# Talk:New Age

May I suggest something.  See if you can add "literary genre consisting of" as in "New Age is a literary genre consisting of a range of religious and spiritual beliefs that emerged during the early 1970's." 2603:8081:3A00:B881:D89C:B501:DBA6:2CB6 (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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.
And, the term "New Age" appears 500+ times, further highlighting intentional manipulation.
2001:48F8:3034:1DF5:F423:35CB:2290:5E8C (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

The whole three-paragraph overview section has no sources cited at all 2600:1700:5120:1780:D0EB:913C:AE63:60BA (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
@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)
@Midnightblueowl I forgot to respond aswell, my bad.
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)

Review needed:

It appears there are some areas with sourcing concerns. The article is in the following categories:
Articles with unsourced statements from September 2014,
Articles with unsourced statements from August 2015,
Articles lacking reliable references from February 2024,
The B-class criteria #1 states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
The Good article criteria 2b: Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). It follows this but there are some added tags. --  Otr500 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)