User:Whiteguru/Modern Paganism and New Age

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 00:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Observations

   HTML document size: 163 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 30 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 26 kB
   Wiki text: 33 kB
   Prose size (text only): 18 kB (2779 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 2615 B

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

The second paragraph of the Lede is good, and alleges friction in the final sentences. The source of this friction is not given.
Why is Neopaganism not mentioned in this article? We need to explain why this is absorbed into the term Modern Paganism. Which term is used more frequently? Why is one term preferred over the other? Google search for neopaganism returns questions: one of which is How common is neopaganism? This matter needs to be addressed, is its a sine-qua-non issue here.
Whilst there is no page reference in Ref 5, the statement is acceptable.
Ref 6 and accompanying Note b are a succinct statement of current appreciation and perceptions of Paganism ...

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

I wonder about this sentence: New Age is a body of beliefs characterised by millenarian ideas about spiritual evolution.^{[citation needed]}
I wonder about this, too: a classification which has been contested by scholars of modern Paganism. ^[who?]
This sentence in the Lede bothers me: New Agers commonly criticise modern Pagans for their emphasis on material concerns. ^{[according to whom?]}
What is the relevance of linking to Gentile? (as found in the Bible in specific contexts.) It is an exclusivist / pejorative term. Why is it here?
The inclusion of a link to Ethnic religion is apt, although that page is up for merge with Indigenous Religion.
Hannegraff is referring to New Age Religion. Is this what this comparison is about? Where is the definition of New Age Religion in this article? This is a poor transcription of reference 14; what is its relevance?
Use of Stukrad in General commonalities is an excellent device.
modern Pagan and New Age movements in the United States share a high degree of religious personalisation and tend towards apocalypticism ^{[according to whom?]}
Reference 28 is insufficient to sustain the issues put forward. Find an open reference that confirms this sentence, or drop it.
Sexual liberation, feminism and the post-war American environmental movement are NOT formal characteristics of the New Age in this day, this age. Consider the categories listed here
In reference 39, Hannegraff states that the merger of Wicca, Goddess Movement and Women's Spirituality are crude approximations. I sense this is not an accurate statement of Hannegraff's position.
Where does the thesis-antithesis of Modern Paganism+New Age vis a vis Christianity come in here? York is a distraction here. This article is not about what Christianity nor the Roman church and its instructions from the A Christian Reflection on the New Age has to say about Paganism or the New Age. If you want to write an article about heresy, then take that statement and reference to a new article.
Reference 49 is not accessible online, nor is York, 2011. There is no agreed definition of theology for either of Paganism nor New Age (which is not a religion and does not have a specific theological foundation).
Further evidence is needed to substantiate the statement on Manichean dualism. Reference current New Age material that supports this claim that the world is evil and defective.
Further evidence is needed to substantiate this claim: the view that mankind is malfunctioning, are defining features of New Age spirituality,. Supply sustainable assertions that the New Age movement views humanity as ontologically defective.
Supply evidence to support York's claim in Reference 48 that the New Age has a homogeneous theology.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

Using witch-cult hypothesis is not the definition of modern Wicca. This is defining Wicca as a cult. This is pejorative definition.
Instead of seeking to be traditionalist like modern Pagans, New Agers are oriented towards an eclectic and new spirituality... Why is this statement here? Is this statement an example of NPOV? This assertion makes an explicit statement about New Agers based on an assumption. The assumption is clear. Why is it included?

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:

Page created 7 June 2021
Page has 135 edits by 11 distinct editors
4817 page views to date with a daily average of 53 views.
The DYK entry on July 8th brought 2780 views
There have been no reverts, the page history shows steady collaboration and improvements. Quite the stable page.

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

File:Libation Macron Louvre G149.jpg = copyright holder releases this work into the public domain. (Can't see the relevance of this image)
File:AquariusCC.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
File:Greenman Mask.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
File:Starhawk 2.JPG = Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
Images are appropriate and tagged correctly.

Overall:

I wonder why this article is not listed in Category:Paganism?
This is a delicate topic, insofar as there are many who would claim that Paganism and New Age are not discrete one from another. There are those who are learned in this matter and there are those who are ignorant. Some of the material cited is 25-26 years old. What has not been made clear is the distinctions in (Pagan) labels as used in the US and in the UK and Europe.
There are a number of assertions about the New Age (which cannot define itself, even) and citation of Stukrad modern Paganism and New Age have a similar dynamic between the emic and etic is a tension, an issue, a vatic divide.
There is a particular issue with using York as if he is Thomas Aquinas and defining theology for Paganism and / or the New Age.
Paganism has a certain inherent stability and regularity around its thought, inclusivity, signs, symbols and rituals. I am surprised that the Pagan seminary is not mentioned here.
There are a lot of assertions about the New Age which are possibly not robust nor sustainable.
Is this article fair to Paganism? Is this article fair to the New Age? Does this article cross the vatic divide with an NPOV? These are vexing questions, for some of the authors cited have their own biases. People on each side of the divide will always throw mud at one another, for Both exist as eclectic movements without centralised institutions or dogma.
The sections in the article are well laid out and follow appropriately. General commonalities, Overlap and Modern Paganism under the New Age umbrella are all appropriate sections. These are the bridges that must be crossed.
Views of History, Nature and metaphysics are both appropriate inclusions. The section on practice illustrates good distinctions. Yet, there will always be those who will generate friction.
The article is balanced in its presentation. However:
The first paragraph in the Lede lays out the entire article. Good work.

May we attend to the matters raised above? Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

On hold