This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
Text and/or other creative content from New Age was copied or moved into Nondualism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Trolling by now-blocked sockpuppet of the above user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Although the New Age is technically a religion with a different vantage, the sources of this article are obsolete and not always reliable. If possible, I propose an alternate subject being New Age (Religion). This is not to be a replacement for the article on the New Age movement but instead a separate article instating that a religion of the same name exists and sources by authors such as Carolyn Myss and Shirley MacLaine are to be validated. Just thought I'd ask. Ravenheart Mew (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenheart Mew, what are the aspects of New Age religion that you don't think can be adequately covered in this article? What is missing, and what are the reliable sources not included? See WP:POVFORK for the concerns about branching the article. Also, academic sources and independent sources are preferred to those written by adherents. Schazjmd(talk)22:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, that is not what I meant. I meant a separate article on the adherents of the New Age we call "Manx." It is not part of the article on the New Age movement -- into which in my honest opinion is just the popularity of the New Age religion and Eastern philosophy. The critics are just telling us ". . .not to fool around with the subject and focus on what we are most familiar with!". That means New Agers are just dabbling. You guys wrote quite an article, although I find it too lengthy to add more content in my opinion. Ravenheart Mew (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. Even though the article on New Age covers the religion thereof, there is too much slang and jargon written in the space of the article. Please use the appropriate grammar in the English Wikipedia. The German, Spanish and Japanese Wikipedias speak of it as a religion -- and their sources are accurate. See if you can make it a Wikipedia policy to use appropriate grammar. Ravenheart Mew (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When using the word milieu or zeitgeist instead of subculture. The definition of milieu in a separate article contradicts the definition in the same article. Please correct the article by using correct grammar. Slang is often perceived as dialect or vernacular. Some users cannot understand the words used, so I'll leave it up to you if a "no slang" policy is necessary. Ravenheart Mew (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: this user appears to be trolling. Possibly a sockpuppet of Unitarian9999 (talk·contribs) who was trolling in the immediately previous section. Their goal seems to be wasting other editor's time with apparently serious queries which are simply made up. There is no "New Age" "manx" - they are trolling you. Skyerise (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the term "New Age" has been around since the late 19th century, and was "a movement" even back then, if largely a random collection of fads.
Second: please CEASE referring to every random commercial writer as a "scholar." This is a trick of a poor writer who is attempting to manipulate the audience by pretending that every trashy pocket paperback is equivalent to scholarly texts.
You can say that again, but please remain neutral when regarding this. Instead of saying "manipulation," try saying, "This article is no good" or just give the article an F. Please maintain proper etiquette when regarding new readers MewXacata81 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of an article summarizes the body. The specific information should be sourced in the body. If you believe there are statements in the lead that are not verifiable, you can tag them as source needed ({{cn}}), but if those statements are already sourced in the body, another editor will likely just remove that tag. Schazjmd(talk)17:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like saying "the New Age is a religion with diverse beliefs akin to Hinduism and Buddhism"? Even the head of an article needs sources, but the body needs sources to verify any new changes. MewXacata81 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article on Hinduism and it's head has tons of sources cited! You do need to cite your sources even in the head of every article of Wikipedia (to earn credit). MewXacata81 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sidebar in this form is a reasonable addition to the lead and I think it provides a suitable stand-in for an otherwise absent lead image. I am usually anti-sidebar, but for a broad article without an infobox or a lead image, overall it is a benefit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I think this sidebar is useful in lieu of a lead image. Without it the lead looks rather bare. It provides some interesting links and given how collapsed it is it isn't overly long or obtrusive or anything. It was there, it was boldly removed, I reverted it, now we discuss per WP:BRD - the sidebar had been there for several years with the consensus of several editors, so we should get consensus for its removal. Sidebars can get crufty and I trimmed the sidebar just now but it seems a rather brief and acceptable one. It's not like it's stacking with an infobox or anything, or disrupting the flow of any photos. It is rather short. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: My apologies, I missed the Talk Page message originally, probably because I was rushing about and trying to do too many things at Wikipedia. To my knowledge, the addition of the sidebar was recent; until recently, we had an image in that lead section instead. As such, the addition of the sidebar was BOLD, and my removal of it was in accordance with BRD policy. That being the case, I would appreciate it if it were removed and left out until a consensus for its re-addition might be reached. Perhaps we could restore one of the photographs removed? Or find an alternative replacement image? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dom't really see why the navbox is so bad, but I mostly oppose there being a lead devoid of some kind of image. I do not care what is there as long as there's something. It's been there for about 8 months which I don't think of as a short amount of time, but besides you there isn't anyone maintaining this page, so, eh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.png?lang=en){kind=small}
