|
|
|
You wrote on my page: :Ive managed to work on New Age some more without anyone over-writing, removing, or revamping. Your opinions are welcome, as always on my graffiti page. If you think the article is close to a done state, maybe Vicki could do some editing to polish it.~BF Here is a collection of reactions, since you asked. You asked my opinion, so don't be upset if you don't like it. #In my opinion, you have way too much personally invested in that article. It isn't your article. Can you get that through your skull??? It is Wikipedia's article. This means that other people should feel free to overwrite, remove, and revamp your text, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Often, I think, it's a very good thing, because you sometimes (not always) insist on formulations that just aren't very clear, or that are very far from being neutral point of view. # The article is now generally informative and considerably better than at least many of the earlier versions, and it has a lot more content, but it still needs a lot of work. # The article still tends toward obfuscation and making it an idiosyncratic reflection of your views about the New Age movement, rather than a report about the movement about which everyone can agree. You say, for example, that the New Age (or the New Age movement--I'm not sure which is your subject) is "that which results from the interaction of pre-existing ideologies with mystical experiential phenomena." I don't know what that means; I'd be more apt to understand what "New Age" means before I understood this explanation of it. It sounds, in any case, like a contentious theory about what the New Age is (has been) about, not a definition of "New Age." Movements are better described and introduced historically, I think: you understand where the New Age stuff came from, and who its main proponents are and what sort of stuff they talk about, and you pretty much understand what the New Age movement is about. Anyway, back to the point: just because the subject invites fuzzy-headedness and "in" jargon and generally weird manners of expression, there's no requirement that the description of the topic indulge in such literary vices. Bear in mind, the article is not nearly as bad as it could be, in this regard, but it still needs work! # More minor points: replace all "NA" with "New Age." Why use an abbreviation? It's very jarring to me. # Since Wikipedia's software indicates links with underlines, don't use underlines for emphasis; use italics for emphasis (usually). --Larry Sanger |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)