Talk:Modern paganism and New Age

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Pagans and New Agers typically view history in different ways? Source: "The New Age movement has essentially recast Joachim de Flores's twelfth-century 'Three Ages of History' theory into astrological terminology ... On the other hand, with its essential distance from both Christian terminology and astrological reinterpretation of the ages of history, contemporary Paganism does not entertain the notions of either literal apocalypticism or metaphorical millenarianism." (The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism, pp. 183–184)
  • ALT1:... that the modern Pagan and New Age movements each have accused the other of egocentrism and narcissism? Source: "Indeed, as proponents of each movement accuse the other of narcissism, excessive ego-centrism, and overconcern with worldly preoccupations, a fundamental distinction between Neo-paganism and New Age relates to their respective reality evaluations and goal objectives." (The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-pagan Movements, p. 167)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Biderman's Chart of Coercion‎

Created by Ffranc (talk). Self-nominated at 08:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC).

• I quite like that we have this article now, and it technically passes DYK shape, but it seems to have some noticeable gaps, and I'm not sold on either proposed hook. In particular, there's no discussion of how outsiders to both often use "New Age" as a blanket term for a cluster of faiths including both Neopaganism and what the article defines as New Age, including the Pew Research Center's classification of faith in America. (I think that could be grounds for a decent ALT2 when added, although I'm not currently focusing on alternative hooks until the other issues are resolved.) I particularly think you should expand on the New-Age-as-insult description, if the sourcing exists to do so; this is something I see a lot, to the point of treating it as outright charlatanism. Although, to counter that -- I also think this article scans as written rather more from the Neopagan perspective, and that there isn't quite enough weight on the New Age perspective. I also see a fairly homogenous idea of what "New Age", a heterogeneous term if there ever was one, is (particularly noting the "battle between light and darkness" idea, when many LHPers are much closer to New Age than they are to Neopagan!). I think there are neutrality and weight issues as you stand, in addition to the matter of not being sold on the current hooks. Vaticidalprophet 09:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I expanded a bit using the entry on "Paganism and the New Age" from Brill's Handbook of New Age, which hopefully gives more of a New Age focus (although it's written by "a scholar of Wicca", Harrington p. 438). But the pagan emphasis is somewhat unavoidable; as the article explains, New Age material is less inclined to address distinctions, so much of the useful material here will be about pagans pointing out differences. As for using New Age as an umbrella term that includes paganism, this is covered in the "Relations" section, and described in the sources as less common in the 21st century. I've expanded on it now and given it its own subheading. But I'm reluctant about using it in a hook, because recent academic sources don't really do it.

The sources mention New-Age-as-insult, but don't really go into detail about it, but I've added it to the lead section now. I added left-hand path as a "see also" link but couldn't find sources that address it within this discourse; it might fit better in an article comparing occultism to either New Age or modern Paganism, if that's notable, or maybe an article on occulture. There are several subjects that are related in similar ways: Theosophy, renaissance magic etc, but if they aren't explicitly compared in the sources there isn't much we can do without WP:SYNTH. Ffranc (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

All good. I've been thinking about this; it's a hard topic to confidently come up with a hook for. I'm still not convinced the 'average reader' looking at Wikipedia's main page knows that these are different concepts (or that outside researchers are even in the 21st century as inclined to treat these differently at the article posits), and I think it'd be important for the hook to highlight that in a way I don't think either current hook does. Some alts?:

ALT2: ... that modern Paganism and New Age religions can be distinguished by their focus on collectivism and individualism respectively?

ALT3: ... that Michael York, contrasting modern Paganism and the New Age, argued the two are "rival theologies" on opposite ends of a "Gnostic-Pagan divide"?

I've asked around a bit about hooks, because I think this might do well with having someone who doesn't know much about the topic look at it to find what stands out as hooky. Vaticidalprophet 00:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I struck ALT2 because the dichotomy isn't as clear as that, neither in the sources nor the article, and the terminology is politically charged. The hook with the York quotes works, although I think it's less hooky than the original two. Ffranc (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, do you still think there are neutrality issues with the article or is it just the hooks that need to be improved? Ffranc (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Article is solid :) I put a word out on WT:DYK about hooks, though it hasn't gotten any response yet. Vaticidalprophet 13:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are two more alts, hopefully at least one of them will work:

• ALT4: ... that a common difference between modern Paganism and New Age is that the former focuses more on the external world and the latter on the inner life of the individual? Source: "Generally speaking, whereas we have seen that much in the New Age is explicitly epistemologically individualistic, focusing on enabling the individual to 'go within' and to discover the 'Higher Self', in Paganism there is a greater emphasis on the other, on that which is external to the self: the planet, the deities and the community." (The Re-Enchantment of the West. Volume 1: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralization, Popular Culture, and Occulture, p. 79)
• ALT5: ... that scholars of New Age have treated modern Paganism and New Age as the same phenomenon, but this has been disputed by scholars of modern Paganism? Sources: "Hanegraaff has produced a number of papers on esoteric spirituality, and the book New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (1996). ... In the midst of groundbreaking work on esoteric religion, Hanegraaff and Faivre conflate Paganism and Witchcraft into a misleading homogenous whole. ... Paul Heelas' The New Age Movement: The Celebration of the Self and the Sacrilization of Modernity (1996) makes a comparison of Paganism and New Age that is similar to that of Hanegraaff. ... Jo Pearson wrote a paper on 'Assumed Affinities: Wicca and the New Age' (1998a) in a direct response to, and refutation of, Heelas' book. In the paper, she critically examines Heelas' three principles, concluding they do not apply to Wicca." (Handbook of New Age, pp. 437–438, 441) "Heelas included Witches and Wiccans within New Age identity as well as Druids, shamans, and other modernday Pagans. Once again, despite their differences, neither movement conforms to Roy Wallis's understanding of the 'world-rejecting' new religious movement." (The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism, p. 183)

Ffranc (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment A DYK article does not need to pass a GA style review. It needs to be a "start" class and this article is. If the article lacks aspects that you would like then add them or add that comment to the talk page. If it technically passes DYK and it has a hooky hook ... then tick. Its great to improve articles but its unfair to withhold the tick. Victuallers (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No attempt to perform a GAN intended. I had concerns about the article's neutrality/balance, and putting such on the main page is a move to be cautious about. I also didn't spot a hooky hook out of the two proferred. Vaticidalprophet 00:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• ALT4 and ALT5 approved. Putting this at the end to avoid burying it in paragraphs :) Vaticidalprophet 23:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:25, 10 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

– 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)

• 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#Requested move 23 August 2022.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my vote at Talk:Modern Paganism#Requested move 23 August 2022. 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)

  @Tony1: 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#Requested move 23 August 2022). 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 Robertsky and that this hinges on a still open (relisted) discussion at Talk:Modern Paganism#Requested move 23 August 2022. The appropriate course would be for the nom Midnightblueowl 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#Requested move 23 August 2022 has been closed again, and the result is lowercase again. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• 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#Requested move 23 August 2022. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 9 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.