# Talk:Modern paganism and New Age

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)