Tone and style of article

Just a passerby and not a wikipedia editor per se. However, I felt compelled to leavea comment regarding the tone and style of the article: it suffer from sounding very personal, and has a tone of what one would expect a non-scholar explaining something in emphatic language. (the overabundance of quotation marks is one symptom, but there are other, such as the "for the benefit of Europeans", which takes away from the neutral tone an encyclopedic article.) I'm not an expert on the subject (in fact I know very little about it, which is why I came here), but even to me it would be better if the page instead sourced a number of published treatises/works on the subject instead of going into a quasi-emotional and ambiguous personal essay-style on the subject. It sounds to me like the article attempts to unite the various concepts and make it as culturally vague and generalized and "acceptable" (as in, lacking cultural, ritual and mythical specifics that would make different versions more characterized) as possible - and this makes the article sounds a little - dare I say - "New Agey". (for lack of a better term.) I think more people would appreciate more specific mythic instances and rituals that specifically dealt with the Great Spirit/Mystery (and also those that established important differences between various views on the subject, as one would expect from proper research) - if those are available - as opposed to the currently rather watered-out explanation. 

As this is a very interesting subject, I'm looking forward to seeing how the article develops. ) Best of luck.