This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
Unhappy with this
Not happy with this. It's a mass of redirects, and some of the names chosen for the articles are not supported by the articles they redirect to, which brings up POV concerns in their naming. It's organized oddly, and some of the groups on here don't fit. I appreciate the effort, but this really is not suitable to go plastering on every article connected to Paganism/Neopaganism or Polytheism.
I'm not sure it can be fixed. Something like this has been tried in the past, but it wound up angering people at the attempt to group together traditions that many did not see as appropriate to group in that manner. Unless this can be completely rethought and seriously improved, I am removing it from the articles, at least for now. - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫02:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire "Pagan inspired philosophical systems". Inaccurate, many of these have nothing to do with paganism except the pagan Hellenistic cultures created them. There's nothing implicitly or explicitly "pagan" about most of them. This why they are philosophical systems, not religious systems.
The many poorly thought out links that only go to redirects. Along with this is the POV renaming of the Wikipedia articles linked to in order to conform to the template creator's POV vision of "correct" names.
Most of the "Indigenous faiths" links are useless, going to sections of lists. Plus classifying them as pagan isn't really accurate.
yes, there is potential here. But at the moment, the organisation of topics strikes me as a bit naive. Blanking is not the way to go, but you should avoid widely transcluding the template as long as it is under development or dispute. dab(𒁳)10:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page for all templates relating to this topic
Several templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area, namely:
I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles. Some articles could conceivably be tagged with 3 or 4 of these templates: indeed, Wicca already has three. I mean no criticism of the creators of the templates - but I suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title - "Paganism and Neopaganism" or just "Paganism"
Hello everybody!
I recently changed the title of "Paganism and Neopaganism" to simply "Paganism" because there is another template solely called "Neopaganism". This template does include a part about Neopaganism, but that is because "Neopaganism" is a part of "Paganism", and therefore I think that my edit was the better title, though what is the general concensus? I think that we need to discuss this first :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I see no problem with renaming the template (and it does undo a confusing overlap)> But I do still have a more fundamental question about whether these different templates are (a) necessary and (b) desirable - but that's for another day. As long as the rename doesn't cause any technical difficulties (not my field of expertise!) go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the end i went for the change to Paganism (Historical Polytheism, Ethnic Religion and Neo-Paganism). This explains clearly the different forms of Paganism and how they are all represented in this general template. I hope everyone see's this as the best option. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
apart from the fact that the template is now rather large and unwieldy, I think it is quite fair now. Maybe we can reduce it in size somewhat? For example, avoid linking the full spectrum of neopagan movements? Just the main currents should suffice for the purposes of this template. There is {{Neopaganism}} for increased resolution of this sub-topic. dab(𒁳)15:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Native American religions and generic folk religion
I don't think that Native American religions (Central or Northern) and Asian traditional religions (Hindu, Chinese, Shinto) are in the right place in this template, since they're not conventionally classified as "Pagan". --Jormunpherreik (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of world religions, even if they are smaller, are not Abrahamic, so it would be impossible and undesirable to try to include them all. Most Native Americans don't identify as "pagan" (I'm sure individuals do), and traditional indigenous religions aren't self-identified as "pagan." The template should stick to pagan/neo-pagan-related topics. Native American religions should be removed. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Agreed. An IP tried to put Natives in this again. I have removed it. Native ceremonial people see "pagan" or "Pagan" as an insult. There are even members of other traditional cultures who do not want any association with the NeoPagan community. Many Native religions are considered by their adherents to be monotheistic or henotheistic, not polytheistic, so they don't even belong in a polytheism category. - Slàn,Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫20:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge?
This template partly covers contemporary Paganism, but there is already a {{Paganism topics (contemporary)}}. It seems to me that either the Neopagan movements section should be removed or {{Paganism topics (contemporary)}} should be merged hear.
I support merging because {{Paganism topics (contemporary)}} does not have much unique content and desisting topics in its scope does not make much sense either. —Sowlos (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The template now covers a wide range of different topics
The template is filled with religions that historically were never called "Paganism". Has this template still any sense under the title "Paganism"? Should not it be better to expand its scope to "Paganism, ethnic and indigenous religions"?--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per template documentation, this doesn't include Indigenous lifeways
Template documentation states: "Note: A general consensus has been agreed that this template should only be placed on articles that are about general Paganism, where more specific templates such as [the Neopaganism template] are not more appropriate. There are other templates on Modern Paganism and specific traditions. Do not add this template to Abrahamic or Indigenous religions that are not considered Pagan." So it only follows that the template should not have a section that lists Indigenous cultures and their lifeways. I have removed the Native American / Indigenous section. - CorbieVreccan☊☼21:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating myself, but Igbo and Yoruba traditions are largely syncrethized with Abrahamic and Christian traditions in African Diaspora religions, and you can clearly differentiate the pagan, indigenous world-view from the Abrahamic elements. I believe thus, that they should be included in the template. But, regardless of that, just the confession that they are a "traditional indigenous religion", as you said, would merit their inclusion in the category of the template which is precisely called "Historic ethnic religions (existing and extinct)". They are ethnic religions that have animist, pantheist, panentheist or polytheist elements which further establishes that they meet the criteria required for inclusion in the template. If you are going to remove all traditions that are more accurately characterized as Indigenous than "Pagan" you would also have to remove European, Asian and Middle-Eastern ones (not just African and Native Americans), which would effectively empty the whole template. CaptainKaptain (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indigenous lifeways should not be included in a list of paganism. This is very much a disrespectful and condescending term characterizing Indigenous peoples of the past and present. --ARoseWolf12:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainKaptain, re-adding and calling Native and Indigenous people "pagans" wholesale is ridiculous. It reminds me of other terms that Natives and Indigenous were called like "savages" and "redskins". Indigenous people and their way of life, past and present, is not "paganism". As a side note, look at the "native" people calling themselves "pagans" and I am willing to bet most, if not all, of them are "pretendians" anyway. This is hateful speech that Indigenous lifeways should not be included in. --ARoseWolf13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, this not meant as an offense, but indigenous religions, including American ones, are ethnic religions (historical and existing). Look at the category's name. They do have elements of Animism, Pantheism, Panentheism or Polytheism (as ascribed in the head of the template), and thus merit inclusion. And the vast majority (if not totality) of academic sources would agree with such classification.
There is a whole discussion on the term paganism and its usage as a pejorative term and, especially under non-ethnic and abrahamic religions, as a connotative of 'wrongness' and it is understandable that practitioners of ethnic religions would want to distance themselves from such term and its connotations (and, surely, if you ask a practitioner of an ethnic religion or asked a practitioner of a historical ethnic religion, none of them would reply that "yes, I'm a pagan", because next to no traditional religions ever called themselves as 'pagans' or referred to themselves by such term, which is also largely anachronistic in relation to ancient religions), but that's a discussion for another topic.
What needs to be understood, I think, and why this template is called "Paganism" and not "Indigenous Religions, historical and existing" (which would be proper) is the cultural bias of the English-language Wikipedia (which, for better or worse, must take place sometimes to adjust things to the readers). Just like the front-page of Wikipedia mentions the winner of the English football league and not of the Italian leagues, terms like 'paganism', which are common to the English-speaking public at broad and its largely Christianized cultural sphere, seem better suited to direct readers to the topic than strictly accurate ones (such as "traditional ethnic religions", "Indigenous religions", etc.) in the titles.
On an academic and general basis the term 'pagan' is not something insulting, but something that is analyzed and categorized from a neutral point of view. Again, I understand that practitioners of Indigenous religions (in the Americas and elsewhere) would and do not describe themselves as 'pagans' and would sometimes find it insulting to be associated with it but as an academic and general classification (the criteria used by Wikipedia) and in the broader English-language cultural sphere usage, the term pagan is adequate for the template's description.
To remove native American traditions from the template and say that paganism and ethnic religions never existed in the Americas (and in the Americas only), which this would effectively amount to, just in order to fit with some current biases held by some modern Native Americans on how they should be viewed is not appropriate. It would be tantamount to hiding the truth just because some Native Americans are offended by it due to the long-standing misguided discrimination they have suffered throughout Christian colonization.
I have had experiences here on Wikipedia, such as with the Germanic Religion article where several editors insisted on keeping a completely-inappropriate "Indo-European topics" template on the article (of something that postdates and is distinguishable from the scope of "Indo-European" studies by thousands of years) simply because it fits with their own biases, and I think it really harms Wikipedia as a project.
Please understand that the inclusion of different ethnic religions on the "Paganism" template is done on a completely neutral point of view and is not in any way meant to be derogatory to any peoples and their religious traditions; the term paganism being used in place of technically more accurate ones simply because of its broader usage on the English-language cultural sphere.
What matters, thus, is: does the listed traditions fit in with the "Paganism" classification (as per the broader academic definition)? If one thinks certain traditions listed here would not qualify as pagan, then please go ahead and list them and provide a justification and explanation for their removal - don't remove an entire category and continent just because it could be perceived as something offensive by some people. The classification and categorizing of different religions being something that is approached from an academic and comparative religious-studies view-point - which, in general, classifies american ethnic religious practices as pagan in a broader sense - please conform to the academic criteria rather than the perceived "offensiveness" of the terms used when editing this template. CaptainKaptain (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainKaptain, first, with all due respect, Wikipedia was not designed to be an academic encyclopedia. It was designed for the common person to be able to edit and understand what is being included. If Wikipedia wanted an academic encyclopedia then they would have made it just like Britannica and only allowed "experts" and academics to edit their articles. Second, I do not need a "higher" education to know that the term "pagan" is and always has been an offensive term used in academics, religious or otherwise, to label large groups of people as "needing to be saved" from themselves because academics and, particularly religious academics, has always thought itself more learned than the general populous, even more so the Indigenous peoples and people of color. One only need look at the spread of missions and mission schools in America that destroyed entire cultures and removed their historical knowledge from the earth, forever, to know this. You may think yourself neutral and, personally, I assume good faith on your part, however ignorant you may be of the reality of the usage of that term applied here. The term is not neutral nor will it ever be. This is not just a perception and not by a "few" or "some"; it is considered offensive by the consensus here on this talk page. Please stop treating my words like it is a fringe theory because it is not. Thank you for coming here and discussing this with me in a respectful tone. --ARoseWolf20:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainKaptain(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) You do not have consensus to make these changes. It is also clear you are not familiar enough with the topic to attempt this. Do not edit war over this. What matters here is established consensus, not your opinion or WP:OR. I am reverting your attempt to change this template to something that goes against the template's consensus documentation, and your attempts to add it to articles of cultures that consider this nomenclature not only inaccurate but offensive. This is disruptive editing. - CorbieVreccan☊☼21:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tsistunagiska; CorbieVreccan, not to break respect, but I didn't say Wikipedia was designed to be an academic-only encyclopedia nor did I ever endorse exaggerated academicism (which I'm pretty much against) and the sole validity of "higher" education for this project. Frankly, the group of people involved with the Native American discussion on this template seem to have a particular perception that the term pagan is "offensive", as I mentioned no practitioner of ethnic religions ever called himself a "pagan", but many people do take pride in their indigenous traditions (historical or existing) nowadays and use that term deliberately and proudly.
I am all too aware of the connotations of the term, of the arrogance of established religious academics and the exploitation carried out in parts of the world against people designed as "pagans", "infidels" or "kaffir" and their indigenous world-view. But the terminology issue and the extreme rejection of the term seem to be, out of all parts of the globe, more of a Native American issue.
You need to understand the implications of what you're doing. Because of the discrimination faced by Native Americans and the effects of missions, colonialism, etc. you are denying that Paganism (and animistic, pantheistic or polytheist religions) ever existed in the Americas - and in the Americas only (as no other people from others parts of the globe came to complain about the issue of the academic classification of their traditional and ancient practices as "pagan", even though many, if not all, traditional practitioners of ethnic religions would take issue with being called as such).
You are erasing history and burying information and the truth because of… feelings, and because some Native Americans might be offended by it (you can't say this position represents all Native Americans as there are Native Americans who described themselves as pagans, and interact with so-called pagans from other parts of the world). You're breaking character and a whole categorization (that is agreed by everyone else, except the small group of editors here) by excluding the Americas - and the Americas only - from the template, as an exception (thus rendering the template bizarrely inaccurate by excluding a whole continent in particular for no sound reason) and for what?
And, again, just the header of the template says "Paganism" (a title used entirely for convenience reasons as it makes easier for a reader in the broader english-speaking cultural sphere to indentify the theme treated), the category explicitly says "Historical ethnic religions (extinct and existing)", which does include Indigenous religions, such as the many forms from the American Continent.
With all due respect, this "consensus" is extremely prejudicial and misinformative and I urge you to reconsider that. Instead please list the religious traditions that you think won't fit into the description (such as not being animistic, pantheistic, polytheist, or an ethnic religion, etc.) and explain why they should be removed, rather than deleting an entire continent from the template out of some pre-determined convention. CaptainKaptain (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a Native American section in Template:Religion_topics. If anyone wants to improve that, that is the place, not the Paganism template. But again, editing of any template needs to be with an understanding of the topic and with respect for consensus. First read the talk pages, page history, and relevant articles before changing anything. Seek consensus for any major changes to these templates. They affect links to many pages, so need to be done correctly. - CorbieVreccan☊☼21:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the history there, CaptainKapatain was already aware of this and has edited there, in many cases duplicating content. This seems to be about a POV push to re-categorize faith traditions according to personal opinion. - CorbieVreccan☊☼21:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be mischaracterizing what I did there as I didn't include Native American ethnic religions under a "paganism" category. Please stop making such unfounded assumptions and excessively policing my edits. CaptainKaptain (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you're mischaracterizing what I'm doing and seem to be throwing unfounded accusations at me. I have indeed seen another article about religious traditions and wanted to contribute by expanding the religious traditions listed there too. I was not aware of any conventions or criteria against "paganism" on these different templates, or pushing any personal point-of-view. You have to remember that the majority of human religious traditions through history are ethnic and so-called "pagan" religions, the universal and non-pagan religions being the minority throughout history. I merely added mentions of other religious traditions that I had collected while editing this template, I acted in good faith and only wanted to expand the information in the other template, that was all (and, respectfully, but you seem to be having a very inquisitorial behavior, pushing through my editing history for supposed violations. Why do that?). CaptainKaptain (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainKaptain, the more you say you are being respectful the more you are actually being disrespectful and dismissive of Native American traditions and beliefs, past and present. Are there some Native Americans who call themselves "pagans"? I am sure just like there are some Native Americans who call themselves "christians", "muslims" and many other religious terms. If they choose to do so then fine, that's a personal preference. It does not represent the culture as a whole, nor does it represent the cultural beliefs as a whole. If entire Native American cultures used the term to refer to themselves then I would be fine with including it. Otherwise, its an academic term that, at the very least, is culturally insensitive and at worst, meant to be offensive as a representation of superiority. Regardless, it has no place in describing these cultures. The Cherokee did not deify animals. There are no "spirit" animals. The Cherokee, traditionally, believed in one creator of all things. There were higher beings and some animals and plants were elevated to a sacred place so as to explain their existence but those are traditional beliefs. There is so much more and I care not to explain anything here. Calling Native American traditions "paganism" is offensive, not to a few and not to some but to a majority. With that I am walking away from this conversation. I don't "feel" there is anything further to say. I have assumed good faith on your part from the beginning. Further action to include Indigenous and Native American beliefs, so long as the "pagan" term is used, despite a consensus against it is the very definition of disruptive editing. --ARoseWolf12:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tsistunagiska; CorbieVreccan. I know what I meant, and I intend no disrespect to any peoples by classifying their traditions as "pagan" (which is, whether some people like it or not, a standard classification for belief-systems which contain animist, pantheist, panentheist and polytheist elements - like most indigenous traditions across the world - in the English-language cultural sphere). I will stress, again, that no traditional ethnic religion across the world ever called themselves or their beliefs as "pagan" (and I'm all too aware of the discussion surrounding its usage as a pejorative term) but that is still not reason enough to drop the common-place classification used in religious studies (which makes it much easier for readers to identify the theme treated), and it is specially not reason enough to drop this classification only for certain groups, such as the Native Americans. The classification is equally offensive to Asian and European traditional ethnic religions - but are they removed from the article too? No. Apparently there is no criteria on the template for it, other than "Some Native Americans think it is offensive and have convened to remove an entire continent - and that continent only - from the template" (as if paganism had existed everywhere but on the Americas, singling out an entire continent because of what, feelings? This is to bury the truth and extremely misinformative).
I understand that this classification is technically not accurate or the most proper, but I don't think you understand the double-standard you're creating with such "consensus". Peoples such as the Irish or Mongols were derogatorily referred to as "barbarians" and "pagans", yet no attempt is made to change historical naming-conventions and demand special treatment and different classifications because such designations might be perceived as "offensive" to them. You talk about the Cherokee and how their beliefs are commonly misrepresented. You have to understand: this not exclusive to the Cherokee. Germanic peoples, for instance, did not deify animals due to practices such as "Berserkir", the fact that there were holy sites with sacred trees and grooves did not mean they worshiped trees. When you study their region, you see that they traditionally believed in one greater spirit - they were not "godless". There is so much more and I care not to explain everything here. Calling any ethnic religious traditions as paganism might be perceived by some (or indeed, by the majority of its practitioners) as offensive, that is still not reason enough to change the standard naming convention used by 90% of people. To remove that designation for Native Americans - and for Native Americans only - is further offensive to the other peoples which are still referred to as pagans ("We, Native Americans, we are different! All the rest of you - oh you're just filthy pagans, haha!"). To remove the Native American religions (which contain animistic, pantheistic and polytheistic elements just like other religions from across the globe, such as i.e the Polynesians) and the American Continent - and only it - from the template is unacceptable, it is grossly inaccurate and creates a nonsensical double-standard.
I will not be making further editions on the theme when I have an administrator telling me not to, nor do I intend to disrupt the project and the template, only to improve it, but I urge you to reconsider your positions and such "consensus" and see the negative consequences it unwillingly generates. CaptainKaptain (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"We, Native Americans, we are different! All the rest of you - oh you're just filthy pagans, haha!" This is your words, not mine. You will never find one single instance, in my entire existence, where I have called anyone who believed anything different than me a "filthy pagan". --ARoseWolf13:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on your talk page, Captain, in all of your responses about this, you continually past-tense living cultures and their unbroken (not Pagan or Neopagan) lifeways, and argue from the position of your own opinions and interpretations, rather than Wikipedia policy. Your writing and editing shows that you do not understand these Indigenous lifeways well enough to overhaul the templates on which you have been reverted. You also don't seem to understand which articles are OK to put the template on. (For instance, some Yoruba-derived religions in the diaspora have been syncretized; but that's not the case with the original, Indigenous tradition in West Africa. If you don't know the difference, you shouldn't be editing these topics.) The other points you raise here also miss the central points editors have raised with you. There's no easy way to say this: You clearly don't understand the history or current reality of how these religions are classified, both in the communities themselves and here on WP. Again, you need a much more thorough understanding of the topic, and consensus before doing any more edits in these areas. - CorbieVreccan☊☼18:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CorbieVreccan, in regards to Odnani and the Yoruba religion, even if you entirely disregard the diasporic manifestations (not that you should do that), you will still find that they have animistic, pantheistic, panentheistic and polytheistic elements in their traditional, West African form. Plus the presence of beliefs such as in reincarnation. As you said, this is the original indigenous tradition in West Africa, it is thus, a historical ethnic religion (existing or extinct) - just like the template's category prescribes.
You seem keen on stressing that I have no understanding of the theme (which I don't claim to extensively have, I was just making additions to the template) and indeed I was not aware of Wikipedia's policy (and of the "consensus" regarding the themes, misguided or not, when I was making such additions), but while you say that the other points I have raised here miss the central points you & the other editor have raised with me, you haven't addressed the simple point I've stressed - that whether you prefer to call things as "indigenous religions" or as "pagan", "indigenous religions" correlate with historical ethnic religions (existing or extinct) which would, thus, merit their inclusion in the template, under that category.
Also in regards to Tsistunagiska, I will just raise a personal anecdote that no Guarani person I have met ever said "no, our traditions are not like these other ones which you call pagan - they are 'indigenous' or something", instead all of them said "Yes, these are our pre-christian traditions, similar to paganism" and they were all proud of their roots. So I have a hard time believing this perceived 'offensiveness' is a thing applicable to all Native Americans, on the whole of the American continent (which was entirely excluded from the template). Rather, it seems, at most, an identity issue among some North American natives. I don't think even Mesoamericans and Andean natives (with a christianized bias or not) have that same issue with their ancient traditions. Again, I'm not aware of what was consented that things should be and I apologize if what I'm saying is misplaced, this is just an opinion, but it seems that if you're going to exclude Native American religions from the template for those reasons, you should only exclude those of North American (USA/Canada) natives - not the whole continent and South/Central American traditions (and I don't care if I'm being "disrespectful" here, as these are just factual personal observations).
And, as a final observation, there seems to be a problem with such "consensuses" here on Wikipedia. Sometimes, a small-group of editors with a devoted interest in a particular theme will push a viewpoint (based on their specific understandings and perceptions of the theme, that they acquired from their extensive specific studies, and which are particular to those advanced studies and not to the common view of 99% of average people) and that peculiar view-point which diverges from common perception of the theme is allowed to stand because a "consensus" was formed (by sometimes a few editors) surrounding it. And because of that, you have situations like the article on the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, where it is described as a Hunnic defeat everywhere but on Wikipedia (the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains resulted in a Hunnic rout with the Roman-Alliance holding the field and the Huns abandoning their invasion of Gaul - and that is plainly worded in the article - yet it has to be described as "Indecisive" on the infobox because a "consensus" of some editors have decided it to be so). I think that's a specific flaw of the format of the project, where a small group of users can be able to push what is essentially a POV-viewpoint because they have formed a "consensus". Anyway, something to consider. CaptainKaptain (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CorbieVreccan: This template has been turned into a "Template:Non-abrahamic religions" in an attempt to turn the term "Paganism" into a catch-all synonym of "non-Abrahamic religions", while its standard use is restricted to European and Middle Eastern pre-Abrahamic religions. Native American religions, native African religions, Hinduism, East Asian religions, and native Oceanian religions are not Paganism.--37.163.185.160 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
