Talk:New Age/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

Passages in question: None.

"Spirituality" section

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

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 regard the current time-period 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".

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

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". [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

Passages in question: None.

"Social and political movement" section

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".

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

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