Talk:Eclectic paganism

[Untitled]
I know you need something to do...GET A FREAKIN LIFE..ECLECTIC PAGANISM is the most popular form of modern paganism and it deserves its own page. It is referenced, linked to the modern paganism page here, it is not original, nor opinionated, and is based in fact. Find something else to do rather than being a wiki fan boy.
 * Please assume WP:GOODFAITH, Classic70s. Part of the issue with making articles based on religion is that you have to show a lot of sourcing to prove that it's notable enough for an article of its own. It looks like this is actually viewed as somewhat separate from MP, so it could likely warrant its own page at this point in time. It's considered to be both sort of part of MP but also somewhat separate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Lack of Substance – Social Media Section Questionable
Does this really merit being its own article, in the state that it is currently in? Other than a paragraph of definition, the entire body of the article is a "debate" on the merits of neopagans' use of social media. This is certainly not scholarly and doesn't provide much of anything of use from an academic perspective.

Eckmann88 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The "Use of Social Media" section is awful. The style is totally inappropriate and frankly the content's not that relevant, particularly in the absence of more important sections like a clear definition or Beliefs or History. It reads like an advocate's blog. If it can't be rewritten in proper encyclopaedic style, this whole section needs to be deleted. FilthiestOfPeasant (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know if this is the correct template to use, but I added a Neutral Point of View banner above the "Use of Social Media" section. The content in the section definitely seems biased, or at the very least too opinionated to belong on Wikipedia. I also think that there is no good reason to use the phrase "witchy aesthetic" on Wikipedia, especially without explaining what you mean and acting as if everyone who will read the page will understand you.

SeanHogan777 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This section is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. @SeanHogan777, thank you for adding the template. I also feel that "witchy aesthetic" is inappropriate.

In light of all this, I would vote for the removal of this subsection in its entirety. /VFD Very Fantastic Dude (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I just took a stab at fixing this article a little bit, but I know nothing about this topic so more experienced eyes are probably needed. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)