Wikipedia: New Age/New Talk

We need people to write, not remove, to help not detract. If you don't like the article find another one and ruin theirs ! ~BF

: Actually, we need people to render this article the most accurate, unbiased account of the New Age movement as possible. The purpose of this article is to give as fair an accounting of the movement, the people associated with it, its sub-movements, and above all the recent history of it, as possible. It isn't the purpose of this article to state any one individual's take on the movement. The subject is one that we ought to be able to collaborate about. --LMS

BF, I'm one of the people who's always disagreeing with you. I've never changed anything you've worked on just to be annoying. But the point of Wikipedia is, if I post an article saying "Giraffes have four feet, they are green, eat herring, and are native to Alaska. George Washington was the first president of the USA, and Abraham Lincoln was the first president of France", someone's going to change it! If they change it to say "No, Princess Diana was the first president of the USA", then somebody is going to change that.

Nobody is trying to "ruin" the article, we're trying to improve it. And it's NOT yours, it's Wikipedia's. Really. Actually, it's explicitly "everybody's". Have a good one!

Sadly you're correct. It is wiki's. You write very well, and I know your ip shows Brazil so make a name and "come out of hiding "

BF, I don't feel comfortable doing that at this time. I've always been more interested in what people have to say than in who's saying what, and I'm just applying this to myself so far. And I must say, it's pleasant to converse with you instead of arguing. :-)

The New Age entry now contains some links to external sites within the text. What is the "Wikipedia way" for this? Read the talk and old talk. Larry Sanger wanted examples and definitions, not generalizations. The links are self-explanatory if you check.

If you want to help, and you are not into New Age yourself, it might be great to get someone else besides me to add on to the article. Everyone has their own ideas about how an article should look. We need writers before editors. Article is not finished and as I said in Old Talk and Talk, leave it alone so it can expand. Nobody listens though. Too easy to white out than to write out.

: BF, see Most common Wikipedia faux pas and Be bold in updating pages. People are doing what they're "supposed" to be doing. The ext. links are removed except for the permission granted one under History.

What is the relevance of Adams' attraction to Eastern thought, which is not New Age of necessity, or of the supposed relationships (resources would by nice) between the freemasons and US presidents? This is never explained, the facts are only given as if they are supposed to mean something. Articles should state rather than imply, since some of us really don't get it.

That part was removed and restored by different people I believe. It was a continuous part of the excerpt quoted, and linked to the outside source. Credit me with going to the trouble of gaining permission to include external content, don't worry about someone grumbling. [and Larry, if you want that author's email who granted permission ask.]~BF

I wonder if the New Age entry would work better if we put the whole quote from "Michael" on a separate page?
That will happen when I, or someone else gets busy and writes(anyone know what that means?) some history on New Age.~BF

BF, do you feel yourself succumbing to the Wiki way? :) If you haven't ever been subject to peer review, this is what its like for everyone. It took me 4 years to get my MS thesis through reviews and published. Not that there was anything really wrong with it, but when a reviewer states that "no one uses Equation 1 anymore"... one learns to cope... ;) Also, short is sweet. I just spent 10 days cutting 2400 words out of a 4700 word paper, at the "suggestion" of the editor and 3 reviewers. It took longer to revise the paper down than it took to write the original 4700 words. But I have to say, the shorter version is a *much* better paper than the original! In short, if you can deal with the heat here, you will learn some very valuable communication skills.

BF, I cannot see how the discussion of Freemasonry is germane to the New Age movement, and including it in the article is only going to confuse people into thinking Freemasonry (and ancient Rosicrucianism which was a hoax, and is a very interesting subject in itself) are the same as or a part of the New Age movement. They are not, or at least, you seem to refuse to inform me as to why they are. So, I feel that it is best to remove those sections if you cannot tell me why they are there. --Alex Kennedy

"New Age avoids conventional decription...." I think you misspelled "decryption." Certainly the paragraph this sentence introduces is in need of decryption -- I must be amazingly unenlightened (not to say "stupid"), because I cannot make head or tail of it.

At least we got a spellchecker in the house.