Talk:New Age

Naturalism?

Not a bad article, all in all. In the introduction, however, there's the assertion that one of things New Age philosophy is inspired by is naturalism (linking to metaphysical naturalism). Since this point of view rejects the supernatural, isn't it rather opposed to New Age views? Just a thought. --163.1.176.253 (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have changed the wording to Nature worship which I think is what the sentence intends. Lumos3 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New Age Music

The music section needs to be more accurate. There are at least two different types of New Age music: spiritual and not. World and instrumental music often fall under the "New Age" genre, but this must not be mistaken with music associated with the spirituality of the New Age. Also, Yanni does not consider his music genre to be New Age. For clarification purposes, the music article should have more emphasis on the difference. Gemini79 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Be bold and make these changes. You obviously have a good understanding of the subject. Lumos3 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this section needs improvement so I added a section rewrite tag. I'm posting here first before changing the artcle because I'm still organizing my thoughts and am interested in feedback. There is also an upgrade in progress on the New Age music article, with discussion in progress on Talk:New Age music. It seems to me the section on Music in the New Age article should be mostly a broad introduction leaving the more specific details and names of artists to be covered on New Age music. Some of the material that currently appears here could be moved to New Age music. Even if it's moved though, I also feel the clarification mentioned by Gemini79 above should be applied too.

The main New Age article is already very long. The commentary about New Age music as a section would be best focused on those elements of New Age music that relate to New Age philosophy, rather than the types of New Age music that may be musically part of that genre yet not related to the philosophical approach, other than to acknowledge that those related genres exist. The interested reader can follow the link to the New Age music page where those ideas are explored in detail along with specific artists, history and trends. Parzival418 08:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Today's Articles for Deletion

In today's AfD listings [1], a number of New Age/spiritualist/psychic articles have been serially nominated for deletion by Snooziums. After looking into some of the articles, it strikes me that a great many of them are considerably more noteworthy than the nominator represents. I am not myself any sort of New Age expert, and wished to let people here know in the hopes that those more knowledgeable could put their own opinions in on the notability of the subjects in question. RGTraynor 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

regarding the anti-semitisim reference

I removed this text from the main page today

Jewish writers have identified clear anti-Semitism in many of the movments foundations, especially the writings of Alice Bailey. [text included reference to: Newman, Hannah. "The Rainbow Swastika , A Report To The Jewish People, About New Age Antisemitism". Philologos Religious Online Books. pp. See Section 5. New Age Leaders Commenting on the Nazi Experiment. Retrieved 2007-04-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help) ]

The reason I removed it that it's a very strong statement, by only one writer, with no secondary references - and even though it's one writer, you wrote it as plural "Jewish writers".... If there are multiple sources making that statement then OK, put it in the article and provide the references. But if it's only one person, that does not provide a reliable source for criticism of a broad philosophy or movement like this, that's just one persons' idea. Do you have more references that Jewish writers have written about that?

Also the wording is misleading - to say the writers have "identified clear anti-semitism" implies that there is anti-semitism whereas that is not at all established. I've never seen even a hint of anti-semitism in any New Age writings and I've read a lot of them. I think what would be better is to say certain writers "state that they have identified" etc - but it still needs more than one writer to be reliable. Thanks Parzival418 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted it in a modified form. The racial bias present in Bailey and Steiner are well documented and need to be kept in view if a fair summary is to be made here. Lumos3 19:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The modified version is much better, thanks for considering my comments. I still have a concern about possible misunderstandings regarding the current state of New Age philosophy. As far as I know, the racist elements of those early writings have not proliferated into the modern forms of New Age philosophy and in today's climate the philosophies are pretty much inclusive. I doubt there are notable writers saying today there is racism in New Age philosophy. There are plenty of other complaints of course, but that particular one is historical as you noted. I realize this is the criticism section of the article, and also it's hard to reference that something is "not" happening, so I'm not sure how to express this in the article. Perhaps something like this:

Historically, some writers have identified racist bias in the movement's early Theosophical sources, especially the writings of Alice Bailey on the Jews. [53] [54] and the teachings of Rudolf Steiner on black people[55]. Those elements of the early writings have not remained part of the ongoing evolution of New Age philosophies and we do not have examples of current writers repeating those complaints.

What do you think? -- Parzival418 02:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added your suggestion with some minor changes and supporting citations. Lumos3 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well done - this part of the article is strong and balanced now, with valuable info. Good work finding those references! Parzival418 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There IS documentation to support the antisemitism and racism that is at the foundation of the New Age movement. For Alice Bailey there are some links I have added to the article about her. For Steiner, and the closeness of his movement to the Nazi Party, see Peter Staudenmaier: http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202115622271&query=Peter%2BStaudenmaier In recent years I had a number of discussions on Alice Bailey discussion forms, and I can assure you the every word she said about the Jews is defended by her current followers, and it is clear that antisemitism is alive and well in the New Age. Kwork 20:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion above, we have consensus that accepts your point that Alice Bailey's writings contained some anti-semitism, and that information does appear in the main article. It's possible that Alice Bailey's current followers still hold some of those views, and it might be appropriate for that to be written about in the article on Alice Bailey.

However, Alice Bailey is not among the writers or leaders in the current form of New Age philosophy. The term "New Age" does not appear in the article you linked in your comment above. If you can provide reliable sources (WP:RS) that show that current leaders or writers of New Age philosophies today are advocating anti-semitism, that would be of interest and could be included in the articles.

I could be mistaken, but I really don't think reliable sources exist that support that. I do not doubt there are some fringe groups, such as the followers you mentioned, who hold those views. But my point is: those people who hold those views are not today part of the community of people who consider themselves as involved with "New Age" persepctives.

I'm not trying to minimize the importance of anti-semitism among certain groups. My intention is only to keep this particular article clearly focused and referenced. It's just not accurate (and not WP:ATT) to state that anti-semitism is part of today's New Age philosophies, culture or community. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey followers constitute one of the largest and most influential New Age groups, and Anthoposophy groups are probably an even larger. Just because an article about Steiner followers does not use the words "New Age", does not mean the discussion is not about a New Age group. Why do you want to ignore both the history and the present situation? Kwork 22:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your comments. I'm just following Wikipedia core policies. You may wish to review these three important articles: neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. You've made two main points but they are - so far - not supported with references:

• "Alice Bailey followers constitute one of the largest and most influential New Age groups, and Anthroposophy groups are probably an even larger." - There are many varieties of New Age philosophies. How have you determined that these two groups are so large and influential? Certainly, Anthroposophy was involved in the development of some New Age philosophies, but as to how much influence that organization or philosophy has today, I don't know of anyone who has analyzed that. If we have no supporting references, that would be inappropriate original research.

• " it is clear that antisemitism is alive and well in the New Age" - The historical presence of racism and anti-semitism in writings of Bailey and Steiner is mentioned in the article, and the consensus that generated that section is discussed above on this page. However, no-one has yet provided any references to support the idea that racism and anti-semitism exist as part of any significant New Age philosophy in today's world. If you can find published statements about that, I would be interested in seeing them.

As a result of your comments, I did some research and found an interesting link in the Anthroposophy article section on Racism, quoting the official website of the Anthroposophical Society in America:

We explicitly reject any racial theory that may be construed to be part of Rudolf Steiner's writings. The Anthroposophical Society in America is an open, public society and it rejects any purported spiritual or scientific theory on the basis of which the alleged superiority of one race is justified at the expense of another race. -- The General Council of the Anthroposophical Society in America (1998) Position Statement on Diversity.

In light of that formal statement from the organization you mentioned, it would be wrong to state that they are currently advocating racism, unless there were published reliable sources stating the contrary. If you can provide references to support your statements, then it would be appropriate for that information to be included in the article. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you; but, although I have met plenty of bigots, I never met one who said they were one. So how can judgments, about problems in the various teachings, be based on official statements intended to make the group look good? In any case, my point is not that Alice Bailey followers, or Steiner followers, harbor feelings of hatred toward Jews or racial minorities, or that all of them are bigots; and I do not think that is the case. The Problem is that there are views about races in the foundational writings of these teachings that are inherently problematic. I do not want these teachings branded as 'bad', because there are many good things in those teachings, and many good people in the groups. I just want some recognition that there are some problems that need consideration. I don't think that is asking too much. Kwork 12:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your link to Reliable Sources: "This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view" In this case the important consideration is, it seems to me, the neutrality of this New Age article, because neutrality only follows from balancing differing viewpoints. Kwork 14:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems I don't understand what you are looking for. There is already a fully referenced paragraph in the article, in the section on Religious and spiritual criticism, stating that there was racism and anti-semitism in the early writings of the two authors you named. That seems to match the points you are making. What further comments about this are you suggesting would be needed? --Parzival418 _Hello 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that problem has not really gone away because Bailey followers (I am less familiar with Steiner followers) simply deny that those hundreds of statements about Jews made by Bailey are antisemitic. They claim the positive intent in them is misunderstood. I am sure they really believe that. So the problem is still unresolved, although the statement in the article gives the impression that it is resolved. But most current Bailey followers still believing that EVERYTHING she said about the Jews is true because they believe the statements were actually made by a Master of the Ancient Wisdom (rather than reflecting Bailey's personal prejudices). Kwork 10:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about Alice Bailey or her followers, so I can't answer your comments about them directly. But it is very clear that there is no current New Age writer or organization actively propounding the virtues of racism or anti-semitism. The New Age is a very broad and deep set of ideas being explored by thousands of writers, teachers, musicians, craftspeople, shopkeepers and others from all walks of life and from many cultures. Somewhere among all those people in a small dark corner, there may be some racism or anti-semitism. But if there is, it is not germane to this article, because the New Age movement does not embrace those ideas. It's the opposite - a universalist movement.

To get an idea of how much influence Alice Bailey has in the New Age movement today, I explored Amazon to find her books. I see that they are selling at a rank of around 250,000. For comparison, Rhonda Byrne's the Secret is ranked at #7! Since that book is a current phenomenon, I checked some more modest New Age books and found for example that Dan Millman's book Peaceful Warrior is ranked at around 2,800; James Redfield's the Celestine Prophecy is ranked at 1,300; and Shakti Gawain's Creative Visualization ranks around 8,000. Those were just a few that I picked at random out of the hundreds of popular New Age books on Amazon. So, while Alice Bailey may have some anti-semitic statements in her books written more than 60 years ago, there is no evidence that any of those words are affecting the beliefs or actions of people who are today involved with New Age philosophies.

I'm not trying to hide anything or pretend it's not there if it is, I just don't see any examples of what you're describing. --Parzival418 _Hello 00:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that this conversation is not going any place, and since I have lost hope for Wikipedia in general, it is best to just wrap this up. But to explain, best sellers, it seems to me, have only superficial influence, and most people who buy such books do not even finish reading the entire book (frequently don't read them at all); while those connected with Bailey or Steiner frequently make a lifetime study of those books, and try to apply the teachings to their lives over an entire lifetime. So you are comparing many superficial impressions, to a few very profound impressions. Nevertheless, perhaps you are right about their lack of influence; and although I doubt that, I hope you are right. Thank you for your replies. Kwork 11:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting conversation. I have not seen 'New Age' writings that are specifically anti-semitic (which is certainly not to say that there aren't), but I have seen some ideas crop up that can be construed in such ways, and are problematic. But I also know that beliefs and ideas are co-opted all the time, like hitler and the swastika. The swastika is not a bad symbol in and of itself, but it now has negative connotations for a lot of people. Does that mean that all people who use the swastika today are nazi's or hold nazi ideals? Well, no... but some people do, and it could easily be picked up again by anyone who wanted to start another similar movement. I don't know what the answer to this is. I know that a lot of 'New Agers' are privileged people, but I don't think it's right to say that all New Agers and all New Age beliefs are categorically anti-semetic or racist. My hope is that those who use Wikipedia as a tool for learning also look to these discussions for a critical analysis, and to further their knowledge.

POV tone of article and over-simplification

some of the significant edits just deleted were worthwhile. The article significantly overstates the extent to which there is any consensus on what "new age" actually means, other than in the late 80s media who coined it . Some of those changes should be restored imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opty544 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 8 June 2007

You may have a good point, but without more information I don't understand what you mean. Which of the edits do you think were appropriate? If you have some references that show there is not consensus about the meaning of the term or that it was coinedd by the media, we would like to see the references, and if reliable they can be worked into the article.

But the long list of edits that were reverted last night did not include any references and they completely changed the article, undermining the general position of the content. This article has been here a long time with lots of editors working on it, so there has been consensus along the way otherwise those elements would be continuing to be debated.

If you would like to debate your points and see if you can find a new consensus to make those changes, you are welcome to present your ideas on this talk page for consideration. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Parzival418 , the description of such a diffuse term as New Age has to be based on the published views of authors using Wikipedia:Notability criteria as a guide or it could quickly become a long rambling personal essay. Lumos3 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about portals....

Why isn't there a Portal:New Age? Does Portal:Religion and Portal:Spirituality cover pretty much everything?? Or should I look at Category:New Age and compare to Category:Religion and Category:Spirituality??? ...Well, that comparison was inconclusive. Any other thoughts? Xaxafrad

It just needs someone to build it. Follow the Wikipedia principal Wikipedia:Be bold.

I have also thought this would be a good idea but lack the time at the moment to implement it. Lumos3 10:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs section

I re-factored the beliefs section to remove a bunch of quotes and apologist explanations, as well as spammy websites. Also split into sections to group and ease editing. Thoughts? WLU 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph

I removed the following paragraph - it's unsourced, does not define pre and post-conventional thinking, is rather poorly written (...which is a drastic mistake? Is it really?) and provides a single example rather than a source. It looks like WP:OR, even if it isn't, and should at least be sourced and explained if it's going to be on the page. I couldn't understand the paragraph in isolation or even after reading the P/T fallacy page, which itself requires extensive work. WLU 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pre/trans fallacy is the American philosopher Ken Wilber's term for public's tendency to confuse pre-conventional thinking with post-conventional. Wilber argues that because both are non-conventional, the public tends to confuse the two, which is a drastic mistake. For example, pre-trans fallacy includes equating Mother Teresa (post-conventional) with Sylvia Brown (pre-conventional) bcause they are both non-conventional. According to Wilber, 80% of New Age spirituality is pre-rational(pre-conventional), that it relies primarily on mythic-magical thinking, in contrast to post-rational(includes and transcend rational) that is genuine world-centric consciousness.

My recent edits...

Honestly I am surprised they keep getting 'undone'...and surprised that people have left certain things up there for so long. For one, "menu", to me, doesn't sound neutral, but condescending. "Range" sounds more general to me. Also, I don't think the 'hundredth monkey effect' disproves the idea that human consciousness can change on a large scale, so I think it should be removed. I don't understand how it was relevant. Most other changes I made were either to even out awkward wording, or remove entirely negative opinion. All I saw when I came to this page originally was negative opinion injected into almost every section. I thought wiki was supposed to remain as neutral and factual as possible? To those who keep undoing my edits, have you even read through the article to see what was changed? I don't understand how anything I did was wrong...please reply here if you want to discuss. New earth11 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If multiple people revert your reverts, it's time to take it to the talk page. The Skepdic statement actually references the 100th monkey effect as well, so it should stay in my mind though perhaps a refname used to cite Carroll twice. Distaste for an idea isn't really a reason to remove it. Wikipedia tends towards the skeptical side, because that's where the most reliable sources tend to fall, and we're bound by our policies to use reliable sources. Neutral doesn't mean portraying things in a favourable light if there's no evidence, and one of the things New Age lacks is evidence. You could try doing section edits rather than whole-page reverts, then if individuals dispute the changes they can be undone surgically rather than en masse. WLU (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not distaste for an idea. It is not relevant...100th monkey effect has nothing to do with this specific belief. The belief states that "A certain critical mass of people with a highly spiritual consciousness will bring about a sudden change in the whole population". That is a very broad statement, does not say how it would specifically be done, and does not in any way refer to the details of the 100th monkey effect. It just is not related. New earth11 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is sourced in a reliable source to relate to the New Age movement. It doesn't have to say how it works or anything else (wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth) and it's verifiable that the two are linked. Therefore it's related. Pages like New Age, because of their nebulous nature, diversity of believers and lack of real research means it's hard to edit, so we keep what sources we can find. WLU (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't care anymore. That is BS. THEY ARE NOT RELATED IN ANY WAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by New earth11 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New Age Scrutiny

I have to say, I am confused as to why all New Age subjects require so much attention to cynical views; cynical paragraphs and cynical links. On this page cynical links get their own category. The page on Christianity doesn't, nor do other major religions. Even the Wicca page is left alone. I had to do a number of edits, which I did to modest measure, to try and balance the attitude on the Indigo Children page (just balance.) Why are all New Age subjects under scrutiny on Wikipedia? Does anyone have an answer for that? (Neurolanis (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Because it's a load of bullshit?~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rawr, I agree completely. New Age is a load of bullshit - along with Scientology, the Raelians, and most of the other quasi-religious sects and movements that have popped out of the ground in the last forty years.

There's only one problem; what we just agreed to is POV. And this is an encyclopedia. It's not up to us to define what belief system is or isn't a load of crap, and therefore the New Age article deserves the same treatment as those on Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the other "legitimate" religions. Just the facts, please - let the people decide what to think. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Millenarianism

I moved the following to the talk page because it appears to be original research and has no references. It did have two refs but one was a broken link and the other did not mention the term "new age". Also, this text duplicates some of the list of traditions that is included in the intro. Even if some references are found, the text here seems sort of essay-ish, so if there are references, we should also do some copyediting before placing it in the article. I'll check around for some references, but in the meantime, here's the text for consideration:

Judging by its name, the New Age movement ought to involve millenarian claims, perhaps of a glorious future age which is about to begin. As such it could theoretically be traced back to the time of Zoroaster, or to biblical apocalypticism. While such expectations are encountered often enough—e.g., the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, pole shifts and paradigm shifts, the imminent end of the Mayan calendar—the predominant themes of the New Age are mystical rather than apocalyptic. Hence the widespread interest within this subculture in the mystical traditions within the world’s various religions, especially Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism, Zen, Sufism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Shamanism, Gnosticism, and Esoteric Christianity.

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a well-weird article. It's a mass of contradictions. All it seems to be is a vindication of somebody's right to slap the name "new age" on anything they choose, for their own reasons, whether or not any "new age" is in any way involved, whether or not the people they refer to belong to any group (for they certainly are NOT a subculture nor do they, according to the article, subscribe to any common world view.

It seems to me that this is extremely lazy thinking, and I should like a more skeptical approach taken to the authors and originators of this vapourous presentation of pseudo-sociology. Redheylin (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee - you are wrong to tag my edit "vandalism". That fails to assme good faith. I am working methodically to improve a section of wiki and had added the comment above, while you have added none. The references I removed are to dead links and the only important references in the article are to the minority views of right wing Christians and a small cadre of pseudosceptics. The citations I requested require solid academic references - good sociologists saying, for example, that "new Age" is a "subculture". There are only about three solid refs for all this mumbo jumbo.

Otherwise, as it stands, the article is a poor and unpleasant piece of ranting that implies, for instance, that anyone who entertains, say, the idea of Lockian Deism is to be suspected of being an antisemitic satanist.

Please note that in my view the article requires complete revision.

Please come to the table and discuss if you are unhappy. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lumos, well done relocating the Melton paper. However, I note that that paper says that "new age" is a phenomenon of the 1970s and 80s that has subsided. The reference therefore contradicts the view of the article in many further particulars.

Redheylin (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin wrote: "the article is a poor and unpleasant piece of ranting that implies, for instance, that anyone who entertains, say, the idea of Lockian Deism is to be suspected of being an antisemitic satanist". Statements like this are all too frequently a prelude to an attempt to whitewash Alice Bailey's antisemitism. I hope I am wrong about that, and would appreciate a clearer statement from you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin, since you seem to think this article has too vague a definition of what New Age means (and you might be right), it would be a help to further discussion if you would explain what you think should be included in a correct - and more focused -- definition. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha. So I also have to remind you to assume good faith? I'll tell you. I can see a good reason for a short account of post-Theosophical teachings here, since there's an excellent paper (though I am not sure how much authority it carries in the field) that clearly sees a caucus of such societies, via a certain David Spengler, as having inaugurated the "new age" idea in the UK in the 70s. We hear that these societies, being post-theosophical, were into channeling disincarnate entities. Great, it belongs here. But a discussion of the theosophical idea of racial souls and types does not belong here, I think, since most of the organisations in question, since they realised the consequences of such ideas, have distanced themselves from such ideas, and I do not think they have played any part in the new age of the 70s. If you can produce a citation to the opposite effect all well and good.

Likewise with alternative medicine. It can be mentioned, tagged and linked. but what is the use of reproducing a list of therapies that is only a click away? Likewise with shamanism and ancient religions - it can be said that popular forms of many religions have been adopted from which scholars and natives distance themselves, what's the need of more detail?

As far as new science goes, until I can see a reference that solidly connects new physics to new age, I think it a waste of time to comment.

New age music - marketing term, again, brief mention and link.

Orage's paper - precious little connection, disambig and link to a page dealing with periodical.

Reduction in page size - I'd be aiming for 75%. Once we have explained that, come 1990, the new age idea had all but disappeared. Connection with Ascension movement - I think it's worth outlining Melton's views on how the word became a focus for religious and anti-pseudoscience activists too, no?

I do note all the comments about bias on this page, and about reversions with no discussion, and I also note the intense pov bias and also the large number of pages that link here. I hope this can all be sorted out amicably....

Redheylin (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I do not know what you are talking about. You did not respond to my question about antisemitism, a subject you raised your self. I do not know why you are telling me about David Spengler, there is no explanation what he has to do with the discussion at hand. (The information about A. R. Orage was put in the article to settle the question about Alice Bailey introducing the term New Age, because contrary to many claims she did not.) You also did not do anything to explain how you want to use the term "New Age", so I am still waiting for you to explain the basis for the changes that you say are so important.

I would appreciate it if you would leave of accusations and insults, such as: "I do note all the comments about bias on this page", and "It seems to me that this is extremely lazy thinking...", and "I am working methodically to improve a section of wiki and had added the comment above, while you have added none", and other such, because your continuing to do that it is only going to make editing more difficult. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to have given you such an impression. No insult or accusation was expressed, just, a lot of comments have been made, I note them, references are lacking, the few decent sources are used in a jigsaw way that obscures their intent..... I was simply waiting for someone to come forward who is ready to defend the page. Hello! Thing is, you see, when someone points this out, they get reverted, they get called names.... but I was not implying that those comments were directed at you.

So let us get on, may we, if you feel you have a stake in this? Surely it's clear; either stuff gets properly referenced and balanced and defended as to its relevance - or else stuff goes? Redheylin (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article on the New Age is important to a lot of editors, and no one editor will be able to write it exactly the way they want it to be. This situation may seem frustrating, but it does tend to maintain balance. (I have noticed your recent complete rewrite of the Energy (spirituality) article, and it is going to need a lot of work to restore balance to it. I understand that it was not your intention to harm that article, but there is a POV problem.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure the page is important! As for "Energy/Spirituality" I have not yet begun; just I have considerably expanded the "see also" since I think this is a boon for editors as well as users. As I said in a note there; if anyone knows a better place.....!

As for Orage, he did not name the paper, he bought it! It was originally a Christian periodical - it deserves its own article, I think. As for the term "new age", I do not think we can disagree that it centres around a millenarian belief, that the term might be traced back, say, to Joachim of Fiore, that there is a body of scholarship on the matter?

Excuse my typo, it's;

David Spangler, the movement's primary architect/theoretician..... As the movement progressed, Spangler's simple idea, that the New Age would soon arise as energized people worked for it, came under some scrutiny. Through the 1980s, people were aware that in spire of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people identifying with it, they were still a miniscule segment of the whole.

This is from the lead source of the present article, Melton. I am bothered that that article's contents do not seem adequately or fairly represented here. Particularly, he clearly points out that the term has attracted the negative attention of Christian and skeptical activists, while the present article omits that, but tends to identify Melton with those kinds of sources, upon which it seems heavily, too heavily, to rely. Redheylin (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Melton article traces the origin of the entire New Age movement to Alice Bailey. You can put that in if you choose. That will, of course, open the possibility of expanding the discussion of New Age antisemitism, which I think is now rather neglected. But the fact is that the majority of those who identify with the New Age movement have never even heard of Bailey (or Spangler). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The post theosophist movement is cited by Melton alright, and I think he is probably right. The racism issue is covered on the Alice Bailey page. If there are other well-referenced views upon the origin of the term, all well and good, and if you have sociological grounds for thinking there was ideological racism in the 80s movement, all well and good. But where are they?

Melton is also saying that people do not much identify with the term any more, but that it has changed the perception of "occultism" and has become a marketing and popular term to describe music, therapies, meditation and so on, while the "spiritual" enthusiasm has passed on to "Ascension" theology. This is also not clear in the article. Once again, if there are competing views, well referenced..... Redheylin (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia talk pages are for clarifying possible improvements to the article, and are not intended as a forum for editors to display erudition. If there is something particular you want to put into this article, please do explain. So far I have no idea what you want to do, aside from the paragraph you added to the article, and Jack-A-Roe moved here. That addition seems problematic both because of its POV and its obscure writing style. I would be very happy to see the article improved, and am certainly willing to cooperate with that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try and remember good faith MS! I have put forward my ideas. I hardly think it vain display to look at the key source cited. You have mentioned that there are others you know of who might want to be involved - could we ask them? I'd like to reach amicable agreement with all who feel they have a stake, since I have grounds to think that otherwise there may be an outbreak of anonymous and unannotated reversion! And, if you would be so kind, I'd like to do so before engaging in the discussion of any other page. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My view is; it would be better not to rely on one main source, but that's all that's on offer. Melton's a serious player, though it would be good to note on what grounds others disagree. In default, though, I believe the article would be greatly improved by following Melton's broad outline, as to the Baileyites, the 80s, the transformation of the term to apply to a general class of products, the need to take the views of antipseudoscientists and orthodox religionists in context, the replacement with various Celestine Gospels of Miracles. I believe he is right to view it as essentially a fringe Christian activity, modifying neoplatonism and millenarianism to the age of Newton and Darwin. At least, that's what he appears to say to me. Redheylin (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Melton's a good source, but the full article should not be based just on him. Bailey was one of the people whose work influenced New Age philosophies, but she's only one of many; she should not be presented with undue weight. I don't know what you mean by the term "antipseudoscientists", so I'll skip that part. And then there is this: "essentially a fringe Christian activity, modifying neoplatonism and millenarianism to the age of Newton and Darwin." - sorry but no, the New Age movement is not "a fringe Christian activity". If a notable writer wrote that, it can be used, but only with attribution and not as a general approach for the article. New Age includes a wide range of practices and beliefs; some are related to Christianity, and some are quite unrelated. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Jack-a-Roe - I agreed in advance! I also agree that the piece you removed was indeed poorly sourced. I also agree that notable writers are needed to verify any "Christian" thesis. Some of the notable writers are already mentioned in the text, but I shall supply a little more bibliography. Melton is my source for the modernisation and popularisation of Christian neoplatonism (with a lot of help from India), and also for the idea that "new age" during the 70s and 80s referred to a millenarian belief of a type which has quite a history in Europe, (and those references MUST be improved) and which is implied by the term itself, but that the term has now become a popular, media and marketing term for a range of goods and services, as I mentioned. This disambiguation is fundamental to Melton's thesis so whatever contradiction he has received in the spheres of sociology and religious studies should of course be noted, but as it stands it seems to me an important distinction.

If you want or anyone else wants, I am happy to set up a dummy page. If midnightblueowl would care to tune in I am sure he'd be welcome. For all we know Melton is wrong, people are still expecting a new age - maybe some think it has already happened!

Can we agree at least that "new age" is a human social phenomenon that should be treated from a scholarly sociological perspective? Remember, I am not the one proposing Melton; he is already there as the head source, but the text does not fairly represent his standpoint - or that of any reputable scholar of social, religious or political studies, so far as I can see. Redheylin (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to use a dummy page if you're contemplating major changes, since this article has been here for a long time in something like its current form.

I support a scholarly approach in general. I agree that one aspect of "New Age" is as a " human social phenomenon", and for that aspect, the references that discuss it in that way should certainly be properly reflected. But, that's only one aspect. It's also an umbrella-term for a collection of spiritual beliefs and ideologies that are not simply a sociological phenomenon and need to be addressed from a religious or philosophical viewpoint.

Regarding the New Age being a " popular, media and marketing term" - I don't see much traction in that idea in today's world. It was popular for a while, 20 years ago, but that declined after the harmonic convergence came and went around 1988 or so (and the millenarianism declined after that also). There's no significant market segment looking for "New Age" products today, it's a small niche. Some New Age ideas have been absorbed into mainstream marketing, such as the LOHAS demographic segment of "cultural creatives" and "green" or "sustainability" values, or in Complementary Medicine, or in the mainstream use of Yoga for its health and relaxation benefits rather than a spiritual path. Those marketers or demographic segments don't call it "New Age" though. New Age has returned to the grass roots after its fleeting moment of fame. It hasn't disappeared though, it's returned to a more personal approach on the part of the adherents of its various philosophies or beliefs. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe, re LOHAS, there's no paper trail in the article. connecting it to "new age" as yet. Same with new physics btw. Perhaps the article has been around for some time but, in its present structure, it lacks the formal rigour of academic treatment and, therefore, seems to have been a pit for competing believers and non-believers.

You say that "new age" still exists on a personal level. Maybe you could support that view? Once again it contradicts the only decent scholarly overview on offer here. Wouter J. Hanegraaff may be your man here, and he will also fill you in on the fringe Christianity and the new neoplatonism. He also has a useful disambiguation similar to Melton's, between "new age sensu strictu", a form of (post theosophist) millenarianism, and "new age sensu latu", which includes all the things sometimes termed "new age" but having no connection with Baileyism. He identifies the former more with the UK and the latter with the USA. The establishment of the "millenarian" nature of "sensu strictu" new age belief will allow the referencing of a statement something like the one you removed, citing established works like Norman Cohn.

I agree that there is a "collection" of spiritual beliefs and similarly a "collection" of therapies that are sometimes termed new age, but each has its own entry in wiki, and that article allows a full presentation, while the widely divergent nature of such beliefs and therapies is precisely the reason for disagreement here. Especially given the failure to provide clear references bringing each several term "under the umbrella" of new age. We find that, in this case, the only people quotable are the "anti-new-age" activists delineated by Melton, which leads to POV problems.

It is difficult to make any statement about all these things collectively since they have nothing in common aprt from that they have (assertedly) been described as "new age" at some time. It is difficult to make any general statement whatsoever that is true of, say, channelling, green values and yoga for health, so why bother trying? One cannot even generalise meaningfully about "all therapies termed new age", though here at least there is some scholarly precedent. At any rate, these are all "sensu latu" and the experts disambiguate this from the millenarian "sensu strictu" Baileyanity. Here several commentators can be found to back Melton on the importance of Bailey, via Spangler and Findhorn btw.

So I move that, unless another noted expert can be quoted as disagreeing, the state of scholarship demands a disambiguation or distinction along the lines of Melton and Hanegraaff Redheylin (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to say; surely religion IS a social pheomenon? Once again, it is hardly possible to refute all religions as such on this page? Redheylin (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that organized religion is a social phenomenon, but personal religious experiences occur internally; they may be informed by the social environment, but they occur in the realms of psychology and spirituality, not sociology. Religion or spirituality are not a topics that fit neatly within one academic discipline.

I respect the work you're putting in on this, and also, I suggest that this topic is not amenable to an exclusively academic approach. The term involves a range from grass roots interpretations, to economic labels, to connections with various religions and organizations, and even pop culture. It's not a topic that has been rigorously studied in universities. This page will never be referenced on a scholarly level to match serious academic topics. Improvements and academic references are welcome of course, such as can be found, but as a grass roots topic, this article also welcomes contemporary culture references, as long as they are reliable sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Much of the history of Western scholarship has been shaped by the desire to move beyond magic and occultism, which was equated with the crudest forms of superstition and supernaturalism. In one sense we already understood gullible people who were attached to occult superstitions, and our primary response to the continual presence of occult organizations was the passing of laws to prosecute individuals who used occult beliefs to con people out of their money. This perspective has now been institutionalized in the anti-pseudoscience movement. A related perspective, that denounces the New Age as a competing supernatural worldview, can be found in the writings of the Christian counter-cult movement. (Melton)

- again, unless this viewpoint can be gainsaid, it seems to me to help greatly in placing in perspective the viewpoints manifested in the article. Redheylin (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say, I can't agree in advance for the changes you're proposing because, well... I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. It sounds very different from the current article, so maybe it would be best for you to create the dummy page as you suggested. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe, you can not really tell Redheylin that your approval is necessary to change the article because that comes rather close to sounding like ownership (WP:OWN). However I would appreciate it if Redheylin would, as a courtesy, make changes a little at a time to allow for discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no that's not what I meant - he does not need my approval. And far from WP:OWN - I've only edited this article a few times, I have no vested interest. I was responding that way because it seemed like he was asking for advance approval, so what I meant to say is that - I can't indicate if I agree with the changes or not because I don't understand the idea. Maybe I will agree, maybe not, I don't know. And, I'm only one of many - I'll go along with consensus, no problem.

My intention was to request exactly what you are, as a courtesy to not make huge changes all at once so we can all discuss the progress. I hope that eases any concerns. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I should be happy to work with you on the page, whether piecemeal or in dummy form. Both of you, though, have mentioned others who may feel insulted since I am saying that their piece lacks proper sociological foundations. I'd sooner wait until they all arrive. Perhaps you could call them?Redheylin (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If a change just affects a section or so, it may be convenient to place proposed rewrites on this talk page for discussion, in a separate section "New draft for section x ..." Then anyone coming to this talk page can see the proposed text and respond. (Just a suggestion.) Jayen466 00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've posted on Lumos3's talk page to ask him to join this discussion because I saw his/her name often in the page history (I'm not otherwise familiar with that editor). My concern is not that people will feel insulted, I'm only concerned with accuracy in the content, and it seems to me that viewing the entire topic only through the lens of sociology is not fully serving the topic. As I noted above, I don't see where you're headed, which is why I responded positively to your idea of a dummy page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'd like to point out, practically speaking, that both of you chaps have had occasion in this discussion to draw an explicit line between two kinds of new age - first the Baileyan, then the general. I am pointing out that the academics make the same distinction too, and I am suggesting it is in fact a necessary distinction to make here. And, further, I cannot find any study that does not cite Spangler and Findhorn as central. Regrettably Spangler's bio page is poorly referenced. I think the best first move is to make a separate article for the New Age journal. Redheylin (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As an aside - there already is an article for that journal: The New Age. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with changing articles is part of editing Wikipedia. Actually, as far as I am concerned, you might as well make what changes you want as quickly as you want. But you also need to remember that your edits could get completely rewritten or reverted. In any case, I am also considering major changes to this article that could be even more extensive because I have come to think "New Age" should be more a disambiguation page than an article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A disambiguation page? Could it be that what you have in mind is something like this: WP:Summary style ? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This article fails to even define what New Age is, its origin, or direction, or scope. It really is nothing more than a list of individuals, groups, and publications that are willing to accept the designation "New Age". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's much worse than that, MS. The article says that they are if someone else says they are even if they say they are not!

I note your comments regarding possible future edits. I had understood that we were at present discussing such editing together. Now you appear to be saying that if I edit you will re-edit independently. The reason I mention it is because you made a similar comment yesterday regarding another page, in the course of diverting the conversation from this page. Your actions were followed by an onslaught of destructive edits, and there were several more false vandalism reports from the same source as the one on this page. You were warned about civility twice, you did not seem au fait with the literature. May I ask what your interest is in the subject, and would you be so good as to disabuse me from the impression of being threatened? Redheylin (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Redheylin (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Energy (esotericism). It was an article in very bad shape and needed to be changed.

As for incivility, your describing my edits as an "onslaught of destructive edits" is more incivile than anything I have said to you. Some editors make a big deal out of such insults, but I seldom do because I understand that editors can get passionate over issues that matter a great deal to them and say things they would not say otherwise.

Additionally I have never, and would never, threaten you. That is an incredible and insulting accusation. Saying that I want to change an article in a way that you oppose is not a threat to you. I have a right to make good faith edits. Those edits, even if not to your liking, do not harm you. In fact what you appear to be trying to do is claim ownership of articles you have edited, and Wikipedia does not allow ownership of articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear MS - You have a right to make good faith edits of course. As I say, I had thought we might co-operate on that. I was asking why you broke off the conversation and started work on another page, ignoring the discussion page, ignoring my requests, when you were just before saying how important THIS page is. I am also curious why my comments about this page elicited such a response from you, seeing you do not appear to be up with the arguments nor to bear any responsibility for the page's content.

And of course I did not accuse you, I asked you to disabuse me of an impression I had gained because of your repeated and documented tendency to say "if you do that, I shall do this". You say that, if I object to Fyslee's incivility that will make it hard for YOU to work with me, and you refer to edits made shortly after your comment about the "energy" page as YOUR edits - yet they (and they were certainly uncivil in every possible way) were made by a little gang of editors that, er, just happened along. What gives?

Oh and - DID you say that you wanted to change the article in a way that I oppose? I missed that. What way and when did I oppose it? First you wanted to expand the article to include antisemitism. Then you were saying the article was important to a lot of people and should not be lightly altered. Now you say you think it ought to be changed. You have gone to the fringe theories portal saying "I want to change this article" when just yesterday you refused to discuss the idea. And you are still not discussing. You say make changes slowly, but you wikistalk another of my articles and decide to change it entirely while I am waiting for your reply here - can you please say something about your behaviour which shows in you the good manners and good faith that you have sought to impugn in me from the outset? Redheylin (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Heelas

An editor wrote above, Melton's a good source, but the full article should not be based just on him. The book by Heelas, recently added to the Bibliography section by Lumos (with google books link, well done!), is a very useful source. In fact, I was surprised that it does not seem to be used for this article at all at present; I believe it is one of the most widely referenced scholarly works on the "New Age movement", and thus should contribute a significant part of this article's content. Jayen466 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, you are right; Heelas is also frequently cited. Thanks for joining the discussion. But I think it is currently being said that the topic ought not to be dealt with in a scholarly way. And another difficulty is simply that I do not have Heelas' book to hand. Redheylin (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:RS#Scholarship is quite clear that it should, just like any other topic where scholarly literature is available. These should be our prime sources. Doesn't mean we can't use anything else, but the most important scholarly works should be represented in a prominent way. (I happen to have the book, but not the time tonight. :-( But I seem to remember you can preview much of the book on google books.) Jayen466 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. My comment was intended as inclusive, not to exclude academic sources.

But also: no need to debate this in the abstract. If someone wants to improve the article, go ahead. If someone else doesn't agree, they'll change it again. I'm sure it will all work out fine. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that was understood. And I agree. Jayen466 00:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Heelas and Melton are both good sources. I also agree that both aspects of what has been loosely termed "New Age" should be covered: (1) the sociological phenomena (with all the superstitions and crystal techniques, etc) and (2) the religious / philosophical beliefs (with 20th century new religions based on theosophy / neoplatonism, etc.) Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that distinction of sociology and religion is all that valid these days. J. Gordon Melton is a sociologist of religion, after all, and Paul Heelas is described as such as well. Jayen466 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the sociology of religion - that is actually what I meant to say. But I was also saying that the common belielfs should be included and not spun off to appear only in separate articles on individual organizations/relgious groups. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jackaroe - do you mean you want scholarship structured and represented in some trans-academic context, or that you want to include elements that are beyond the range of knowledge? Redheylin (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...... "trans-academic context" ... "beyond the range of knowledge"? I have absolutely no clue what you mean by those phrases. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just cannot figure out what you mean by a grassroots approach that includes scholarly sociology. How do we reference the grass-roots? Should some other academic discipline be invoked or what? Otherwise, what is the non-scholarly component? Redheylin (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are writers and teachers within the various segments of the new age movement who have written about it. They're not scholars, not peer-reviewed, but they are reliable sources - if their work as authors is notable. There are also journalists who have reported it about it in various magazines and newspapers - also not scholars, and also, reliable sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you recommend someone in particular whose explanation of the entire phenomenon might serve as an overall guide for the present article in the way that. as I suggested, the sociology of religion people do? Redheylin (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are writers and teachers within the various segments of the new age movement who have written about it: True, but their being within the movement makes them primary sources, whose use is generally deprecated, simply because the task of selecting and analysing their writings then falls to an editor, resulting in WP:OR. We are better off using secondary sources such as Melton, Heelas and Hanegraaf and reflecting their analysis. Note that Hanegraaf on page 2, visible in google books, has a useful discussion of the types of sources available, and their varying degrees of reliability. Jayen466 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Arion - you mean you agree the two should be broadly distinguished, following the studies? Redheylin (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean that both should continue to be covered in this article, and not disambiguized into separate articles. I would also concur with Jayen that secondary sources should be utilized where possible - though not to the total exclusion of primary sources where these might be illustrative and useful (I concur with Jack-A-Roe on this). Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Arion. I also think both should be covered, and not separated, however, I should like to follow the secondary sources in distinguishing between the strict and broad use of the word. This is partly because those sources are used as references now but not fairly reflected, whereas failure to adopt some scholarly analysis has, in my view led to poor structure, a lot of confusion and reliance on competing heavily biased primary sources for the main thrust and overall structure. Of course I can see the value in a certain amount of personal experience, but if the article is BUILT around such non-academic sources we end up with "meta-pov-pushing". And I am finding this a lot.

For example, someone has just restructured the page "energy (spirituality)" as "energy (esoteric)" - a meaningless phrase without currency - apparently purely with the view of forcing an obscuration of the matter by excluding proper accounts of the history of the underlying scientific and medical ideas by redefining the page. I am interested in medical history and I am finding here that an aggressive "pseudo-science" view is being pushed in a fanatical way that ignores the fact that certain ideas were, at one time, good science.

Meanwhile Malcolm S has run off to campaign on the fringe theories page that "he wants the new age page rewritten" but it looks disruptive, since he is claiming my ideas, which he was before opposing. He is making it look like simply wants to exclude certain people and ideas from Wiki by guile and force unilaterally but has no reasoning to back it up. I am sure this is not so, but then how come he simply threatens that changes will be reverted or the page will be broken up if I proceed to add some academic rigour to this mess? Why is he misrepresenting things on the portal site, and why did he organise summary and destructive editing of another page that he stalked me to? Naturally I am not going to undertake this work when someone is trying to organise an underhand sabotage gang. Redheylin (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's try and WP:AGF all round – at least we all seem to be in agreement that the article is badly sourced and in need of substantial improvement. We can do more by focusing on how we can achieve that. I'll dip into Heelas. Has anyone got the Hanegraaf to hand? Any other major works we need to consult? Jayen466 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is exactly for the reason that you stated that I hesitate to devote time and energy to this article if there appears to be an attempt to organize a campaign to push one particular point of view. I've seen enough of the "debunking" mentality at the Homeopathy article to be literally sick of this type of tactic (many who tried to change the situation there were banned or simply left in disgust). Editors should be here to improve articles according to commonly accepted academic standards - not to further an agenda. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that it is not helpful to have a page that relies on references from the skeptics' movement on the one hand, and New Age authors on the other. The way to get an NPOV article is to access the scholars who analyse, and who stand outside, the conflict between the two POVs. The academic credentials of skeptics are very chequered – read the page by Hanegraaf. Jayen466 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at 3 good secondary sources that I have in my library, and see what I can contribute:

• New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought by Wouter J. Hanegraaff

• The New Age Movement: Religion, Culture and Society in the Age of Postmodernity by Paul Heelas

• New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities by J. Gordon Melton & Christopher Partridge Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, Arion. That would be a good start. Jayen466 21:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have invited a couple of people who participated in the wanton destruction at "Energy (Spirituality)" to justify ignoring discussion and radically altering the page then proposing its removal. As for our Kwork, he cannot own a page, he can be reverted or re-edited... just do not mention "DAVID SPANGLER"!!! Oh and thanks Redheylin (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But ought not something be done? After all, we just had a guy auto-reverting edits as Vandalism and inserting promotional references to a certain cult of pseudo-skeptics who gather around a charismatic father-figure and refer to scriptures to tell them what is or is not science, but are unable to argue the fine points. Still, they wish to promote themselves here as possessors of a special form of intelligence and knowledge denied to the rest of us, which you can learn from them for money. Many of their scientific claims are hopelessly innaccurate and their sense of history is non-existent. Isn't THEIR behaviour against the rules? How comes it's the others who get barred? Redheylin (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin, perhaps it has not occurred to you that Fyslee had a good reason for reverting your edits; and that your throwing a tantrum over having some edits reverted, instead of discussing the matter calmly, is not civil and not helpful? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's never a reason for auto-tagging "vandalism" - it's bad and wrong. And there's never a reason for misquoting your references. Ditto. Redheylin (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You removed refs and added fact tags. There is good reason to call that act vandalism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are accusing me of vandalism on the grounds that I requested citations? And because the present article used a dead link to Melton for an unrepresentative personal synthesis? Redheylin (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do that sort of thing without an edit summery to explain, what do suppose the other editors will think? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A good editor like Lumos3 will think "I had better search for that paper". A bad editor will play edit-wars and engage in incivility and bad faith.

Redheylin (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

unreliable source

Removed from article for discussion: religioustolerance.org is not a reliable source:

• http://www.religioustolerance.org/newage.htm New Age Spirituality ... a.k.a. Self-spirituality, New spirituality, Mind-body-spirit by Author: B.A. Robinson of Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.

It's a self-published website presenting opinions of the owners. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, Jackaroe, and your improved references are noted gratefully. Redheylin (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Does not belong in the introduction

I have moved this material from the introduction of the article:

The latter originated in the UK at the Findhorn Community under the inspiration of David Spangler, and was based upon channeling and other post-Theosophical ideas. It was this latter that gave rise to the more general former phenomenon. Hanegraaff states that the latter sense of the word was more infleuntial in the UK than in the USA.

Even though it is sourced, putting this in the intro is POV because it emphasises excessively just one aspect of the New Age. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This entry follows the analysis of the authorities the passage cites. Hanegraaff in particular emphasises this distinction and identifies this as a UK-USA POV difference. Similarly, authorities analysing the movement as sociopolitical should be cited on an equal footing. Since both these are identifiable viewpoints, there is no "excessive emphasis" in stating this on the lead, whereas not to do so will fail to respect the intent of the sources, as will any suggestion that the Spangler phenomenon is primarily "contemporary". Your changes ought therefore be reverted. Redheylin (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not belong in the introduction because by being there it gives undo weight to just one aspect of the New Age. Find a better spot for it further down in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are thereby rejecting a fundamental distinction in the quoted authorities and moreover introducing a historical distortion and advancing the US POV at the expense of the UK. These, according to the authorities, should be distinguished clearly in the interests of a coherent account. If you have a personal viewpoint against Spangler et all, please state it. Redheylin Please also state your reasoning in demoting the "sociopolitical" school from the consideration of main sources.(talk) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

David Spangler, the movement's primary architect/theoretician..... As the movement progressed, Spangler's simple idea, that the New Age would soon arise as energized people worked for it, came under some scrutiny. Through the 1980s, people were aware that in spire of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people identifying with it, they were still a miniscule segment of the whole.

This is a repeat of the quote I mentioned twice before. Are you really saying that Melton says that this is just "one aspect among many"?? Redheylin (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a good source, you can use it in the article, but not to advance your POV to emphasise one aspect of the New Age movement. There are plenty of elements in the New Age movement where Spangler has had no influence. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any point of view. It is the sources cited that have the point of view. Your own comment above should read "there are plenty of elements in the new age movement "sensu latu" (Hahnegraaff) that have no connection with the new age movement "sensu strictu" (ibid), though this is less the case in the UK than in the USA (ibid)". I support that entirely. Redheylin (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating to have you explain things so perfectly. Just don't put you POV back in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat; in my view you are taking an antagonistic view which misrepresents the sources. The point of view I am speaking of is the point of view of Melton and Hahnegraaff. Rather, if you believe that Spangler is not the "architect", but only "one among many" and that there is no "sensu strictu" or UK POV as defined by Hahnegraaff, then you must either produce references to counter that analysis or else seek arbitration. You certainly must not forbid other editors to work on the page.Redheylin (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try not to sound silly. I told you it was fine to go into the article, just not where it will give undo emphasis to one element of the New Age. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The point here really is WP:LEDE. Basically, the lede should be a brief, representative summary of the entire article, a short version that people with little time on their hands can read on its own. Hence, everything that is mentioned in the lede should be covered in greater detail in the main body of the article. For this reason, it is indeed inappropriate to include an analysis in the lede that is not covered in the article proper. Bascially, if this is done correctly, there shouldn't be any need to have any citations at all in the lede. The lede should simply summarise the referenced material in the main body of the article. Jayen466 21:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, is there any objection to taking the "fact" tags out of the introduction? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think those are needed at this time, it's fine with me if you want to remove them. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on whether the assertions made are backed up by references in the main body of the article. If they are not, then the tags should remain. Jayen466 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Hahnegraaff, there's a strict (mainly UK) sense of the phrase which is a millennial thing - a "new age". That's where the name came from. Then there's a "broad sense" (mainly USA) that includes anything that anyone wants to call by that name. But the latter derives from the former. Melton says the same things less clearly - the cited article calls Spangler "the architect" of the new age movement and stresses the Theosophical background. I therefore consider that, unless some other analysis is found, it will not be possible to understand from the lede how the phrase new age came into being, especially from a UK POV, unless this fundamental analysis is reflected, and moreover it will be wrong to cite those authorities anywhere unless the article as a whole reflects their analysis as a whole. I promoted the consideration of those authors that took a socio-political view in order to give equal weight. Redheylin (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is that fundamental, we should have it in the article twice – a brief mention in the lede, and a more detailed presentation in the article proper. Jayen466 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree with MS that the usage defined as original by the authorities is "just one aspect among many". I feel it would be both disrespectful to those authorities and confusing to the reader to fail to account in the lede for the origin of the term and its meaning, and that it would also produce an unbalanced USA POV. It involves abandoning any attempt at historicity. It involves abandoning all academic referents in the lede, and can only end in a free-for-all as to what is and is not "new-age" which would prove unstructured by any of the available scholarly analyses. And, I think, that is what we have at present, which is why I proposed the changes. The reasons for resisting this are less easy to fathom. Redheylin (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the authorities concur that any actual "new age movement" was pretty much defunct by 1990, so that it cannot be called "contemporary". Again this historical position is shared by the authorities and essential to historicity. Events, products etc after 1990 can, at the most, only be called "new age" in the very, very broadest of senses. This is WHY those authorities drew those distinctions - based their expositions on these distinctions. Redheylin (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Only Melton talks of the new age being defunct by the 1990s and thats his opinion, but we would be giving undue weight to write the article around his paper. The term is very much still in current use. We would be wide of the mark to give a reader the impression that it is something historical. Lumos3 (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahnegraaff concurs with Melton so far as the "sensu strictu" is concerned. That's why he makes the distinction, and that's why any statement that the term is current should be tied to Hahnegraaff's distinction - otherwise the statement will contradict him too, and unduly emphasise one meaning at the expense of the other. Without the distinction the UK POV, as well as Hahnegraaf's and Melton's, (who was until recently the SOLE opinion on offer, though his opinion varied wildly from that attributed to him) will be unfairly represented. I am happy to wait for Arion's report on Heelas' analysis. In simple terms, the original "new age movement" is defunct but has given rise to a general term "new age" which is still current. But it is not possible to understand WHY it is called "new age" without explaining the earlier movement, and this necessary definition should be in the lede. Redheylin (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"the New Age movement of the 1980s looks very different from the earlier movement in important respects" (Hahnegraaff op cit p11) Redheylin (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And on p95 Hahnegraaff informs us that "to find the historical roots of the New Age" we have to look at UFO cults, apocalyptic, Spangler, Bailey. I am saying' the "historical roots" of a movement are not "just one aspect", particularly since it is not possible to understand the sense of the term without such an historical overview.Redheylin (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New Age Portal

In reviewing the talk page, I noticed a section above regarding the New Age portal, so I checked it out.

It looks like it was started a while ago but not developed very far. I've added a couple links if anyone is interested in improving it, here is the link: Portal:New Age

I added the portal to the top of the New Age article page, with an image I found on the commons. There might be better images, but it's a start. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Frequent Criticism on New Age Subjects

I was just on the page about New Age writer Ralph Blum, and was disappointed to see how little information there was there about him, but there was room at least for some criticism of course. I wanted to leave a question about that on the Discussion, but for the second time in just two days I found a Discussion page where you could not leave any comments for some reason. But this is better, because this has been an on-going problem for me and I would be interested in hearing what other members of this community would have to say about it.

I have noticed that on many Wikipedia pages on New Age subjects that the articles shamelessly flaunt criticism as if it is part of the subject; often not even saving criticism/scepticism for a separate category/sub-topic on the page, and always promoting the critical view as truth rather than subjective food for thought. I have also noticed that this does not occur on religious pages, not even on the Wicca page; only the New Age subjects. Doesn't this denote a personal bias being used on New Age subjects by people holding traditional beliefs? I don't believe that is professional, and I don't believe it is in keeping with the site's rules. I think we should begin editing the critical remarks on the New Age pages which are out of place. Or should we not, and if not, why not? Neurolanis (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the essay at Wikipedia:Criticism for some tips about how to deal with this. It is neither policy nor guideline, but it does point to some. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the term "new age" is used by some wiki editors both as a pejorative and as a means of tagging pages as fit for aggressive editing. This includes the maintenance of a certain POV in this page - an American "pseudoskeptical" POV at the expense of historicity, rigour and neutrality. My conclusion is that it is better to avoid using the term in wikipedia. You may be right to speculate that rational humanism is adopted as a mask by a few editors intent upon introducing a far-right, traditionalist and/or religious fundamentalist POV; these are recognisable by repetitive and destructive single-issue editing largely unaccompanied by any knowledge of the subject in hand. Redheylin (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, JonHarder, I'll take a look at it.

I agree with that, Redheylin. It would appear to be the case. Neurolanis (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

American Indian critics of New Age

This article states, "Much of the strongest criticism of New Age eclecticism has come from American Indian writers and communities. The Declaration of War Against Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality[46] is one of the strongest statements of opprobrium from traditional tribal religious leaders".

I recently watched a documentary on the problems that some American Indian tribes had in preserving their culture in the middle of the United States, which touched on the subject quite a bit. Just to clarify, the main problem these guys had with New Age wasn't the theology, per se; it was the tendency of New Agers to visit sites that were holy to American Indians and try to turn them into a site for their own worship. This included playing drums and singing the "we are one" spiel, running around top (or more) naked, and bringing up babies to be "baptized" in the water of springs. These actions are considered extremely disrespectful in the Indian context - as they pointed out to the reporters, no one would have stood for them inviting themselves into Christian churches and behaving in the same way.

I can't for the life of me remember which tribe was involved or what the name of the documentary was, but I think I'll be able to find it in my college library when I return this fall. In the meantime if someone else knows it or knows something of what I'm talking about, please fill it in - the topic deserves some elaboration. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Useful Article

Very useful and informative, given what an insult the New Age movement is on legitimate spiritual discipline. God or spiritual forces for personal convenience; in a nutshell that is new age. A legitimate spiritual belief calls for selflessness, to the point where you read it and think "man that's too hard." With New Age stuff though "talk to god in 4 easy steps!" Yeah, just light a few incense candles, chant a few borrowed mantras, and then claim to be a sage. Never mind 10 hours of sequestered meditation. Never mind reading a Koran over and over until you are practically blind to memorize it. Never mind something requiring actual effort.

The point I am trying to make is that if there is a God, I seriously doubt he, she, it, whatever, would want us taking a lazy approach to spirituality. A lazy, or self-convenient one. I can't claim to know the "right path," but I do know for certain, as a very, very wise black man once said "nothing worth doing in life is easy." If "heaven" or paradise are worth attaining then, I regard anyone claiming the path is "easy" with suspicion. I believe in an infinitely merciful God, however, with nice training gear, or with crappy training gear, if you want muscles you still have to work for them. Analogy explained; God's "mercy and compassion" could be thought of as him granting us a "nice gym." And free of charge; many people are blessed with time enough to pursue spiritual beliefs, time they never use. People at extremes of power, or at the extreme of being exploited (laborers who work all day long; literally), do not have time for spiritual pursuit, and can be said to be "cursed." Most of us though, are not so cursed, and we either waste our time sandboxing on wikipedia, or, watching sports on television, while housewives spend time either playing poker, or, cheating on their husbands.

The point I am trying to make is that for most Americans, they have PLENTY of time to meditate, specially housewives. By all rights, this country should be full of women wise as gurus, from 8 hours straight of meditation per day. It is, instead however, a country full of whores. Considering the effects meditation can have on the mind, as guided by genuine spiritual discipline, and how much time Americans waste, you can't help but feel a degree of disgust. Those 4 hours or so spent watching football or baseball on television, an American man can spend strength training, doing martial arts, and meditating. Sadly some men such as doctors or lawyers literally live at their work, so they have little time but for the rest of American men, god damn, there is just no excuse for the ugly fat bodies and cruel demeanors. There isn't, when you think about it, nor is there any excuse for the whoring of American women. Understanding the need for it, sure, having to hurt someone to fulfill that need, that, I fail to understand.

Don't change this article; any and all information needed on the New Age movement is vital for the lesser evil (Christianity). Christianity has had its problems in this country, and I am not a Christian, however the New Age movement needs to be shut down, as they are a danger to all spiritual creeds, not just Christianity. As stated above the society is diseased enough as it is; people have partner loyalty and substance abuse issues across this country. Some, have ego issues. Messed up as the culture is, any contribution made to aid in the shutting down of a movement that would cause even further decay would be welcome. Don't listen to the other editors; the article is fine as it is damn it!

206.63.78.62 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)stardingo747