that the Church's preferences are or should be the sole determining factor here. Since you probably know that I'm committed to abiding by wiki policies and making wiki a non-partisan endeavor, then you probably know that when I say that I'm dogmatic about the naming convention it is because in light of other factors that should be considered, I feel that the Church's preferences are consistent with wiki policies and should be respected. As your example points out, avoiding offence can cut many ways. "Mormon" began as a pejorative term by detractors of the Church. It is offensive to refer to the Church as "Mormon Church" or "LDS Church"; the Church does not purport to be the church of the disciples of Mormon or the church that is dictated by the Latter-day Saints. The primary issue here is in title brevity and brevity in articles once that the full name is stated and the Church is referred to repeatedly afterward. These points should be relatively uncontroversial:
 * the first reference to the Church in any article should be by its full, formal, conventional and legal name
 * usage of the shorthand version in articles and titles should be consistent throughout wiki
 * usage of "the Church" is ok in wiki
 * "Mormon Church" should not be used at all
 * avoidance of offence and courtesy take priority over brevity (even in titles)

Here is what I propose (which is consistent with wiki policy and the Church's preference):
 * do not use "LDS", "LDS Church", "Mormon Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ"
 * use the Church's full name only in articles and only as the first reference or when necessary to clearly refer to the Church
 * articles that are titled like "Priesthood (LDS)" should be titled like "Priesthood (Mormonism)"
 * "Latter-day Saints" should be used over "Mormons"

If no one disagrees, let's see if we can get by for now using these guidelines going forward and we'll revisit the issue if it doesn't seem to be working.

BTW, Lenny, your Oilers example led me to reflect on the relationship between Texans and pro football. Living near but not being from Dallas, it is irritating that natives love to call the Dallas Cowboys "America's Team" (Grrrr)...especially now-a-days when they can hardly win a game. B

--

Compromise
I think this is an excellent compromise. Use the official full name upon first reference, a simple "the Church" instead of "the Church of Jesus Christ" thereafter where it is unambiguous (perhaps considering this abbreviation or the full name when needed to disambiguate), and use "Mormonism" as a descriptor for the rest. LennyG

 * The only problem I see with this compromise is that "the Church" is used in many other contexts to refer to either the aggregation of everyone who calls themself a Christian, some other particular "branch" of Christianity, or to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church referred to in the Nicene Creed. Perhaps to avoid this confusion, the first reference could include the full name followed by "(hereinafter referred to simply as the Church)", and leaving the references as they are. Would everyone find this clarifying addition to the beginning acceptable? As an aside, why would referring to them as the LDS Church for brevity be objectionable, as it appears to be a simple contraction of the full name? Wesley 15:27 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Name of the article
I don't think it's a good idea to use a disputed name for a religion, in an article about a religion. Worse, this is an article examining whether or not the religion is bona fide and/or whether it fits into the category it claims for itself.

Even Mormons and Christianity would be a better title than "Mormonism as a Christian religion".

But I see that Anome moved it to The LDS Church and Christianity and then to Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is actually what I had in mind in the first place but hesitated to propose! --Uncle Ed

---

Church stole from SF
Removed from the article:
 * I don't know if this is true, but I remember being told that the concept of everyone becoming the god of another planet when they die is based of a Science Fiction book. And that the Mormon church was successfully sued for breach of copyright

Sentences in encyclopedias problably should not start "I don't know if this is true, but I remember being told..." -- The Anome 16:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Besides, that concept has been part of LDS theology since before there was science fiction. Additionally, you can't copyright an idea. —Frecklefoot 16:24, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Archiving
I'm going to Archive a good chunk of this discussion and then repaste ongoing, unresolved or otherwise relevant material back into the talk page. Hold on to your hats for a moment. B 22:53, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

When Did Mormons Leave Christianity?

 * Hmm, can't see the numbers while editing. :-( Anyway, in my personal opinion, any of the following would exclude Mormons from most other Christians: believing all the creeds of the churches were corrupted; ignoring the minister friend's advice that the vision was not possible (no comment on whether it was of the devil, I certainly don't know!); allegations of receiving priesthood authority from angels; publishing the Book of Mormon AND placing it on par with the Bible; organizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church of Christ is a different denomination that also began in the 1800s); teaching and practicing polygamy; teaching that God was once a man (not exactly Arianism, but committing the same error that God is a created being). After all that, the closed temple ceremonies almost don't matter. That first one, believing that all the creeds of the churches were corrupted, and that Presbyterianism was not true, are where Joseph Smith parts company with Christianity, effectively cutting himself off. It's no less drastic than the changes Mohammad made when he founded Islam.  Wesley 18:26, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, I guess it's all a matter of opinion (please! I am not trying start another debate). This is what this whole article is about. Of course I think it all comes down to what your defintion of a "Christian" is, and I think most other denominations formulate definitions just to exclude Mormons. But we've already covered that.

 * Just one thing though: "...that Presbyterianism was not true, are where Joseph Smith parts company with Christianity." In order to be a Christian you have to beleive in Presbyterianism? Wouldn't that make you a Presbyterian? Does that mean only Presbyterianism is true? —Frecklefoot 20:44, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I can see how that statement could be read that way. The question was when Joseph Smith Jr. left Christianity. I'm assuming that Smith's parents and family were Presbyterian, which at least is a denomination that can be historically documented back to the Reformation, which obviously came from the Roman Catholic Church, which goes back to the earliest Christians. When Smith denied Presbyterianism without joining any other branch of historic Christianity, he left the Christian church of history to found a brand new group. Had he decided that Presbyterians were wrong but instead joined, say, the Lutherans or Anglicans, he would at least still be in a church that had some historical ties; while they have rejected some earlier teachings of the church, they haven't boldly reject all the historic Christian creeds. For the record, I personally am not and never have been a Presbyterian. As for making up definitions just to exclude Mormons, the creeds we're talking about were around long before Mormonism, though some were designed to exclude the Gnostics that Mormons in some ways resemble. Wesley 14:53, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * My Presbyterian friend says you don't HAVE to be Presbyterian to get to heaven, but-Why take chances?   Heh, heh... Pollinator 00:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mormon Know it all
Hey there readers!! Um first of all I feel that if you're not a Latter-Day Saint then you shouldn't really be talking about whether this religion is false or not, because I am a Latter- Day Saint and I know everything there is to know about "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". People may have opinions about some religions, especially when it comes to "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" people always think of us mormons as "the ADULTERERS"......... and I feel that those ignorant people have the nerve to speak what they "think" of the mormon religion when they know NOTHING of our teachings......