Talk:New Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article New Age has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for New Age:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spirituality (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Occult (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Age/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Review to come shortly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing
  • "The term New Age was used as early as 1809 by William Blake who described a belief in a spiritual and artistic "New Age" in his preface to Milton: a Poem." has no ref.
  • "Another early usage of the term, was by the American artist, mystic, and philosopher Walter Russell, who spoke of "... this New Age philosophy of the spiritual re-awakening of man ..." in his essay "Power Through Knowledge", which was also published in 1944." mentions source in text but a ref with specifics on source would help.
Added a reference; it needs formatted. A second source with essay year or exact date is needed. All is One (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "The subculture that later became known as New Age already existed in the early 1970s, based on and adopting ideas originally present in the counterculture of the 1960s. The Findhorn Foundation – an intentional community near Findhorn, Moray, Scotland founded in 1962 – played an instrumental role during the early growth period of the New Age movement;[citation needed] it continues to operate the Findhorn Ecovillage." has {{cn}} and needs source for whole paragraph.
  • "Several key moments occurred in raising public awareness of this subculture: the publication of Linda Goodman's best selling astrology books Sun Signs (1968) and Love Signs (1978); Hair: The American Tribal Love-Rock Musical (1967) with its opening song "Aquarius" and its memorable line "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius" [emphasis added]; the broadcast of Shirley MacLaine's television mini-series Out on a Limb (1987); and the Harmonic Convergence (1987) organized by José Argüelles in Sedona, Arizona. Also influential[citation needed] were the claims of channelers Jane Roberts (the Seth Material) and J. Z. Knight (Ramtha), as well as revealed writings A Course in Miracles (1976) by Helen Schucman, The Celestine Prophecy (1993) by James Redfield, and Conversations with God (1995) by Neale Donald Walsch. Relevant works also include the writings of Eckhart Tolle, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Marianne Williamson, Deepak Chopra, John Holland, Gary Zukav, and Wayne Dyer; also, The Secret (2006) by Rhonda Byrne, which was based on the writings of Esther Hicks and Jerry Hicks." has another cn tag and is completely unsourced. What page in these books? etc.
  • "Some New Age music albums come with notes to encourage use in meditation. This style began in the 1970s with the works of free-form jazz groups recording on the ECM label; such as Oregon, the Paul Winter Group, and other pre-ambient bands; as well as ambient music performer Brian Eno and classical avant-garde musician Daniel Kobialka. In the early 1970s, it was mostly instrumental with both acoustic and electronic styles. New Age music evolved to include a wide range of styles from electronic space music using synthesizers and acoustic instrumentals using Native American flutes and drums, singing bowls, and world music sounds to spiritual chanting from other cultures." unsourced.
  • "Mainstream, organized religious institutions have been largely critical of the New Age movement. In 1982, author Johnanna Michaelsen published The Beautiful Side of Evil, a personal account of her experiences with various New Age activities. Concluding that all these activities were demonic, Michaelsen became a fundamentalist Christian and appeared on shows like The 700 Club and Praise the Lord to discuss her belief that Satan was behind the New Age and neopagan religions." unsourced.
Added fact tag. All is One (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Whole "Marxist" section is unsourced. Tagged.
  • Refs. (Please note: the numbers are different since recent additions; use version as of October 1, 2010): why is [dead link] in parantheses for refs 65 and 66? Why do the websites (e.g. 34, 35) not have publishers or other such info? Response: They may not be reliable sources. All is One (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 82 needs the link titled, not [1]. Ref 28: what is page "1ff"?—ff., folio, Latin for "and pages following." Why do some refs (e.g. first 10) have periods at the end, but not the rest? Ref 78 has no accessdate or other info. Ref 75 needs to have a consistent style with the others (link the title, not the publisher, date, etc.) Refs 55, 56 need space before "OCLC"; ref 66 says both "Volume 31" and has the bolded "31"; use "31 (1)". Refs 84, 85 say "Entire text online, page found 2010-06-28"; use "Retrieved" to be consistent and perhaps give a full link to the online text, or just remove that note. For page numbers, is it necessary to say "p. 08", or just use "p. 8"?

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

More on sourcing
  • For the bibliography and further reading, either use the citation templates for all or don't use them at all, for style consistency. Also, accessdates aren't needed for books, because they don't change (they only publish new editions).
  • Run a quick scan with Checklinks, tag deadlinks and find archived copies of them, if available (don't remove deadlinks).
/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure how to edit with Checklinks; if someone knows, please run it through the article. All is One (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I ran it through the article and saved the edit. Please note: The unaltered official Checklinks edit summary says 3 dead links, but only 2 were edited; maybe a glitch. It made some "retrieved"s capitalized, but the Citation templates still render them lower cased. There is no way to edit Template:Citation because it is locked, although it may mess up other articles if edited. I think it's just one of those Wikipedia incongruencies. All is One (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed this by using all lower cased "retrieved" per Citation talk. All is One (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Prose
  • eighteenth and nineteenth centuries" should be "18th and 19th centuries"
  • "c.1872" should be "c. 1872"
  • be sure to use a non-breaking space ( ) with ellipses at places like "... (use a nbsp after the ellipses and before the text begins) as well as ..." (before the ellipses and after the text)
  • "early to mid-1900s" should be "early- to mid-1900s"
  • "While claims of racial bias in the writings of Rudolf Steiner and Alice Bailey were made,[18] Alice A. Bailey was firmly opposed to the Axis powers (according to Bailey, Adolf Hitler was possessed by the Dark Forces [19]) ," Alice Bailey's full name is used twice in a row; use "Alice A. Bailey" the first time and "Bailey" the second; put the [19] after the parentheses and after that comma, and remove the space between comma and parentheses
  • ""Power Through Knowledge"," either put punctuation inside the quotes or outside; the rest of the article seems to favor inside quote marks, so make it consistent here and possibly elsewhere
  • "In a letter to his friend Peter Baynes dated 12 August 1940" it might flow better to write "In a letter dated 12 August 1940 to his friend Peter Baynes" or "In a letter to his friend Peter Baynes, dated 12 August 1940"
  • "have emphasised the above-mentioned personal aspects" the self-reference (abovementioned) seems a little awkward here; exactly which personal aspects were those?
  • Be wary of sentence fragments in the tables
  • "There is an emphasis on living in a simple sustainable way that attempts to reduce an individual's or society's use of the Earth's natural resources and shuns the consumer society" that makes up the whole "Sustainable living" section, which feels stubby and the sentence feels like an incomplete thought. How does this emphasis mean to New Agers? What part does it play in New Age? etc.
  • "Michaelsen became a fundamentalist Christian and appeared on shows like The 700 Club and Praise the Lord to discuss her belief that Satan was behind the New Age and neopagan religions." might be better phrased as "Michaelsen became a fundamentalist Christian, appearing shows like The 700 Club and Praise the Lord to discuss her belief that Satan was behind the New Age movement and neopagan religions."
  • "as a form of what Engels called" use Engels' full name
  • "and that it is just supersition that goes against provable fact" there are two "that"s in a row, and superstition is misspelled
  • "1970's" -> 1970s
  • Actually, the whole Marxist section (which may be better titled "Marxism" or "Marxists") seems like a high-school quality essay and needs a good copyedit, and sources, so please work on that
Having difficulty finding reliable sources concerning verifiability to support all of this; please advise. All is One (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems like OR to me. If you can source one or two sentences, maybe put them elsewhere; otherwise, delete the Marxism stuff (because I think someone really did just paste their essay in there). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree; this was a recent addition. There does seem to be at least a remote correlation, but only opposing general beliefs. However, I found more information on New Agers refuting Marxism. Maybe placing something in the wikitable above to that extent with a note about Marxism's views being against New Age spirituality. All is One (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Removed.
  • "Some adherents of traditional disciplines such as the Lakota people" should have a comma before "such"

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

More on prose
Check for dab links with this tool
/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Completed; only one redirect to a disambiguation page (Analytical), which is a basic word and is now unlinked. All is One (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Other
  • Passes criterion 3, 4, and 5 to me
  • Images: Make sure they all use alt text; if not, please add it
  • All images seem to have appropriate license tags, etc. No issues here

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll be able to pass this as soon as all the issues above have been addressed. Good job! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. I will continue working with this article. Thank you for all of your help and direction. Please edit anywhere you can find improvements, if you like. It is really nice to have another editor here for this additional review. All is One (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, so I think you're getting close to done, and this GAN has been open for a few weeks, so I'm going to AGF that you'll fix the minor details, but before passing, I need two things: the {{citation needed}} tags addressed, and the {{expand}} tag addressed. If you can get those done in a week, that's all I really need for the GAN (although keep working on this great article afterward). Thanks! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done All is One (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Passing this now! Great job, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Improved sourcing[edit]

It's been a while since I looked at this article, and it is nice to see, at long last, some authoritative scholarly sources like Hannegraaff, Heelas and Drury represented. Well done, and good luck with the GA. --JN466 17:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"non-religious"?[edit]

In relation to the contemporary debate and academic diversity regarding the problem of defining religion, to generalize such a broad concept as New Age as "non-religious" is (and I can't believe no one has questioned this yet) misguiding, questionable, or simply incorrect. Consider how one supposedly reacts to some christian or other religious movements that claims to be "not a religion", religions and/or religious persons do avoid the word "religion", for reasons that are ideological, theological, that is: for RETHORICAL purposes. And usually the story follows with "..it is rather a relationship", refering to God or Christ etc. Furthermore the word "religion" is clearly politized and ideologically "infected". Rethorics such as above have implicit theological/metaphysical statements. My point is that Wikipedia would'nt simply let religious organisation represent themselves in defining and describing what it is. The same should go for New Age. My concern is, first of all, quote: "The New Age movement is a non-religious Western spiritual movement" sounds like a "insider" stance, that is, to make such a (sharp) distinction between "religious" and "spiritual" is a typical normative-"theological" viewpoint from the perspective of most self-identified new-age/spiritual/personal belief-person, but certainly not a self-evident or factual distinction which should be taken for granted. I would gladly discuss this further. But not to be misunderstood, I'm not saying new-age is a religion, it is obviously not A religion. But isn't it just as obvious, according to most (or all) definitions of what "religious" means, that it is in no way correct to claim or imply that New Age is a "non-religious" movement!? (and if I do have any kind of agenda it is simply from the perspective of contemporary academic sources, and the theoretical view of science of religion/religious studies, sociology of religion etc.) —Preceding comment added by Justathought (talkcontribs) 19:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

IP 141.217.232.209 changed the wording from "quasi-religious" to "nonreligious" on December 1, 2010; no explanation was given in the edit summary. All is One (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps changing the wording from:"The New Age movement is a spiritual and nonreligious Western movement that developed in the latter half of the 20th century." ......... Too: The New Age movement is a spiritual, religious alternative movement that developed in the latter half of the 20th century. Perhaps this wording reflects the idea more correctly, perhaps not.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

Article only highlights viewpoints supporting it's overall slant. In particular a few writers are quoted and referenced extensively. Scientology appears to be added and deleted often. Should it be added or removed and why? Please discuss. Please add criticism section to balance viewpoint. Anything from difference of opinion of prominent New Age adherents to outright dismissal of concept. Refs always. Discuss if unsure. Daffydavid (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Criticism sections are poor form and should not be added. Instead, the "Reception" section adequately addresses other perspectives. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
ƒETCH, article is still lacking in balanced perspective as per wikipedia standards, but I note you have a vested interest in this article so I understand your personal view on the topic. Removing the tag based on just your opinion is bad form, but I'm not interested in a edit war, so have it your way. Just know that the article is likely to fail a Good Article test if challenged. It won't be me. Just thought I'd point it out. Daffydavid (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Troll behaviour concerning Scientology and tagging; most likely another form of: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DavidYork71. Recommend checkuser on Daffydavid. All is One (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
All is One, I'm disappointed in you. I'm suddenly a troll because I asked if Scientology should be included? I have no idea if it should or not. I just noticed that it was added and removed several times. I tagged the article because Wikipedia standards say the amount of material in each article should be proportionate to the world view. Given that there has been a significant decline in the number of Naturopaths, Homeopaths and other similar professions it would be reasonable to infer that the New Age movement is in decline. Maybe it's increasing. I don't really care enough about this topic to research more than I already have. I note with interest that instead of addressing the topics I brought up you instead attempt to brand me as A troll and a "sockpuppet". Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia article on the "Straw man argument". Check away on my username, Daffydavid all you want. This is my one only account on Wikipedia. If you wish to debate the points I raised, either to enlighten me or otherwise convince me of the error of my ways, it would make more sense to post on my page (talk) than to conduct personal attacks on the New Age talk page. All I can say is "convince me", attempts at slander and denigration do nothing to prove you are right. Daffydavid (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Bad form? Actually, it's called BRD. I am not a sockpuppet, Daffydavid, and I would recommend avoiding such accusations in the future (as well as you, All is One). If either of you would like to request a CheckUser, please go ahead. I look forward to seeing the results. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Fetchcomms, My apologies for the comment and I agree with your BRD point. I was hoping for a reply on some of my queries, but it seems that is not to be. To clarify, I expected a discussion on the Talk Page rather than tag removal. Perhaps I am wrong but it seems that the tagging supersedes BRD. Happy Editing.

Seems unbiased overall. Shocking for a government/banking propaganda psy op like Wikipedia.

How New Age differs from counter-culture[edit]

I think it would be good if this article were to explain how the New Age of the 1990s differs quite radically from the counter-culture of the 1960s. The former tends to be a more middle class exercice, and can be quite entrepeneurial, as is evident from the title of Peter LeMesurier's book "This New Age Business". Paul Heelas described the New Age as being like angels in pinsuits! This contrasts with the counter-culture, with its emphasis on dropping out from society. The counter-culture was, in many ways, a much more radical and unorthodox movement. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

New Age as a reaction to traditional religion[edit]

One thing that is lacking to me is a discussion of how New Age philosphies are a reaction to "that old time religion" of the 1950s and earlier times. I'd like to see some history that discusses people's unhappiness with attending Church on Sunday with the "right" social crowd in order to be seen to be pious and then ignoring religion and spirituality the rest of the time. Along with this, there were much doctrinal hair splitting which seemed to many to be a manifestation of the Biblical image of gnats and camels. I also would give more emphasis to intentional communities including Christian ones because they are trying to do something new as well. I did find many articles about the decline in traditional religion but was unable to easily find references that linked the growth of New Age with reasons for the decline of traditional religion. Jerryfern (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nagualism[edit]

I would respectfully suggest that woven somewhere into the article be mentioned: Carlos Castaneda, Don Juan Matus, Neo-Nagualism or a reference be made to "modern day" Toltecs perhaps making the article more complete. I only suggest and leave that decision up to you. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's one of major influences in the New Age. -- Nazar (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also Deepak Chopra. Henry123ifa (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No Criticism section?[edit]

New Age is often criticised as wishy-washy blather. Many articles on WP include a Criticism section. This one doesn't. It should. 86.135.115.218 (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Reception section contains criticisms from a wide range of cultural perspectives.Lumos3 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It, quite noticeably, lacks a subsection of atheist\skeptic\materialist\scientific (pick the most appropriate) views. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
For further information about the topic, see Wikipedia:Criticism. All is One (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just added a section on the New Age as a social and political movement, and it includes a sub-section of fairly pointed criticisms from both the left and the right. - Babel41 (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Political criticisms seem insufficient. Criticisms that should be mentioned include belief in psychics, crystal healing, channelling with the dead, homeopathy and other claims refuted by science. Additionally, it should be mentioned in the article that New Agers are often scammed into buying useless products like "aural measurement devices" "healing crystals" and get sham procedures like "DNA light activation" for "Theta Healing." A more critical tone is adopted for the Scientology article, and a similar tone would be appropriate here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.83.60 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Atheism included in "spiritual and religious traditions"?[edit]

"The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions ranging from atheism and monotheism through classical pantheism,(...)"
This implies that atheism is a religion, when atheism is the antithesis of theism. This is misleading and should be corrected. Skaruts (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right! And, as it is not sourced and doesn't appear anywhere else in the article, please feel free to be bold and remove it. Lova Falk talk 09:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed the word atheism from it. But from what I heard some atheists may take part of this movement. Someone with better understanding of the movement should probably include atheism in there once more, as long as it's not in the same context of religious tradition as I perceived it was. Skaruts (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure some atheists take part of this movement! But that is not the same as stating that "The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions" such as atheism. There is no mention in the article of elements of atheism that are incorporated into the New Age movement. An if someone wants to put this in, well, as long as there is a good source for it, that is absolutely fine! Lova Falk talk 10:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Then it's all good. Thanks for the feedback. Skaruts (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

New age movement is viewed as a big load of bs by the majority of humans who know of its existence (specially anyone with critical thinking abilities).

Yet this is in no way reflected in the tone or weight of the content of this article. Earlier attempts at adding some balance have been consistently blocked. There is an ocean of reliable sources criticising new age movement yet the article does not adequately reflect this context. Until this criticism is allowed to be included, DO NOT REMOVE THE NPOV TAG.

Alertboatbanking (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example to get you thinking: Astrology#Scientific appraisal. It would be better to talk about specifics. "New Age" covers many different concepts and actvities. It would be better to categorize by subjects of criticism, as opposed to categorizing by critic. This would primarily involve the restructuring of the "Reception" section.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk
07:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
@Alertboatbanking: I do not agree that this article lacks neutrality. Most of it is straightforward and informative, and parts of it are very well sourced. In addition, two segments are at least partially dedicated to criticisms of the New Age movement: the section titled "Reception" (reporting on some criticisms of the personal-spiritual side of the movement) and the sub-section titled "Political criticisms at century's end" (reporting on multiple criticisms of the socio-political side). Yeah, I wrote most of the "Political criticisms" sub-section myself.
I do think the "Reception" section fails to adequately discuss the negative response to the personal-spiritual side of the New Age movement among many publics. Long sub-sections of the Reception section could be devoted to "The media critique," "The academic critique," "The Christian critique," and - even - "The self-critique" (e.g., the book by New Agers David Spangler and Bill Thompson that is mentioned on the David Spangler page).
However, all of that can be done by future contributors to the Reception section who are willing to report, dispassionately, on the "reliable sources" you allude to. It is not true that the article, as it stands, is fundamentally or structurally biased against such criticism. - Babel41 (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised by the neutrality and factuality of this article. It does not read like one of those articles written by modern spirituality-adepts, who throw together anything they like. The NPOV-policy says: "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". 'Lack of inclusion of criticism' is not very specific, and not factual, since the "Reception"-section does contain criticisms. So I dispute the NPOV-tag, and think it should be removed. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Insufficient citations[edit]

There are still citation needed tags that have been unaddressed for months. I will start a Good Article Reassessment if this issue if not fixed soon.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:New Age/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article contains multiple unaddressed citation needed tags, thus failing criterion 2b. The "when?" and "which?" tags should also be addressed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Checked to see if there had been massive editing and citation removal by Qworty/Robert Clark Young, which was his modus operandi as of recent. He had edited page and removed two external links. He did not remove any citations from within the article that could be returned. Taram (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Plan of action[edit]

To make this process easier, I have taken the initiative of copying all the passages in question (i.e., all the passages with unaddressed tags) below. I striongly suggest that we improve the article by (a) either finding a citation for the passage in question, or deciding to eliminate the passage, (b) entering the change rught in the article, and then (c) telling what we did (and, optionally, why we did it) after the Action taken phrase below. Others might then (d) comment on the changes.

Let's help this article hold onto its hard-won "Good Article" status! - Babel41 (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: So far, no one has taken me up on this suggestion. In order to preserve our "Good Article" status, I have therefore taken it upon myself to rework each passage below based on citations to reliable sources, and transfer the results to the article. I hope no one feels I have diminished the article, and if anyone can improve on my efforts (while properly citing their sources), I encourage them to do so. - Babel41 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, nice job. The article looks much better now. The lack of citations to certain statements was the main reason for why I started this GAR. Now that this issue has been fixed, I'm willing to close this reassessment if you don't anything else to add.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, FutureTrillionaire. To "celebrate," I fixed the ISBN numbers at the end of footnotes 36 and 38, and am now happy to turn the New Age Good Article over to the new generation. - Babel41 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"History" section[edit]

Passages in question: None.

"Spirituality" section[edit]

Passage in question: Afterlife cell, first sentence: "The New Age sets no restrictions on one's beliefs about an afterlife".[citation needed]

Action taken: The premise of this sentence is incorrect, which is why no citation could possibly attach to it. There is no official New Age entity or movement that has the capacity to set "restrictions" on beliefs about an afterlife, or anything else. There is a variety of beliefs about an afterlife among New Age thinkers, well described on pp. 171-76 of spiritual writer Nevill Drury's carefully researched book Exploring the Labyrinth (1999). I modified the sentence accordingy, and footnoted Drury. - Babel41 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Passage in question: Age of Aquarius cell, first sentence: "Some astrologers[which?] regard the current time-period[when?] as the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, correlated to various changes in the world; and some claim that the early 1960s was the actual beginning of the Age of Aquarius, though this claim is highly contentious.” [also lacks cite – ed.]

Action taken: Besides being unsourced, this sentence goes off track. The focus here should be on what New Age thinkers say about the age of Aquarius, not on what certain astrologers say. I have therrefore replaced it with a passage citing three New Age thinkers' views on the age of Aquarius, two well versed in astrological lore and the other drawn more by the beauty and supposed truth of the Aquarian-age concept. - Babel41 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Passage in question: Interpersonal relationships cell, second sentence: "Those in the New Age movement accept women's complete equality in all aspects of society including religion and the complete acceptance of one's sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, homosexual (gay or lesbian) or bisexual and gender identity, whether cisgender, transgender, or intersexual as a means of spiritual development".[citation needed]

Action taken: Besides being without a source, this paragraph – which constitutes the enire "Inerpersonal Relationships" cell - fails to address any relationship issues other than those directly involving gender and sex. I have no idea why the author feels a need to enumerate all the different sexual and gender orientations. Therefore, I have replaced this material with a fully-sourced paragraph that includes sex-role and women’s-empowerment issues, but covers other issues as well. - Babel41 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"Lifestyle" section[edit]

Passage in question: Music sub-section, second paragraph, first sentence: "The style began in the 1970s with the works of free-form jazz groups recording on the ECM label; such as Oregon, the Paul Winter Consort, and other pre-ambient bands; as well as ambient music performer Brian Eno and classical avant-garde musician Daniel Kobialka".[citation needed] [N.b.: The next sentence should probably also be covered, either by this cite or by another.]

Action taken: This unsourced paragraph appears to be largely a recap of portions of Wikipedia's "New Age music" page, which is itself imperfectly sourced. Fortunately, the information in the paragraph in question is very standard fare. So rather than eliminate this paragraph, I have added citations to two standard book-length guides to New Age music. - Babel41 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"Reception" section[edit]

Passages in question: None.

"Social and political movement" section[edit]

Passage in question: New directions for the 21st century sub-section, end of first paragraph: [The current New Age political project differs from the earier one,] "... in part as a result of learning from the criticisms that had been directed at the earlier wave of New Age political actors".[citation needed]

Action taken: Although I think it is obvious that New Age political people learned from their left- and right-wing critics, I can find no credible source that makes that point. It is implicit in Satin, Anderson, Gerzon, Annie Gottlieb's Do You Believe in Magic?, and other texts, but that is not good enough for Wikipedia (or any real encyclopedia). I hope someone can prove me wrong and will restore the omitted passage with an appropriate cite. But until someone can, I think it is best to suppress the passage as editorial POV. So that is what I've done. - Babel41 (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Nice job.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Result[edit]

Result: Kept. The issues have been resolved.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This is your Founder speaking to you. What was once lost is now found. I've been away for too too long. It is good to see Portal:New Age now even though the founders of Wikipedia used to give me advice from the [of New Age].

The new first paragraph of the entry says just about nothing. It's utterly uninformative. --TheCunctator We who are reporting unbiasedly on New Age are presenting New Age POV, and welcome other non-New Age POV as well. Since I realize skeptical POV exist, those references were in place, and removed by whoever. Check the revisions. And, I restored a decent first para, C, which was simply deleted by one of our illustrious collaborators. User:BF

One Small Problem[edit]

The article states "The New Age movement is a Western spiritual movement that developed in the second half of the 20th century."

This is not true. No such movement exists.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Since I last checked your progress I still note the absence of Music on this article. It has become a new wave of easy listening music which has become very popular in the mainstream media. If anyone has any ideas speak up.

If not :

Then, as it was, then again it will be Though the course may change sometimes Rivers always reach the sea [[1]]

BF (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Old Image[edit]

http://imgur.com/lmQB52z

Put this as the main! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreovaltine (talkcontribs) 01:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well... #1 It's not obvious what that image has to do with the New Age movement. How does it explain the subject? #2 Who has the copyright to that image? Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and this would need to be established first. Grayfell (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I was the editor responsible for removing the original image (of clouds and the moon) and replacing it with the current lede image (of a New Age gathering in Bosnia). I had hoped that the need for this substition was obvious; the first image has nothing to do with the New Age movement, beyond a very emic understanding of the New Age movement having cosmological and astrological implications and associations. Other than that it is simply decorative, and hardly appropriate for an etic encyclopedia article on the subject of the movement. While we could have a legitimate discussion as to the appropriateness of the image that I have added as a substitute, it should be clear that it is at least a great improvement given that it depicts the subject matter at hand. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)