Talk:Modern paganism and New Age/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 00:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. ''' --Whiteguru (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)



Observations
HTML document size: 163 kB   Prose size (including all HTML code): 30 kB    References (including all HTML code): 26 kB    Wiki text: 33 kB    Prose size (text only): 18 kB (2779 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 2615 B


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The second paragraph of the Lede is good, and alleges friction in the final sentences. The source of this friction is not given.
 * I added a sentence about the source of friction ✅
 * Why is Neopaganism not mentioned in this article? We need to explain why this is absorbed into the term Modern Paganism. Which term is used more frequently? Why is one term preferred over the other? Google search for neopaganism returns questions: one of which is How common is neopaganism? This matter needs to be addressed, is its a sine-qua-non issue here.
 * Neopaganism is mentioned in a footnote as a synonym for modern Paganism. I don't think a more detailed discussion about the different names would add to the understanding of modern Paganism as it relates to New Age in particular. It should be fine as long as the article is internally consistent and acknowledges that several names exist. ✅
 * Whilst there is no page reference in Ref 5, the statement is acceptable.
 * Not sure what you refer to here. Ref 5 currently says "Strmiska 2005, pp. 42–43". The only ref I see without a page is "Publishers Weekly 2001", which is an online article. If page number is missing somewhere else it's a mistake and I want to fix it. ✅
 * Ref 6 and accompanying Note b are a succinct statement of current appreciation and perceptions of Paganism ...


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I wonder about this sentence: New Age is a body of beliefs characterised by millenarian ideas about spiritual evolution.
 * Changed "evolution" to "advancement" to make it closer to the wording in the New Age section. ✅
 * I wonder about this, too: a classification which has been contested by scholars of modern Paganism.
 * It's pretty much all of them. The section "Modern Paganism under the New Age umbrella" mentions several names, but I've never seen a scholar writing primarily about paganism who treats it as a type of New Age spirituality. ✅
 * This sentence in the Lede bothers me: New Agers commonly criticise modern Pagans for their emphasis on material concerns.
 * It's sourced in the Friction section to Michael York, the main academic authority on this subject.✅


 * What is the relevance of linking to Gentile? (as found in the Bible in specific contexts.) It is an exclusivist / pejorative term. Why is it here?
 * Removed ✅
 * The inclusion of a link to Ethnic religion is apt, although that page is up for merge with Indigenous Religion.
 * Hannegraff is referring to New Age Religion. Is this what this comparison is about? Where is the definition of New Age Religion in this article? This is a poor transcription of reference 14; what is its relevance?
 * The term "New Age Religion" only appears in the article in the title of Hanegraaff's book, so I'm not sure what you want to change here. I fleshed out the text from ref 14 a bit and added a reference to Hanegraaff's book. But Hanegraaff like the other sources describes New Age as an eclectic collection of beliefs, not as one monolithic religion. ✅
 * Use of Stukrad in General commonalities is an excellent device.
 * modern Pagan and New Age movements in the United States share a high degree of religious personalisation and tend towards apocalypticism
 * Added attribution ✅
 * Reference 28 is insufficient to sustain the issues put forward. Find an open reference that confirms this sentence, or drop it.
 * Reworded a little, but it's perfectly allowed to use sources that require free registration, or are completely offline for that matter. Pike's book is among the strongest sources that exists about the relationship between paganism and New Age in the United States.


 * Sexual liberation, feminism and the post-war American environmental movement are NOT formal characteristics of the New Age in this day, this age. Consider the categories listed here
 * The article doesn't claim they are, just that those movements are relevant for understanding the relationship between modern paganism and New Age in America. ✅ Pike 2004, p. xi: "My most challenging task has been to clarify in a straightforward way the distinctions between Neopagan and New Age communities as well as the many concerns they share. For this purpose I have situated both movements within a particular story of American religious history and devolopments in American life after the 1960s, especially the increasing personalization of religion and the sexual liberation, feminist, and environmental movements." Pike 2004, p. 19: "American, British, and Australian 'Neopagan' communitites differ in that they are self-conscious revivals created to be egalitarian, individualistic, and, in the American case, influenced by currents of apocalypticism and social change movements. This book focuses on American Neopaganism, and especially its place in American historical and cultural contexts."
 * To limit Pike to the US environment is culturally safe.
 * In reference 39, Hannegraff states that the merger of Wicca, Goddess Movement and Women's Spirituality are crude approximations. I sense this is not an accurate statement of Hannegraff's position.
 * Added a reservation about American Wicca, but otherwise it's correct. Hanegraaff 1996, pp. 85-86: "The most convenient way to bring some order into the variety of New Age neopagan perspectives is to start with the original founding movement of modern witchcraft known as Wicca, and to picture neopaganism in general as 'fanning out' from this relatively clearly circumscribed center into increasingly syncretistic and nondogmatic directions. It could be argued that Wicca as such is somewhat closer to the 'sect' profile outlined in the Introduction than most other New Age groups... The cross-fertilization between Craft traditions and spiritually-oriented feminism resulted in a type of neopaganism which is often referred to as the Goddess movement. This development, finally, has not remained without influence on the women's spirituality movement as such, which has to some extent adopted neopagan and general New Age elements." ✅
 * Where does the thesis-antithesis of Modern Paganism+New Age vis a vis Christianity come in here? York is a distraction here. This article is not about what Christianity nor the Roman church and its instructions from the A Christian Reflection on the New Age has to say about Paganism or the New Age. If you want to write an article about heresy, then take that statement and reference to a new article.
 * Stuckrad and York point to how paganism and New Age sometimes share traits or are lumped together due to what they are not - for example, part of any mainstream version of Christianity. This is relevant in the contexts where it is brought up, I don't see any distraction.
 * Reference 49 is not accessible online, nor is York, 2011. There is no agreed definition of theology for either of Paganism nor New Age (which is not a religion and does not have a specific theological foundation).
 * Added some attribution, "generally" and "typically". The article and sources make clear that both movements have general traits that can be compared, despite not having central authorities.✅
 * Further evidence is needed to substantiate the statement on Manichean dualism. Reference current New Age material that supports this claim that the world is evil and defective.
 * Added attribution to two of the main scholars on the subject. They refer to a general discourse about spiritual truth and point to the dualism this contains. ✅
 * Further evidence is needed to substantiate this claim:  the view that mankind is malfunctioning, are defining features of New Age spirituality,. Supply sustainable assertions that the New Age movement views humanity as ontologically defective.
 * Added attribution. Keep in mind that the goal of a Wikipedia article isn't to arrive at the truth and provide convincing evidence for a viewpoint, but only to summarise reliable sources.
 * This is a crude statement to make to a reviewer. Your task here is to respond to issues raised by the reviewer.
 * Sorry if it came out as crude. My only intention was to explain why I didn't add any evidence, only attribution.


 * Supply evidence to support York's claim in Reference 48 that the New Age has a homogeneous theology.
 * He doesn't say that, he talks about a type of theology. Added attribution and reworded a little bit.✅


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Using witch-cult hypothesis is not the definition of modern Wicca. This is defining Wicca as a cult. This is pejorative definition.
 * It's not presented as the definition of Wicca, only as an inspiration. Nor is Wicca presented as a cult, but as a modern Pagan movement inspired by a hypothesis of an ancient religious cult, which in this context is a neutral term. (Yes, there is crossover as Ezzy writes) ✅
 * Instead of seeking to be traditionalist like modern Pagans, New Agers are oriented towards an eclectic and new spirituality...  Why is this statement here? Is this statement an example of NPOV? This assertion makes an explicit statement about New Agers based on an assumption. The assumption is clear. Why is it included?
 * It's included because it's a point made in an academic standard work about the subject, Brill's Handbook of New Age.


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Page created 7 June 2021
 * Page has 135 edits by 11 distinct editors
 * 4817 page views to date with a daily average of 53 views.
 * The DYK entry on July 8th brought 2780 views
 * There have been no reverts, the page history shows steady collaboration and improvements.


 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:Libation Macron Louvre G149.jpg = copyright holder releases this work into the public domain. (Can't see the relevance of this image)
 * The image illustrates ancient paganism, which the section talks about in relation to modern paganism. Both of these introductory sections are illustrated with things the adherents of the movements often look to for inspiration: in the case of modern Paganism it can be religious practices from the ancient world, and in the case of New Age it can be star constellations, especially Aquarius. The images illustrate the contexts and inspirations of the movements.
 * File:AquariusCC.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
 * File:Greenman Mask.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
 * File:Starhawk 2.JPG = Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
 * Images are appropriate and tagged correctly.


 * 1) Overall:
 * I wonder why this article is not listed in Category:Paganism?
 * It's already in that category tree, through Category:Modern Paganism and other religions and Category:Modern Paganism.
 * This is a delicate topic, insofar as there are many who would claim that Paganism and New Age are not discrete one from another. There are those who are learned in this matter and there are those who are ignorant. Some of the material cited is 25-26 years old. What has not been made clear is the distinctions in (Pagan) labels as used in the US and in the UK and Europe.
 * Differences between countries are covered when they are relevant, mostly in "Overlap and hybrid forms" and in a footnote about Wicca. I haven't seen any reliable sources that place significantly more emphasis on this than what currently is in the article.
 * There are a number of assertions about the New Age (which cannot define itself, even) and citation of Stukrad modern Paganism and New Age have a similar dynamic between the emic and etic is a tension, an issue, a vatic divide.
 * The assertions are about general traits and this is mentioned throughout the article. New Age doesn't need to define itself as far as the article is concerned. It has been defined by scholars who describe it as an eclectic milieu with some general characteristics. The article only summarises this scholarship, to the extent it is relevant for the article's subject.
 * There is a particular issue with using York as if he is Thomas Aquinas and defining theology for Paganism and / or the New Age.
 * Stated opinions and quotations from York are attributed to him, so I don't see any problem there. His 1995 monograph is pretty much the book about modern Paganism and New Age. His contributions are described in positive words by both Hanegraaff and Harrington, who are in opposite corners in the "paganism-as-new-age" debate. Hanegraaff 1996, p. 79: "The complicated relationship between New Age in general and neopaganism has been adequately summarized by Michael York." Harrington 2007, p. 446: "In my opinion, Michael York's work on Paganism and the New Age remains the most well-researched and cogently argued book on this topic, even though it was published as long ago as 1995 and based on a doctoral thesis awarded in 1991. This is because it is the only work of its kind, specifically addresses the similarities and differences between Paganism and the New Age, and is based on considerable fieldwork." I've only made a few references to the book itself, mainly because York 2011 is more recent and more concise, but it is a major work that Harrington and other scholars rely on when they address the subject.
 * Paganism has a certain inherent stability and regularity around its thought, inclusivity, signs, symbols and rituals. I am surprised that the Pagan seminary is not mentioned here.
 * The article is only about modern Paganism as it relates to New Age, and none of the sources I've seen bring up the Cherry Hill Seminary when they cover this particular subject.
 * There are a lot of assertions about the New Age which are possibly not robust nor sustainable.
 * Possibly, but all that matters here is that they are verifiable and based on reliable sources. If the sources make unsustainable assertions, that's a discussion that needs to be held outside of Wikipedia.
 * Is this article fair to Paganism? Is this article fair to the New Age? Does this article cross the vatic divide with an NPOV? These are vexing questions, for some of the authors cited have their own biases. People on each side of the divide will always throw mud at one another, for Both exist as eclectic movements without centralised institutions or dogma.
 * The sections in the article are well laid out and follow appropriately. General commonalities, Overlap and Modern Paganism under the New Age umbrella are all appropriate sections. These are the bridges that must be crossed.
 * Views of History, Nature and metaphysics are both appropriate inclusions. The section on practice illustrates good distinctions. Yet, there will always be those who will generate friction.
 * The article is balanced in its presentation. However:
 * The first paragraph in the Lede lays out the entire article. Good work.


 * May we attend to the matters raised above? --Whiteguru (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for reviewing the article. I have now made changes based on your criticism and posted my responses above. Please let me know if I missed something or more needs to be done. Ffranc (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Replies noted.