New Age is not finished yet and the present format seems to be acceptable to all who have contributed to the article. The talk section is cleared now since everything has been resolved and vanilla NPOV established. Does anyone want to argue with this statement ? ~BF
Argue, no. But I'd like to say that if and when we do create an entry on this subject with "vanilla"/NPOV, I'd call this a major triumph of the Wikipedia ethos. Personally I didn't think it would ever be possible to accomplish this. Thanks to all. :-)
We need to allow NAPOV<new age point of view> especially in this article. -BF
Absolutely not. We don't want the capitalist page to be full of capitalist rhetoric, the socialist page to be full of socialist rhetoric, the Christian page to be full of Christian rhetoric, the Jewish page to be full of Jewish rhetoric, the Buddhist page to be full of Buddhist rhetoric, the atheist page to be full of atheist rhetoric, the separatist pages to be full of separatist rhetoric, the country pages to be full of nationalist rhetoric, or even the science page to be full of scientific rhetoric. This page should not be an exception. NPOV is not about promoting the dominant point of view, it is about being fair, and I don't see why that should be some objectionable to you, but I can assure you that all biased material will be removed, so don't bother with it. It would be much better if you presented some real information about new age beliefs rather than attempting proselytize, and let it speak for itself.
While we can each only truly speak for ourselves, Josh is essentially right when he says what "we" try to do, though him telling you to present "real information about new age beliefs rather than attempting to proselytize" is mildly unhelpful. I know that you're trying to present what you consider real information about new age beliefs, and it just sounds like proselytizing to others. I personally try not to delete biased content, but to contextualize or essentialize it. I do delete redundancies. If someone wrote "War means killing people, and killing people is bad, and it's evil, because murder is evil, and killing people is murder, and War is murder. War is evil, unless it's justified, which some people believe. And some people belive that it's not." I'd certainly delete some of that, but I wouldn't delete the sentiment of the questionable morality of war.
Or for a better example, BF, what you wrote that JG deleted:
--TheCunctator
Actually, I should apologize for presuming to speak for everybody. NPOV has been general concensus for a long time, but otherwise I speak for myself, and anyone is welcome to agree or disagree with me.
Hmm, almost by definition, I think all new religious movements have an element of revisionism ("Everything you know is wrong"). BF, who is apparently the main proponent of New Age on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell agrees that it's radically revisionist and counts this as one of its strengths.
I just re-read New Age and I see a good NPOV balance between lauding and knocking its beliefs.
Ok, I'm inclined to agree with you to some extent. However, I don't think that your response is an answer to my question
(And I pasted that in three places because it was originally in one place but apparently you hadn't seen it when you asked for feedback above.)
BF -- I think a good summary of the "scientific point of view"(informally speaking) is: "We need to have some kind of technique for telling whether our ideas actually apply to the real world or not. The Scientific Method is the best known technique for doing this."
Reason is supposed to lead us toward greater truth rather than away from it. If it doesn't do this, it's because we're mis-using it rather than because there's anything inherently wrong with it.
You say that many people mistake a description for reality. I agree. I would also add that many people mistake their opinions for reality.
The Scientific Method is supposed to be the best known method for sorting out "opinions/descriptions/theories" that apply well to reality from those that don't.
If person A says that drinking a bottle of cyanide will cure the common cold (with no harmful side effects) and person B says it will enable us to fly like Superman (ditto harmful side effects), and person C says it will kill us dead, dead, dead, we'd like to have some sort of way of telling what the truth is.
We ask each person, "Why do you claim that you know the Truth about this?" and each answers "Because I do, that's why."
Ideally we'd like something a little more reliable to go on.
(Adding more a little later here)
BF, I apologize if I've sounded rude to you.
You know very well that the "New Age"people and the "Anti-New-Age" people strongly disagree about these things. The things you write really do sound crazy to some of us. I'm trying to speak with you in a reasonable way here.
When you write things like "because I do, that's why" and about visualizing yourself as a bee, this makes it difficult for us to converse with you.
I'd like to try to talk with you about these things if we can. Blessed be!!
The Cunctator writes: *Removed "Some have attempted to claim" --you don't "attempt to claim".
No, I guess not. Mea culpa.
If we all read this page from top to bottom we will notice the main New Age page hasn't changed much since the major factoring, to quote Wikipedia, by Cunctator several days ago. I wrote something, and it was sent to the Abyss, if I may be blunt. Most people comment on what they disagree with, but I see no one writing any new content. I'm not the owner of New Age, admittedly, but don't any of you have any ideas on what to write on this topic ? If not, then it seems to be a cat and mouse game(cut, revise, and shrink). My goal is listed in the 1st paragraph. Would anyone besides C care to say if they think the main page is finished ? ~ BF
I'm so flattered that it's almost wikified. Neutral like tasteless watered down soup if you ask me. We want information without bias, says Larry. I say let's put some passion and gut feelings into this pedia that will give the reader a real time presence in at least this experiential oriented article.~BF
BF, some of us were talking about this on another page a few days ago and it's probably not possible to say that a Wikipedia page is ever "finished". As long as nobody's doing anything with it it's "finished for the time being".
When somebody adds something or starts a new page, people will react to it.
I put some headings in boldface. Later will move present content under the header as applies, plus chant a magic spell and pray that any new content added will "pass the scrutiny of mutiny" ~BF
Those references are in progress Larry. This page has lost so much content due to the revisions that I decided not to justify anything, until what was written remained for at least a day or two. The boldface headings are a start in this direction, with Music naming names. More to come if people can be patient. My hope is to eventually submit this article to nupedia some day. ~BF
Hello? I thought we'd all agreed that the previous version of the "intro" or general remarks was about what we wanted here, and somebody (BF?) changed it. Restored the older version, didn't do anything with the new subheadings.
Thanks to all who have let the article exist for several days intact. Destroy what you want, in the name of Wiki. Most of you have no idea what new age means and should learn by exploring the topic, as I have for at least 4 years( in this lifetime =) ~BF
I know it seems out of place. This part was a except from a greater story on the beginnings of New Age, and I did show the link to the source writing. I felt it was correct to leave the original "as is" without any ellipses.
Revised the introduction. I think it looks less verbose and less critical of New Age itself than the former buzz-words suggested. But I did leave those words in, minus the redundancy such as revisionist, etc. ~BF
Whoever thinks they are funny, you aren't ! Larry Sanger has been asking people not to remove content, just edit what is already in place. Get a clue, clueless !
It's a grand idea, as far as I'm concerned, to move those links to the bottom of the page, in an external links section. --LMS
I took out the old "new age and medicine" section and replaced it with something less propagandistic and hopefully more informative. The new section, however, needs work to better explain why people use new-age medicine instead of conventional medicine (as a sceptic towards new-age stuff it's hard to be sure what attracts people to it, but I've tried). The old section is below:
[Larry Dossey]?, M.D. feels prayer is a useful form of healing. "Holistic medicine", which grew out of the New Age movement, is accepted by many physicians. Acupuncture has been used by nurses as an alternative for methadone in drug treatment programs. Many scientists and many in the medical profession, at first rejected these medical practices as mere placebos, without any scientific basis.
This paragraph is very biased towards the New Age movement. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of how people employ new ideas and change old thinking in the mainstream today. These New Age spiritualists, defy the suspicious labellings of the ignorant and embetter humanity. No longer does spirit mean "evil spirits", as once labelled by an older society of heavily indoctrinated christian dualists. New Age spirituality never was found in some hidden cellar with black robed people chanting satanic diatribes. Recognition of another force naturally occuring, invisible, and responsive to prayer has existed since the shamanic and pagan traditions. Now, we are beginning to see the results of removing the castigating labels of Good and Evil. Some people can simply plug in to a spiritual connection and use that event to introduce a system that helps us all.
A quote from the History section states "it was based on already existent, but dormant, religious/philosophical movements". If you bothered to click the external link shown at the beginning of this section it might reveal the overall context of a much larger treatment on New Age. Because no one has actually written new content for this article besides me---they have only edited existing content---and no one researched the topic New Age and written anything besides me, this History section is there with special permission by the author Michael, who is one of those people that have researched the topic. Most of the revisions on this article are by people who NEVER did anything to help, sadly only to destroy.
Well, I'm sorry that things don't seem to be working out for you right at the moment. I wish you hadn't said "If you bothered to click the external link ..." as it indicates a rude and inconsiderate nature, and I'm sure you now regret it. I did go and click the link, and the only section that seemed to have relevance said "The leaders who stood at the craddle of the birth of the nation were influenced by Masonic, Spiritualistic and Rosicrucian thought. "A New Order of the Age begins" proclaims the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States. Eight signatories of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons, amongst whom Benjamin Franklin (see image) and George Washington, as were sixteen subsequent presidents." Now, the incription on the Great Seal says "Novus Ordo Secolorum," if I remember correctly (I do not have United States money to check), meaning, I believe, "a New Order of the World." But I could be wrong. In any event, none of this seems to relate to Freemasonry, and, as someone with a passing knowledge of Freemasonry, I don't see how it relates to the "New Age" movement. Perhaps you could explain this to me, although I would request that you do so without anger, as I am sure we are all freinds in our quest for understanding here. -- Alex Kennedy
The problem is exactly as you say: you are providing most of the content, while most other people are editing. The reason for this, I think, is that most other Wikipedians aren't very interested in the New Age article. You are, and so you write. However, since you are passionate about this topic, your writing often isn't NPOV. That's something almost every Wikipedian cares about, and so they try to edit it so that it fits the guidelines for an encyclopedia. Thus, they're not trying to ruin the article, but simply keep it from being uncritical New Age envangelism. However, since there's one writer and many editors, the article gets chopped up into the state we see now.
I've done quite a bit of research into the New Age movement over the past few years, since comparative religion and philosophy are both strong interests of mine (I've been avoiding the philosophical topics on Wikipedia though, since our good Mr. Sanger has his Ph.D in that field :)). A good article on any topic like this should cover the views of both the adherents and the critics. Since you're an adherent, and I'm a critic, we seem qualified. :) So, if you don't mind working with an Anglican, we can get to work. What do you think? --STG
Sure Steven, love to work with someone! There are more parts to New Age than science can prove, more experiences that are real to people who are not duped, not scam artists, and who feel such happines when they meet others who share the similar things. This is why New Age people seem like a cult. They all know something others will not accept. This experiential treatment must be allowed in here, even if you have to make it safe inside the npov filters.
Great! I have a few ideas to start with:
My comments in blue. The introduction needs to be changed. This is my idea... add another side of New Age(the experiential side which defines the topic best) because it will be more accurate and less verbose. My add-on will not have many wikied links to definitions. This would be stated just under the first paragraph and go something like this: "New Age is also a continuum of eclectic beliefs ranging from Physics on the factual/science side, through casual experimenters in new age topics(listed in the A to Z part)in the middle, to 'hard core' [don't misinterpet this] New Agers who live their lives totally swept in by the movement." I have never liked the stodgy terminology in the present introduction. It reads like someone is explaining something they don't like, in language that most people rarely use, to over-intellectualize the topic, and not make it reader-friendly.
This computer lab is closing, so I have to run. I'll do some work on the article later. --STG
I'd also like to see, if at all possible, a brief (or at least concise) definition of what falls under the umbrella of "New Age" at the beginning of the article. The fact that I'm not entirely sure what "New Age" means, aside from those little bits which are obvious, is what leads to my lack of articulation about why Freemasonry is unrelated to the New Age movement. As I said in my little snippet, it seems that the only point of contact between Freemasonry and the New Age movement is that both involved received thought and the use of allegory. But in all else, the two seem quite different --Alex Kennedy
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)