Talk:Modern paganism and New Age

Copy edit as requested
A very interesting article. I'm in process of copy editing it and thoroughly enjoying it. If you are going for Good Article status, two things occur to me: some of the text is written in the style of an academic discussion which is not strictly appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have done my best to remove passages of 'X says this and Y says that' and recast it into more suitable prose; mostly OK now, I think, but the subsection 'Modern Paganism under the New Age umbrella' has defeated me. Perhaps someone with more knowledge and access to the references can paraphrase it and reduce it to statements and corresponding citations.

The other thing is the references sections. I am sure they can be merged. In particular, Douglas Ezzy is mentioned by name in the running text but his book appears only in 'Further Reading'. Is there any need for 'Further Reading' in a relatively short article like this? Can it not all go into a Bibliography, referenced from a 'Notes and references' section, for example? I'll bone up on it and see if I can suggest anything helpful. Richard asr (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your work! "Modern Paganism under the New Age umbrella" in particular is very much about an academic debate, so I think that's unavoidable in that section, unless there is a particularly encyclopedic way of summarising academic debates. In some other instances it might also be unavoidable, because the entire topic is fundamentally about a conflict (or several conflicts?) and many statements may be partisan in one way or another.


 * The Further reading section could be trimmed down or removed entirely. Most of it was potential sources I dumped there as I worked on the article, and eventually they weren't used. I've removed those now. Ezzy and Pearson are a bit different since their papers are referred to (directly or indirectly) in the article without being sources, so I thought it would be a good service to readers to include them, if someone becomes curious. But I doubt anyone would get terribly upset if they weren't there. Ffranc (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ffrank. I appreciate that the article is essentially an account of an ongoing discussion and I've made a few changes to the 'Modern Paganism under the New Age umbrella' subsection which will hopefully keep the general reader engaged whilst retaining the cut and thrust of ongoing debate. I hope it is OK. On this point, please read through the article and make sure that I haven't introduced any unintentional errors of fact anywhere, and correct them if I have.


 * Yes, I think the 'Further Reading section looks OK now. Wikipedia Manual of Style/Layout requires bullet points in the 'Further Reading' section which you had correctly included, in fact, but which didn't show up because of an unnecessary template above the list. I have commented this template out in the markup, and the bullets now appear properly. Having looked at the Wikipedia Manual of Style, I am uncertain whether the single quotes I have introduced should in fact be double after all, but I will leave it to you to change them back if the Good Article reviewer requires it. It shouldn't take too long, ten minutes or so I would think. But single quotes are certainly established British English style. And on this point, drawing upon my experience subsequent to editing another article for Good Article review a while back, please do what the reviewer asks! If you do, I see no reason why this excellent article shouldn't get its little green badge.


 * Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this article, which I found very interesting and informative. I'll follow its progress. Best regards Richard asr (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Richard asr (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the help! Ffranc (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus. Not enough has changed that convinces discussion participants this should be handled differently than the prior RM in August and per MOS:ISMCAPS. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

– These articles recently saw references to "Paganism" changed to the lower-case "paganism" following an RfC decision at Talk:Modern Paganism. Soon after, that RfC was re-opened, with its initial decision being reversed as premature. All of the other article titles that were changed in accordance to the first decision should also be reversed, at least while the present RfC plays out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Modern paganism and New Age → Modern Paganism and New Age
 * Modern pagan views on LGBT people → Modern Pagan views on LGBT people
 * Modern paganism in Scandinavia → Modern Paganism in Scandinavia
 * Modern paganism in the United Kingdom → Modern Paganism in the United Kingdom
 * Oppose. These are not proper nouns and should therefore not be capitalized. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm... @Midnightblueowl Most of these could have been reverted as undiscussed move. – robertsky (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:ISMCAPS. Not proper names. See also Talk:Modern Paganism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per my vote at Talk:Modern Paganism. The distinction between ancient "paganism" and modern "(Neo)Paganism" is supported by WP:RS.--Æo (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose—I can see no reason to cap paganism, just as we don't cap communism. Are people getting confused with -isms that are derived from a proper name, like Marxism and Christianity? Tony (talk)  01:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you mean to oppose, then, since the proposal is to change to capitalized Pagan and Paganism. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed: silly me. Tony (talk)  06:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this discussion hinges on the still open discussion at the primary topic's talk page (Talk:Modern Paganism). Since I am already involved in the primary topic's discussion, I will just encourage that any other editors looking to close this discussion to wait until the primary topic's discussion has been closed proper. – robertsky (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with and that this hinges on a still open (relisted) discussion at Talk:Modern Paganism. The appropriate course would be for the nom  to withdraw this RM pending a resolution at the parent page. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The relisted RM at Talk:Modern Paganism has been closed again, and the result is lowercase again. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per the result of RM for modern paganism. The subject term is not a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Shwcz (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Talk:Modern Paganism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)