Talk:List of pagans

message: 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)
thread_title: Listing pagans in a pagan culture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fluffy Wiccan's? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  pagans or Pagans? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove People

message: 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)
thread_title: unsubstantiated

message: 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)
thread_title: Blanking

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good job, Bloodofox! —Aryaman (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to help! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianisation?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Slavic section Split