Talk:New Age/Archive 7

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)