Talk:New Age/Archive 8

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)

Maybe the difference is that in this case the claims are more easily disprovable (in scientific terms) than the claims of the major religions (which is not to say that they are any more or less true)? Also, theistic religions posit the existence of a god or gods, and then explain their supernatural claims in those terms, the cynicism about which is well documented in the atheism article(s). New Age philosophy uses separate articles of faith to explain each of their diverse claims, and so each claim must be countered individually: that is, the cynicism isn't covered already by other articles because it is specific to each facet of this movement. 190.213.22.172 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Interested_Guest

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)

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)

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

I don't understand

Is it possible to write an article about New Age without using the phrase "oneness of humanity." I have a spiritual deficiency that keeps me from understanding such language. 128.187.0.178 (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Social collective phenomenon and a spiritual nature movement

The article openned with the phrase "The New Age is social collective phenomenon and a spiritual nature movement" This is almost meaningless. What is a collective phenomenon? What is a nature movement? I have returned it to its original phrasing. Lumos3 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The opening statement "New Age (New Age Movement and New Age Spirituality) is a social phenomenon and a spiritual movement that seeks universal truth the attainment of the highest human potential." is someone's POV. It is certainly a social phenomenon but to also make it a "spiritual movement that seeks universal truth the attainment of the highest human potential" is just someone's personal take on the issue. Certainly some New Agers would perceive this as correct but is it a universal belief amongst New Agers? The opening salvo on this topic should be obtained from some suitable reference books on the subject. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not my personal view. It is a point made in nearly every scholarly book on the New Age that I've come across.

See these to begin with.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bKqCmlh9mWwC&pg=PA31&dq=human+potential+new+age#PPA31,M1

New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World

By Peter Bernard Clarke

Published by Routledge, 2006

ISBN 0415257476, 9780415257473

Pages 31 to 32

http://books.google.com/books?id=yV1ADS0XXf4C&pg=PA224&dq=human+potential+new+age#PPA223,M1

New Age Religion and Western Culture

By Wouter J. Hanegraaff

Published by BRILL, 1996

ISBN 9004106960, 9789004106963

Chapter 8

http://books.google.com/books?id=0GuWbJhYIccC&pg=PA5&dq=human+potential+new+age#PPA5,M1

Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction

By Stephen Hunt

Published by Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003

ISBN 0754634108, 9780754634102

Pages 5 - 6

Lumos3 (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

HELP Protection

How can we protect this article?

Someone wrote horrible sexual epithets under that Origins section. I was offended personally and such nonsense should not be tolerated. Should we only allow registered users to edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.70.47 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a common problem on Wikipedia and is guarded against by editors of goodwill who revert vandals edits as soon as they are spotted. There are also robotic programs which look for obvious vandalism and revert the edits automatically . See Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism for more information. Lumos3 (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Victor Stenger?

Under the criticism-section is written currently:

---

"Scientific skepticism

Victor Stenger disagrees with the use of scientific terminology, believing it to be pseudoscientific to promote spiritual beliefs; according to his website, he does not believe in the existence of a God"

---

Please what? Who is Victor Stenger? OK, I now looked it up, but I never heard about him before.

Ask 100000 random people and I guess 99999 will not know who that is. So, why are some beliefs of an unknown (to the general public) author important to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.155.39 (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)