Misplaced Pages

Talk:Humanism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:57, 28 December 2022 editCinadon36 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,658 edits →Removal of {{Essay-like|date=October 2022}}: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:17, 13 July 2024 edit undoPalm Puree (talk | contribs)48 edits →Lede: ReplyTag: Reply 
(100 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talkheader|archive_age=6|archive_units=months}}
{{GA|22:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)|topic=Philosophy and religion|page=1|oldid=1171916107}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{GA nominee|20:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)|nominator=]]|page=1|subtopic=Philosophy and religion|status=|note=}}{{Outline of knowledge coverage|humanism}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Atheism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Atheism|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|epistemology=yes}}
{{philosophy|class=B|importance=mid|epistemology=yes}}
{{WP1.0|class=B|category=category|VA=yes}}
}} }}

{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Philosophy|link=Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/Philosophy and religion|anchor=Approaches (6 articles)|class=B}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 9 |counter = 10
|algo = old(180d) |algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Humanism/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Humanism/Archive %(counter)d
Line 19: Line 17:
}} }}


==New addition, undue weight?==
==Humanism And Religion Bias==
*Addition
*revert
*re-revert


Hi {{ping|Manbooferie}}, I believe that the information you have added does not warrant inclusion as it appears to violate Misplaced Pages's policy on undue weight (]). I can not see how this addition contributes to a deeper understanding of the concept of Humanism. It seems indicative of being undue, particularly because the absence of contemporary secondary reliable sources on humanism, discussing this issue.
I Removed this Section. I did so because it Reads like a Promotion of Humanism not an Encyclopedia Article about Humanism. It did not even Discuss Humanisms Relationship to Religion, but Rather simply listed Popular Arguments used to Justify rejection Religion in Favour of Humanism, and Cites Victor Stenger and other Militant Atheist Sources. What does saying The Argument From Aesthetics doesn't Convince People have to do with Explaining what Humanism is?


I kindly request that you review the guidelines outlined in the ] policy. I look forward to your response, ]] 12:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I quote the Part I deleted below. Then I Will respond.


:Hi @]
"Humanism and religion
:I appreciate your comment but I genuinely feel it's an important, if minor, addition. Note, the Harper Etymology reference that is cited gives "''the (mere) humanity of Christ''" as one of the origins of the word. This hadn't been addressed under the Etymology section, but now it is. ] (]) 12:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
:With regard specifically to etymology, I would also add that ] (currently not cited in the article), gives the following origins:
:"'''human'''ism. belief in the mere human nature of Christ XIX (Coleridge 1812); devotion to human interests or the humanities (c. 1830); after '''hu.man'''.ist one devoted to the humanities XVI...". As I recall, Coleridge's use of the term is actually another reference back to Priestley. ] (]) 13:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
::@] I have noticed that no secondary source links the etymology of the world to Howes. Also, the second reference (Harper) does not back the claim of the sentence. Hopefully, other editors will jump in to give their input. ]] 13:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


=== Etymology ===
Humanism is a naturalistic philosophy—it rejects gods, angels, immortal souls, and all supernatural phenomena. The universe is natural and can be studied by science. While opposition to the various forms of theism might come from many philosophical or historical domains, the most convincing argument in terms of public opinion is naturalism."
Hi {{ping|Manbooferie}}, I feel that this edit too, just adds trivial info to the article. Etymology does not mean "history of usage". You are citing a primary source, a book published more than three centuries ago. This looks to me as Original Research. Maybe I am wrong and suffering from "]". I dont know. So, if you insist on the edit, I will request a comment from another editor or add a note at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard , whatever you wish. Maybe other editors can help us navigate this.]] 15:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


:Hi @]. Again, I disagree that it's trivial. As for citing a book published more than three centuries ago, what's the problem? The whole article is about tracing humanism back to the Greeks. As for OR, Johnson's book is cited by Davies (1997): "''According to Johnson's dictionary, a humanist is a grammarian; a philologer'...'' " (p. 3), to which I added it was derived from the French word. Hardly deep research. As you say, maybe a bit of 'article ownership' behaviour here. I feel my edit is relevant, but consult another editor if you must. ] (]) 15:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
According to Who? And Why should it matter what the most Convincing Argument in Terms of Public Opinion is? This sounds more like a Promotion of Humanism and Why it should Be Chosen instead of Religion. Of Course, Humanism is not a Religion. Saying that is Offensive and, Apparently, is Me using My Own Reasoning. But, this is simply reporting a Fact?
:Johnson's dictionary is also mentioned by Copson in his "What is Humanism?" Handbook chapter (Note 2). ] (]) 16:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
::FWIW, I really don't think we need a full RfC for one single line. ] ''(]·])'' 16:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
:::@], Agree. Maybe ] (third opinion) would be better. ]] 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
::::That would make more sense, I agree. ] ''(]·])'' 16:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
::So @], Johnson's Dictionary is used as a footnote in a long chapter of a long book. Here, at WP, we have to summarize all these chapters, not add bites from here and there. This is what I am trying to convey. Your addition is not a summary. Actually, Copson's book uses less words than WP's article to explain the same thing. Here is note2 pg 28, for those interested: "<small>In Samuel Johnson’s dictionary of 1755, for example, ‘humanist’ was defined narrowly as, ‘a philologer; a grammarian’. (Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language )"</small> ]] 16:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


{| style="border-top: solid thin lightgrey; background: transparent; padding: 4px;"
Also, Why is The Article Conflating Theism to Religion? And Why is it Presenting Theism, and thus Religion, which are presented as Synonymous, as Opposite Naturalism as if Naturalism is an Alternative to Theism? One can be a Naturalist and still be a Theist.
| ] '''Response to ]:'''
|-
| style="padding-left: 1.6em;" | Because the article just achieved GA status, the standard for additions to it is higher than usual. That being said, entomology includes not just a word's origin but also how the word's meaning has changed over time. Citing dictionaries from various times is certainly a reasonable approach to documenting changes to a word's definition. While it would be fantastic to find a single source that discusses this topic, there is nothing wrong with using several sources. I do not consider this approach to be original research nor do I find these to be primary sources. I am by no means an expert on this topic and found the text discussing the word's change in usage over time to be helpful information and not trivial. However, there does seem to be some question about the connection of the content to the cited sources and, perhaps, a suggestion of an alternative source and content. This matter is somewhat beyond the scope of your third opinion request, but I will dig deeper if that would be helpful. A copy edit of the new content might also make it flow better with the rest of the article. <!-- Template:Third opinion response --> ] (]) 02:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
|}


:Thanks for your input @], I really appreciate it. I know it is not an easy job. Just a few points, dictionaries are per definition tertiary sources, when used as a source of knowledge. But in this case, it was not used in such a manner. It was used as a historical fact. Anyways, I think there are 100s of dictionaries around the world, some of them being very old. Should we include them all? What is our criterion? Again, thanks for jumping in. ]] 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has an Admittedly Poor Article on Naturalistic Theism, and other Views such as Process Theology. Not all Theism is Supernatural.
::Good questions. What kind of dictionariy to use depends on whether the topic is specialized or general, as well as whether you are reviewing the lexicon of a term used by the general public, scholars, or want a mixture of both..Another consideration is English dictionaries vs. those of other language--again the topic dictates what is most appropriate. Each editor has the authority to use their best judgement in selecting a source. As long as ithe selcted source meets Misplaced Pages standard for reliability, it is fine to use. When writing an historical overview, a dictionary or encyclopedia that was popular when it was published reflects contemporary viewpoint and/or helped shape a word's meaning in its era--thus, it is correct to say that a word was defined as xyz in the 19th century when using a 19th century source (although it is always best to mention the name of the dictionary in the text). Misplaced Pages has articles about the most common ad most popular dictionaries; many can easily be found through ]. This is a great resource when determining whether or not a given dictionary is mainstream. How many sources to include really depends on the topic, specifically whether or not the term (such as humanism) has few changes vs. many changes in meaning. If someone adds three obscue dictionaries to support one meaning, it would probably fall under ]. If they add three different definitions that represent change over time, from three different sources that were popular in their era, it would be correct. Of course, another option is to find a reliable source that sumarizes an overview of this topic, meaning that dictionaries would not be needed. ] (]) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
:::@] " Of course, another option is to find a reliable source that sumarizes an overview of this topic, meaning that dictionaries would not be needed." That was the case before adding info based on dictionaries. ]] 10:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023 ==
Then there's this Gem.


{{edit semi-protected|Humanism|answered=yes}}
"Historical arguments fail to convince the public because historical research is often open to interpretation."
I would like to add the below text to the "Varieties of Humanism" section:


Secular Humanistic Judaism prioritizes human values, ethics, and cultural identity over religious dogma. It embraces a secular perspective, encouraging personal autonomy, inclusivity, while celebrating life's milestones with Jewish ritual. Aligned with social justice, it reflects a commitment to reason and individual responsibility, and defines Jewish identity as a rich cultural heritage rather than solely a religious affiliation.
The Public is not Overwhelmingly Humanist. I also Fail to see what "Convincing The Public" has to do with what Humanism is or its relationship to Religion. This, again, seems like a Promotional Advertisement for Humanism, not an Article about Humanism.


Source: <ref>https://sherwinwine.com/the-philosophy-of-humanistic-judaism-part-i/</ref> ] (]) 18:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
"For similar reasons, large parts of the population are unconvinced by arguments based on aesthetics (classical literature touches human souls more than holy scriptures)"

Isn't it Purely Subjective to say Classical Literature Touches Human Souls more than Holy Scriptures? Why is this Passed off as a Fact?

"or ethics (religion's history on slavery, gay rights, racism)."

Religion has No History. Religion is a Category, not this One thing that Actually Exists. And Honestly, Why is This Article saying Religion has a History of Slavery, Gay Rights, and Racism? How does that Explain the Relationship between Humeanism and Religion? It seems it is saying The Public rejects Religion due to its Support for Slavery,for its Opposition to Gay Rights, and for its History of Racism which is Polemic and incredibly Biased.

Especially given it makes No Effort to Counterbalance by either Noting "Religion" also has a History of Opposing Slavery, and how The Abolition Movement was Started by Christians, or how Racism was also Opposed by Various Religious Groups. Even Gay Rights have been Supported by Various Religious Groups, including Christian Ones. And this is Playing by the Imposed Rules of Viewing Humanism as "Not being Religious".

This Article Acts as if religion Promotes these bad Things and Humanism,which is the Opposite of Religion, rejects them.

Which also Ignores the History of Atheistic Philosophy, Including Humanism, and how Slavery and Racism have been Advocated for by Atheistic Groups that serve as Precursors to Modern Humanism. Eugenics, for example, was Promoted by Secularist and Humanist Organizations, and so was Scientific Racialist Theories. Gay Rights were even Opposed by them Historically.

The Article is simply Ignoring this. All of which can be discovered in the Articles on Eugenics ot looking up Articles on Eugenicists.

"Driven by the successes of science and technology, naturalistic arguments gain prominence in public opinion."

This is not true. Humanism is not Synonymous with Science, nor is Religion opposed to Science, and Naturalism is neither the Antithesis of Religion nor is it necessarily Tied to Scientific or technological Advancement.

"On the other hand, traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short."

This is not the Other Hand. Its the same Hand. And Why is Misplaced Pages saying Traditional Arguments for The Existence of God are falling apart? Is that a neutral Assessment?

"The ontological argument (roughly, that God exists because we can think of him)"

The Ontological Argument is not 'God exists because We can Think of Him'.

"lacks empirical evidence, and seemingly lacks understanding of reality."

This is what I mean. This is a Polemic, not an Article. It is an Effort to get the Reader to Reject the Ontological Argument and other Arguments for the Existence of God. That is not Explaining in a Neutral and Unbiased Manner Humanism and its relationship to Religion.

"The cosmological argument (God as the necessary first cause) also doesn't prove God's existence since other causes, or prime movers (physical entities, mass, energy, or something else) might have been the cause of the universe."

Is this Article about Humanism? or Why Theism is wrong and We should all be Atheists?

"The teleological argument (or argument from design) has been eliminated by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection."

Has it? Because the Last time I checked, One can Believe in evolution and Still Think The Argument By design if Valid. I'd also like to Cite the Existence of Creationists today. I am not a Creationist. I am however Annoyed by this Article's Favouratism.

"However, the failure of rational arguments to prove God's existence does not prove God's non-existence."

This is as Close to Unbiased as it gets. But the Attacks on Theism and the Dismissal of Arguments for God's Existence don;t show there to be a Failure of Rational Aruments, as they are Strawman version of them.

"A more popular cause of religious belief is personal experience—which is also problematic, because personal experiences are vague and subject to interpretation, and wishful thinking might also lead the way to desired conclusions."

There is No Basis for saying this is Popular or to Care. Popularity is not Really the Issue here. And just because Richard Normal or some other Humanist find something Problematic doesn't mean it is. This is an Opinion, not a Fact.

"While humanism was founded as antithetic to religious establishments,"

This is actually a Lie. When Humanism was Founded, it called itself a Religion. And set up its own Religious Establishments. The Humanist Manifesto 1933 makes this Very Clear and I have Quoted it.

Indeed, the Distinction between The Sacred and The Secular cannot be Maintained.

"religious views are not totally incompatible with humanism"

The Views of Humanism are Religious.

"Many deists, for example (such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltaire, Thomas Paine), had views resonating with a humanistic approach to life—since (for deists)"

Which is an Effort to Link them to Humanism. But, they were not Humanists. They Lived before Humanism came to be.

Also, Religious does not mean beleives a god Exists. That is Theism. Theism and religion are not Synonyms.

"God does not interfere with our daily life or give commands, they can espouse a humanistic perspective."

This does not Really mean Anything. its an effort to Win People over to Humanism by saying You can Believe in God if You Must, just do not believe in an Interventionist God. This is a Typical Secularist Argument, but it is Shallow. They call Theism a belief in an Interventionist God, and posit Deism as Distinct from Theism. Its not. Really Deism is a form of Theism.

"Also, many humanists have an anthropological interest in religions—how they evolved, matured, affect morality, and other features of the human condition.""

Which is not Relevant to explaining what Humanism is and its relationship to Religion.

This Section is as I said, a Polemic. it is not Unbiased.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>

Hi. Thanks for contribution. Pls sign yr comments. This section is covered in detail in books on humanism. Therefor it does have a place in the article. More, later today ot tomorrow.]] 05:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

:All the Books on Humanism are By Humanists and were Written to Convert You to Humanism. The Books By A C Grayling or Fowler or Davies are Purely Humanist Books Written to promote the Humanist Religion. And it is a Religion.
:I mean, Come on, am i supposed to Think even the Critics of Humanism Think Humanists Stand for Individual Eights and Freedom? Am I really supposed to Think that that Crack about how Xenophobia, Bigoty, and Animal Abuse being Present in Christianity was in Any Way Beneficial in explaining Humanism and is not just a Cheap Attack on Christians? Am i supposed to Pretend All Conservatives want to promote tradition for traditions Sake and Christian Values? These aren't Facts, and I simply do not Care what Humanist books said about the Critisism of Humanism. you did not go to Any Actual Critic of Humanism to get the Critisim of Humanism. you went to Humanist books to get the Criticism of Humanism.
:I am not going to pretend Humanism is Centuries old, and goes back to Greek Philosophy. Nor am i going to pretend The Religion of Humanist was not very Inflectional wen We;d not even Have Secular Humanism today if not for The Religion of Humanity. I am not going to pretend Kant was a Rationalist who supported Humanist Values. I am Certainly not going to pretend Individualism and Reason are Specifically Humanist Values so Anyone who Promoted them was a Humanist. Or that Christian Humanism began in The Middle Ages.
:I also won't Pretend Atheism is a Byproduct of Reason Embracing Science. Do You even Know how Insulting that is? You are basically slaying if You believe in God You are not Rational and Reject Science. And since You equate Religion to Theism, Anyone Who is Religious is Irrational. Do You Really Think that comes off as Nonbiased?
:We have to Define Religion the way YOU chose to define it. we have to Accept that Humanists are Rational. We have to Accept that Humanism is not a Religion. Ae have to Accept that Religion is Irrational. We have to pretend Humanism is all about Freedom and Individual Rights. Ae have to pretend Conservatives reject Individual Rights.
:None of that I am willing to do.
:This Article even says Immanuel Kant advocated for Rationalism. Kant Write A Critique of Pure Reason where He rejected Rationalism. And yet because a Humanist Book by Fowler or Davies said He Promoted Rationalism it has to Remain in this Article and Accepted as True?
:Rights is not an Article on Humanism, it is a Pamphlet Trying to get You to Convert to Humanism, and on the Side Promotes Hatred and rejection of Christianity and to a Degree Islam.
:This Article is a Bad Joke. You just Blindly Believe without Evidence whatever Humanist Books Tell You about Humanism, and even Derive the Criticism Section from Humanist Books.
:That is Horrifically Biased and One Sided.
:its like if The Article on Christianity used Exclusively Chick Tracts as a Source.

] (]) 08:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

:All books are RS. You raised a lot of issues. Can you point to a book you think it should be excluded? All those arguments, you say are irrelevant to humanism, they are included in those reliable books. ]] 11:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Content aside, there are many grammatical issues in the article which could do with being corrected. I would like to be able to edit for this reason. ] (]) 17:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

:Hi there @], you are more than welcome to edit the article. As you can see from the bottom of this page, I'm also doing a top-to-bottom copyedit right now. However, I welcome other contributions. ] ''(]·])'' 17:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You could also add "Humanistic Judaism": https://en.wikipedia.org/Humanistic_Judaism <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Thanks for your input, that is a valid example but I think we should include prominent examples when mentioned in RS discussing Humanism. ]] 17:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

== About a sentence ==
THIS IS SUBLITERATE NONSENSE: "Humanism is defined as a champion of human freedom and dignity" Not encyclopedic in tone to say the least.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>

:That part of the sentence is problematic but all of the sentence is not that bad. "Humanism is defined as a champion of human freedom and dignity but it is linked to oppression through it being a byproduct of modernity". It should be worded better though, I agree. ]] 05:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

:Fixed. ]] 21:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
::If you're writing such incoherent sentences to begin with, perhaps you need to find a more suitable hobby than editing Misplaced Pages. There are a few other grammatical problems in that paragraph alone. ] (]) 04:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Anyone can edit Misplaced Pages. Feel free to make a contribution yourself rather than whining about it on the talk page. ] (]) 19:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
::::Vandals are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages. This guy is not fluent in English. Look over his edits closely and you might understand where I'm coming from, they're practically vandalism if you try to read them closely, but they look okay at first glance so seem to be flying under the radar.
::::Here's , every single paragraph he's added in this edit has multiple grammatical errors that are glaring to any native speaker. I think it's also pretty unlikely he has a good understanding of the sources he's citing. ] (]) 21:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::Focus on the article please. ]] 05:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::I am sorry to be impolite but someone has to point out the elephant in the room, namely your habit of squatting on certain pages and repeatedly adding barely readable content. ] (]) 06:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::You do have a point that article needs improvement. So, I just listed it for goodwilled WP editors to help. . If you have a thing with me, you can go to the ] and tell them what you think the problem is. If you dont, and keep being ''impolite'', I will go to ANI and say you are harassing me, coz that is the way I feel. Also, I plan to continue editing WP. I like it alot and I have helped, to improve many articles. I am proud of my work here. ]] 14:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

== ]/] issues ==

So I came across this article as part of the GOCE drive, and it's gonna need ''significant'' work before it is ready for a copyedit or any sort of GAN. Basically, massive parts of the article are inappropriately written in wikivoice and I have concerns that the article skews extremely positive in its coverage of humanism. I appreciate the source work that @] has done here ( was the version before they began rewriting the article) but this reads like an essay, rather than a Misplaced Pages article:
*Lead
**{{tq|Modern day humanism stands for human freedom, autonomy, and progress.}} -- if this was a product, I'd immediately remove this as advertising
**{{tq|While very few people identify as humanists, many more rely on logic and science, not holy scriptures, to build up their worldview and make daily decisions about their lives}} -- inappropriate dig at religion
*Themes
**{{tq|Humanism is a naturalistic philosophy—it rejects gods, angels, immortal souls, and all supernatural phenomena. The universe is natural and can be studied by science.}} -- inappropriate wikivoice in second sentence
**{{tq|On the other hand, traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short. The ontological argument (roughly, that God exists because we can think of him) lacks empirical evidence, and seemingly lacks understanding of reality.}} -- wildly inappropriate wikivoice
**{{tq|The teleological argument (or argument from design) has been eliminated by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.}} -- see above
**{{tq|A more popular cause of religious belief is personal experience—which is also problematic, because personal experiences are vague and subject to interpretation, and wishful thinking might also lead the way to desired conclusions.}} -- see above
**{{tq|Humanism is at odds with conservatism, which relies on long‐standing traditions, and tries to preserve Christian values: elements such as xenophobia, bigotry, and animal cruelty are sometimes also part of Christian values.}} -- NPOV
*Geographies of humanism
**{{tq|In the Analects of Confucius, humanist features are apparent; respectfulness, reasonableness, kindness, and enthusiasm for learning.}} -- NPOV, inappropriate wikivoice
**{{tq|Black communities experiencing injustice leaned towards atheism in the 20th Century.}} -- ]
Basically, this article reads like a endorsement of humanism, rather than encyclopedic coverage of a philosophy. Every one of the sentences I just listed--and many more I didn't--needs to be ] and made clear that this is the humanist position, not an objective fact. I'm leaving this message so that Cinadon, who hopefully has most of these sources still, can work on attribution. If not though I would be removing significant chunks of this article wholesale. ] ''(]·])'' 23:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

:@] was largely correct above in their comments, despite the bad way they went about it. ] ''(]·])'' 23:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks {{u|Alyo}} for your input. I get that you do not like some parts, we can discuss them. Some issues that you point out, were already concerns of mine; since I am pro-humanism, I was aware that something like that might occur. So, most of those points you make, I feel are not a real issue per ]. I will try to address them separately, each one in a new sub-section. It might take a while. ]] 04:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what you think ]/] means, but it does not mean that the points I make {{tq|are not a real issue}}. Look at the example in the first bullet of that section: {{tq|an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."}} You and I most certainly agree that genocide is evil, but we still cannot say "genocide is evil" in wikivoice. Rather, we must attribute that opinion to someone. That's what needs to happen here. is an example of what I'm saying needs to happen throughout the entire article. Additionally, I hope you realize that I only pulled out a few examples to make my point. ] ''(]·])'' 14:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the reply. Well, I feel you do have a valid point but I am not sure to what extend you are right. It is plain wrong to make assertations on badness or goodness, as WikiVoice. If I have done so, I will attribute the claim. But in cases of widespread acceptance of a fact, (ie that traditional arguments arent popular any more) I wont. It is a different issue. ]] 14:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::For example, if A, B, and C (all RS) say that the sky is blue, (being blue is a matter of perception), then we can say that "The sky is blue", while "According to A, B and C, the sky is blue" would be inappropriate. ]] 14:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::It's not a different issue. You, probably because of your familiarity with humanist literature, believe that those statements are objective facts. They are not. I'm putting this very plainly--in almost every sentence of this article, and particularly those dealing with the values of humanism, the statements need to be attributed to the source. I mean heck, I don't even understand how you're making the argument that "traditional arguments aren't popular" when it seems very clear to me that the sources are only saying that ''in the context of academic/theological justifications for religion''. It is very obvious that at a more general level, traditional arguments for god are incredibly popular, based on the sheer number of people still in organized religion.
::::It also worries me that you're equating religious arguments with the sky being blue. If you can't see how those are different then I'm very worried about your ability to edit this article fairly in the future. As far as wikipedia is concerned, almost nothing in this article is an accepted fact at the same level of the sky being blue. ] ''(]·])'' 14:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I am also worried on you having an opinion without reading the sources and be so willingly to start deleting. Article should reflect sources and it does. Sources are reliable. There are plenty of authors stating that traditional arguments are failing. Instead of lecturing, why wont you find a couple of Sources (on the topic) that state otherwise? ]] 14:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|There are plenty of authors stating that traditional arguments are failing}} -- then say that those ''authors'' said that. You cannot just say their conclusion. I don't need to read the sources to know that the content in the article is inappropriate. Please, read ] and then explain to me how the policy--not the sources--allows you to say "traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short". ] ''(]·])'' 15:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Well, when lots of reliable authors saying ''p'' and no one is saying ''not-p'', then we can say ''p'' in wikivoice. ]] 15:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

=== Themes ===
====Naturalism====
*Naturalism. I have made this edit (<small>Humanism is a ]—it rejects gods, angels, immortal souls, and all supernatural phenomena: for humanism, the universe is natural and can be studied by science</small>, to watering the claim down. Hope now it is ok. ]] 06:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

====Traditional arguments====
Well, I am not quite sure were your objection is. Lets say it is in the first sentence. Traditional arguments of religion, are not popular these times.(That 's why they are called traditional). Per source: <small>I shall look first, very briefly, at the traditional classic arguments for the existence of a god. There is an enormous literature dealing with them, and what I have to say will be perfunctory and will not add anything new, but it is an integral part of my case for humanism and I need to say it. Many modern religious believers and many theologians tend to dismiss these traditional arguments. Of course, they say, no one now relies on them; it is accepted that religious belief cannot be based simply on rational argument, and has to be understood in quite different terms.</small> Per source, p26, cited. (Norman, On Humanism). As far as I remember, reading elsewhere (''The Cambridge Companion on Atheism''), theistic arguments have moved. So I do think, the statement in the article reflects RS. Maybe should be reworded? What about this --->Traditional arguments are...not convincing(?)- Please feel free to make suggestions (of course you are more than welcomed to edit the article directly). ]] 07:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
*Here, prof ], at ''Humanism, a very short introduction'' by ] , writes something similar (albeit, not the same). It is the Conclusion at Chapter 2 "Arguments for the existence of God". "<small>Conclusion In this chapter, we have looked at examples of two kinds of argument widely considered to provide belief in God with a fair degree of rational support: cosmological arguments and arguments from design. On closer examination, the arguments examined turned out to support, at the very most, only the claim that there exists some sort of intelligence, or perhaps a necessarily-existing-something-or-other, behind the universe (and I believe we have seen good reason to suppose they fail to achieve even this much). It is, in each case, on the basis of the argument presented, a huge and unjustified further leap to the conclusion that this intelligence is, say, the God of traditional monotheism"</small> ]] 10:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
*There it is, ''The Cambridge Companion to Atheism'' by ], Publisher:] , there is the chapter titled 5 - The Failure of Classical Theistic Arguments, authored by Richard M. Gale . You can have a look what it says or how it goes on. In any case, I think the first sentence is supported strongly by bibliography but I wouldnt mind toning it down somehow. As I said earlier, feel free to make suggestions or edit the article. ]] 10:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
{{od}} Before I start editing the article and wholesale deleting passages because I don't have access to sources, I'm trying to help you understand what the issue is. {{tq|On the other hand, traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short}} is a statement of fact made in wikivoice. That's not acceptable. However, if you say {{tq|Influential humanists such as ] and ] argue that traditional arguments for the existence of God fall short<sup></sup>}}, that's completely fine. Do you see the difference? ] ''(]·])'' 14:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

:I hope you wont start deleting the article, without having knowledge of the sources. How can anyone do such a thing? In any case, I can provide you with the source, and edit the article as you wish- I wont mind. Now on your suggestion, we shouldnt make attribution if there is general acceptance of a statement, but I wont mind your wording, even though I prefer mine. Traditional arguments have failed, but there are ...lets say new ones (that are more complex tbh). Final point: Please ask for sources, and you shall have them. Then edit. Dont delete just because it doesnt sound right. ]] 14:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::I'm going to be honest, I don't have the time to read dozens of books and articles about humanism in order to double-check your additions. I'm hoping you will do that, both as someone who is clearly passionate about the topic and also has the sources. If not, I would have to advocate for a return of the page to , before you started editing. Again, all I'm asking is that the statements about the values of humanism be attributed to the author. If that just means for now you saying "According to X" at the beginning of each sentence, that would be a great start. ] ''(]·])'' 14:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Look, you do not have time to read the sources but you want to backroll the entire article? That doesnt sound correct. ]] 14:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::The first option takes days/weeks, the other takes two seconds. Yes, that's correct. ] ''(]·])'' 15:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::The second option is totally out of discussion. The previous article had many problems. It sounds as I threat: if you do not bow to what I say, I will wipe out the entire work you have done. This version is much better (it needs copy/editing), maybe needs attribution in some points, and I will be happy to work with you to fix it. But in order to work on this issue, you have to read the sources. ]] 15:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Then please start attributing the claims. You added them--you have the burden to make sure they are correct and follow wikipedia policy. Otherwise I have no other choice but to remove some of your additions. I simply don't have the time to read ]. ] ''(]·])'' 15:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, I will but it might take some time. Give me a week. Here is a deal: If I do a good job, agree to do the copy/editing? If you do not like it, roll it back. ]] 15:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Or two weeks. ]] 15:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Or we can do it section by section. That would be better. ]] 15:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course, I'm happy to wait. I just want to make sure you understand what the issue is. ] ''(]·])'' 15:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::I get what your issue is, I just do not agree entirly on your perspective. I think we can employ wikivoice making statements in a more liberal way than you say/want (see my arguments above). In any case, I will edit the article having in mind your objection(s). I think the article will benefit from your critical stance. Lets see. ]] 15:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::If you want a second (third?) opinion, you're welcome to ask at ]. ] ''(]·])'' 15:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Maybe I will do it later, but to tell you the truth, since we have reached an agreement on how to go forward, since I have so much work to do, and since noticeboards are for users who cant find a solution at the talk page of the article, I hesitate. ]] 15:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

== Towards a new version ==

*{{ping|Alyo}}, Are you ok with the section of Etymology and definition? ]] 20:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

*Just completed History section. Any comments? ]] 04:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
**I think your edits are good :) I haven't done a full read but I also think that the history section, because it's more descriptive/objective, should require less changes than some of the other sections. ] ''(]·])'' 04:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Bravo to Cinadon36 for all of their work here. I came to the page looking (with little optimism) for a section on Chinese philosophy and was happy to find it. The content on Confucianism seems all correct and to the point, and it is nice that Mencius is mentioned, but its worth looking into ] in regards to Humanism as well. I've made some minor corrections; ''junzi'' for instance is not really a quality someone can obtain but a role they can assume, almost like become a "saint" or "sage", though it is often over-simplified and translated as "gentleman". The second paragraph of the East Asia section is a little strange, given that both points seem to have already been made. On this topic though, it seems like a lost opportunity to not expand on Buddhism, given its central relevance throughout history and the contemporary world. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 08:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks {{re|Aza24}} for your nice words and your edits. I am going through the article for one more time and I will try to address the issues you raise regarding East Asia section and Buddhism. I will let you know (at your talk page) so you can check for any inaccuracies etc. ]] 11:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


*Variates of humanism, fixed. ]] 13:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

*Philosophy. {{re|Alyo}}. This section might be a little controversial and I would like your input. At the previous version, while all statements were based on RS, some readers might find it as an advertisment. Having in mind the essay ], I decided to transfer the text from the section criticism this section, since criticism was mostly philosophical I hope that fixes it. Your thoughts please. ]] 18:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*:Hmm, I could see both sides. On the one hand, I see your point about the philosophy section being too positive. On the other hand, I would think that humanism was a big enough topic in philosophy to have it's own dedicated "criticism" section, sort of like ], ], ], or ]. The only thing that would sway me towards having it in its own section would be that then the criticism section could be expanded beyond just philosophical criticisms, perhaps to include more social concerns and invite other editors to expand the article in other ways? But I'm also less familiar with the available material than you are--what do you think? ] ''(]·])'' 20:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*::In a nutshell: I will try to move parts of the philosophical criticism to other parts of the article, as I move forward. Longer version: Thanks for the interesting examples of other articles. I am well aware of many more cases where a "criticism" section is added to the article. I am also perplexed on this issue. But I lean towards not having a section on criticism. I think, having criticism spread through the article facilitates comprehending the narrative better. Almost all books on humanism discuss "pro-humanism" and "anti-humanism" arguments/views in various chapters. Albeit, the best book (in my humble opinion), Penn's ''The Oxford Handbook of Humanism'' (2019) has a dedicated chapter on criticism. Nevertheless, it also discusses criticism of humanism in other chapters. So, I am thinking: "follow the sources". Having said all these, I acknowledge that the current version of the article is somewhere in the middle ground. The section on criticism has become a subsection. Not much of a change, is it? Anyway, my intention is to move parts of the criticism, where appropriate to other sections. I will see the end result and revisit this issue. ]] 21:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

*Humanism and morality, re-written. . Two lines of criticism are in place, along with their responses. ]] 07:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

*Humanism and religion- re-written. . The reason of doing so, I thought the previous version was not explaining the (rather hostile) relation too well. I feel now it is better. I relied heavily on Oxf Handbook of humanism. All sentences but the first one, are attributed. ]] 18:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
*Humanism and the meaning of life, I leave it as it stands. ]] 19:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
*Humanism and politics, done. ]] 09:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*On African American abandoning theism, claim attributed.
*Lead. Reinserted modified sentence but then removed a part cos it is prob. undue
*On Confucius, attributed.

Your comments {{ping|Alyo}} please.]] 18:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:I'm not following every single edit, but what I've seen seems to consistently be good improvements. ] ''(]·])'' 18:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

::{{re|Alyo}} Would you then reconsider the {{tl|Essay-like}} template? ]] 12:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Let me know when you've finished your updates, and I'll do another full read-through and start my own edits. ] ''(]·])'' 13:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
::::{{re|Alyo}}, I am done, the ball is in your hands now. If you need anything (sources, chat or whatever), let me know. ]] 14:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Great, I'll look at it between now and this weekend. And yes, I'm sure that I'll ask for some source excerpts. ] ''(]·])'' 14:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

== Copyedits by section ==

===Etymology and definition===
*The sentence "Defining humanism reveals the controversy surrounding humanism" is a little unclear--what controversy? Can you rephrase what this sentence is trying to convey, and we can rewrite it? Is the controversy just that there's no clear accepted definition of humanism?
*I removed the last line of the Hook definition because it's clunky, but let me know if you think that's important and we can re-add it, although it may need to rephrase the sentence so it flows better.
] ''(]·])'' 13:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

:Yes {{re|Alyo}}, there is not a consensus on the definition- but you are right, "controversy" is probable an overstatement. No, Hook's definition is not that important. ]] 03:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::@] Do you want to rephrase it to say something else about there not being consensus on the definition? ] ''(]·])'' 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Ok, sure, I will, but maybe on Monday.]] 15:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No rush! I created this section so that we can work on different things at different times. ] ''(]·])'' 15:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Ok, here it is how I have re-worded the specific sentence. ]] 09:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

===]===
*I added some cite tags to this section, but on the whole I would just say to make sure that the ''sources'' say that, for example, Protagoras was making proto-humanist statements, or that there's a direct line of connection between Socrates and later humanism. The quotes themselves don't need citations, but this article is making an argument that they represent early humanist thought, or at least that there's a connection between these quotes and later humanism--and ''that'' needs a citation. If a source doesn't say that Epicurus or eudaimonia is connected to humanism, then why is it mentioned at all, right? So just make sure those sources are doing that connection. ] ''(]·])'' 16:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

:Hi {{re|Alyo}}, thanks for your edits and comments. Sometimes, I do not add a ref at the end of every sentence, I add it at the the end of the next sentence or at the end of a paragraph. I remember reading ''that'' connection somewhere, I am sure I will find it. Almost all RS on humanism treat Protagoras in the same fashion. I will go slow, it might take me a week or so. ]] 08:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::That's exactly what I assumed you were doing--in general that's ok, but since so many of your sources are offline and the reviewer can't immediately check them, you will help yourself a lot in a future GAR if you add more footnotes. The other factor here is that some of these sentences are very ''big'' in what ideas they convey. For example {{tqq|Pre-Socratic philosophers were the first Western philosophers to attempt to explain the world in terms of human reason and natural law without relying on myth, tradition, or religion}} seems true as I read the section and I'm sure is backed up by the book, but it's also a very notable statement about one group of philosophers being the ''first'' to explain the world a certain way--I think that's important enough that we should have a footnote for it. ] ''(]·])'' 15:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I am not keen on adding footnotes. It is like hiding text in small corners. Also it aesthetically, they are somehow problematic. I understand though, this is a matter of taste. In any case, if it is going to help with GAR, I will do it. About Pre-socratics now, it is a widely accepted claim, I am sure there is plenty of evidence but what exactly should I add? as a |ps= or ? And should I just add the text from the book I read +/- a very short comment? ]] 10:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Sorry, when I say footnotes I just use that as a synonym for a citations--I don't mean an explanatory footnote with text. If you don't want to add text in footnotes I'm completely fine with that. Unless you are making very extreme claims, most reviewers will assume good faith about you inserting a citation, and they will trust you that it backs up the sentence. ] ''(]·])'' 16:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::I had already prepared this edit, so tell me what you think. ]] 18:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::I think that's great, but yes, I apologize for not being more clear--I didn't mean that you needed to type up content from each source into a footnote. Just the "Law 2011" or "Curd 2020" might be sufficient. ] ''(]·])'' 22:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::No problem. ]] 06:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The connection of the ancient greek thought and contemporary humanism, is well established in various RS. For example,
*Corlis Lamont (1997)- p68 The Humanist viewpoint permeated much of Greek culture during the Periclean Age
*AC Grayling, Handbook of Humanism (2015) p87: "Despite the fact that the word ‘humanism’ has a short history, relatively speaking, its contemporary meaning relates it to the ethical tradition begun in classical antiquity".
*Soffer 550:<small>Heidegger, Humanism, and the Destruction of History, Author(s): Gail Soffer Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Mar., 1996), pp. 547-576</small> "Yet in the first instance, for Heidegger "humanism" retains its wholly traditional his torical reference: the movement to retrieve the literary and artistic heritage of ancient Greece and Rome, and to establish study of the classics as an educative ideal, a movement begun in the Renaissance and still effective in Heidegger's own day in, for example, the institu tion of the humanistic Gymnasium."
*J.Brent Crosson, The Oxford Handbook of Humanism: "The story of Humanism is also told as an insular European story of the reawakening of the knowledge of Ancient Greece"
*Stephen Law: "But perhaps the most important Ancient Greek philosopher, from the point of view of humanism, is Epicurus (341–271 BC)" Law dedicates 6 pages in discussing classical thought in History Section of ''humanism A Very Short Introduction''.

The above list is not a complete. Other authors discuss specific preSocratic (mostly Protagoras) or classical philosophers. ]] 10:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

:Thinking about it over the weekend, maybe we should add a phrase or a sentence on this. It seems more important that the rest of the text! :) ]] 08:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
::How about adding this sentence {{re|Alyo}}? "It is a widespread view among scholars that the humanistic feutures of ancient Greek thought are the roots of humanism two thousand years later." What do you think? ]] 20:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
:::So the only thing here is that if you're going to have the word "widespread", you need to have a source that actually says "this is a widespread view". It's not enough to just have multiple scholarly sources that draw that conclusion, because in theory all the other sources could say something different. However, you could also say "it's a repeated view" or "many scholars hold the view" or something similar, and then just cite the various authors you have? ] ''(]·])'' 21:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
::::TBH, initially I thought the statement is strong enough to be added as a WP VOICE per ] I have never met/read anyone who claims otherwise. It is not a debatable issue. I didn't used a WP VOICE coz, it is still a view, not a fact. (But someone could argue: A shared opinion by many scientists, should be treated as a fact) In any case, I am not opposing your suggestion, I have changed the word "widespread" to "repeated" which I think is quite ok, I am happy with it. ]] 08:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Do you mean the part about "Avoid stating facts as opinions"? I understand how you can read that, but you need to look at the overall message of that section and compare how little of that policy talks about stating facts without attribution (three sentences) versus the general need to be very careful with any statement and make sure it's correctly attributed (everything else). Based on my experience, while that sentence ''may'' be fine for general editing, I think you're overestimating how much credit you'll get with YESPOV at peer review processes where everything's held to a higher standard, especially for this sort of general knowledge article. You should assume that if a statement requires any level of expertise to "know", then it's not as obvious as YESPOV is meant for. I'm a professional with multiple degrees--if I don't know it, then I don't think it rises to the sort of "sky is blue" level. On the other hand, if it's so truly that obvious to people in that profession, then hopefully it's at least easy to verify in some way? But yes I think "repeated" or even "common" is perfectly fine based on this sourcing. ] ''(]·])'' 16:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Alyo}} My take is that if there is a consensus among all experts of a field, then I take a YESPOV approach while editing WP. If there is consensus minus one expert, then it is not YESPOV. Anyway, your suggestion was a nice solution, thanks again. ]] 06:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

===Renaissance===
* {{tqq|One of the first centers of the Greek literature revival was Padua, where Lovato Lovati and others studied ancient texts and wrote new literary works. Other centers were Verona, Naples, and Avignon.}} -- Can you expand these sentences in a way that makes the connection to humanism more clear? Why is it important to mention these places?
::Hmmm, it seems you are right, it seems a triviality and since section is already larger than others, I removed it. . ]] 17:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
* {{tqq|who rediscovered, translated and popularized ancient texts}} -- which one did that, just Bruni?
::Yes, fixed
* {{tqq|Religion was not untouched with the increased interest of humanistic paideia, Pope Nicholas V initiated the translation of Hebrew and Greek biblical and other texts to Latin.}} -- can you clarify this sentence? Is the argument that the translation of biblical texts was a humanist move? If so, how?
::The argument is that translation of biblical and other religious texts was a move influenced by humanism. Source says:<blockquote>...To give another set of examples from a different cultural sector, Humanism helped to transform the religious situation in the hundred years before the Reformation. Pope Nicholas V (1447–1455) is a key figure here. He had the plan to transfer into Latin the whole Greek classical and patristic heritage. His favorite humanist, Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459) made a new translation of the New Testament from the Greek and the Psalms from the Hebrew. George of Trebizond translated Eusebius of Caesarea, John Chrysostomus, and Cyril of Alexandria. Before and after Nicholas’ pontificate, other humanists translated Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzenus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Origen. These translations started to be printed in the later fifteenth century...</blockquote>
::I will see how I can make it more clear, or may I will just add the quote at footnotes. ]] 06:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
:::This is really interesting. I've adjusted that sentence --let me know if it conveys what you want to convey. ] ''(]·])'' 21:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
::::That s definitely an improvement, thanks! ]] 07:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
* Once you clarify the sentence {{tqq|Humanists succeeded in setting the principles of education}}, that will also help me to better phrase the ideas in the sentence {{tqq|Parallel with advances in education, humanists in renaissance made progress in other fields, as in philosophy, mathematics and religion.}} ] ''(]·])'' 18:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
*:Maybe needs rewording. Here is the text of the source: <blockquote>Humanism immensely enriched, if not transformed, disciplines outside the studia humanitatis, as humanists themselves combined different expertise or, alternatively, non-humanists made use of what they received from humanists.</blockquote> And it goes on, explaining advances in maths, philosophy and religion, by various humanists. ]] 19:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
*::how does it look? ]] 20:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Humanism|answered=yes}}
change


:Source fails ]. ]] 18:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Contemporary humanist organizations work under the umbrella of ].


:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The content you provided has a promotional tone which goes against a ] and, as ] said, the source you provided can't be considered reliable. ] (] • ]) 19:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
to


{{tref}}
Contemporary humanist organizations work under the umbrella of ]. ] (]) 16:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


== Lede ==
:I had the same question when reading that section. @], which did you mean to say? ] ''(]·])'' 16:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


Cinadon, can you help me understand this part of the lede. It says the meaning of humanism has changed I've read the paragraph a few times and I don't quite understand - I think it is referring to the current meaning of humanism, and the modern organizations dedicated to humanism, have moved away from its original context. Humanism and the very idea of a human agency were, of course, a huge deal in the Renaissance, and this meaning is still the same through the Age of Enlightenment. The first sentence uses this definition, so the newer meaning - is it postmodern or something? I have only done brief reading on this, you have obviously done a lot more reading about this. Do you have any input? ] (]) 03:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks {{re|David-NL-1978}}, you are right, thanks for noting. Fixed. . ]] 18:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


:Hi @]. This is a valid point you are raising. Humanism has held varying meanings throughout history, as evident in the History section. However, I found it challenging to elaborate on these differences in the lede, which I prefer to keep concise and brief. So, the new meaning can be deduct by this sentence: "''Starting in the 20th century, humanist movements are typically non-religious and aligned with secularism. Most frequently, humanism refers to a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world''". If you have a better suggestion, pls drop it! I acknowledge the issue you are pointing to! ]] 09:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
== Removal of <nowiki>{{Essay-like|date=October 2022}}</nowiki> ==


:The lede is ok, but could be better. Currently, it doesn't adequately reflect the topics that are covered in the article below. With regard to the meaning of the term changing, I agree it could do with more explanation. Also, the opening sentence didn't sound right (and was unsourced) which I've now replaced.] (]) 11:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I am thinking of removing it. Some issues raised have been resolved as far as I can tell. {{ping|Alyo}} would you be ok with that? ]] 08:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
::@] Thank you for your input. I have reviewed your edit (), and I have a couple of comments. Firstly, it appears that this edit attributes the authority to define humanism primarily to humanists.international. While they certainly have influence in the field, it's important to note that humanism encompasses a broader range of perspectives and interpretations. Therefore, it might be more appropriate to provide a more inclusive definition in the lead section, avoiding potential bias and over-specification as outlined in ].
:::I'm aware that humanism has many definitions and precisely for that reason the IHEU's "minimum statement" seems an appropriate place to start. In fact, your words, "(It) encompasses a broader range of perspectives and interpretations" could be the next sentence. :-) ] (]) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
::Secondly, the lede should accurately reflect the content of the article without the need for references in the lede itself. If citations are necessary, they should be in sfn style within the main body of the article.
:::As it says in the MoS, "''The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article''. In my view, given that humanism is indeed complex and controversial, a few references would seem necessary and should help overall. ] (]) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
::Collaborative efforts involving multiple editors can lead to further improvements, ensuring a balanced and comprehensive representation of the topic ]] 13:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree. ] (]) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
:This article is godawful and it has been for years. That editor is not fluent in English and doesn't understand the topics he babbles about. ] (]) 10:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:17, 13 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Humanism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
Good articlesHumanism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 23, 2023. (Reviewed version).
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAtheism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Be consistent

  • Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
  • Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
  • Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Articles to improve

Create

  • Articles on notable atheists


Expand

Immediate attention

  • State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
  • False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
  • Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
  • Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Epistemology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Epistemology

New addition, undue weight?

  • Addition
  • revert
  • re-revert

Hi @Manbooferie:, I believe that the information you have added does not warrant inclusion as it appears to violate Misplaced Pages's policy on undue weight (WP:UNDUE). I can not see how this addition contributes to a deeper understanding of the concept of Humanism. It seems indicative of being undue, particularly because the absence of contemporary secondary reliable sources on humanism, discussing this issue.

I kindly request that you review the guidelines outlined in the Misplaced Pages:Consensus policy. I look forward to your response, Cinadon36 12:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cinadon36
I appreciate your comment but I genuinely feel it's an important, if minor, addition. Note, the Harper Etymology reference that is cited gives "the (mere) humanity of Christ" as one of the origins of the word. This hadn't been addressed under the Etymology section, but now it is. Manbooferie (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
With regard specifically to etymology, I would also add that The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (currently not cited in the article), gives the following origins:
"humanism. belief in the mere human nature of Christ XIX (Coleridge 1812); devotion to human interests or the humanities (c. 1830); after hu.man.ist one devoted to the humanities XVI...". As I recall, Coleridge's use of the term is actually another reference back to Priestley. Manbooferie (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Manbooferie I have noticed that no secondary source links the etymology of the world to Howes. Also, the second reference (Harper) does not back the claim of the sentence. Hopefully, other editors will jump in to give their input. Cinadon36 13:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Etymology

Hi @Manbooferie:, I feel that this edit too, just adds trivial info to the article. Etymology does not mean "history of usage". You are citing a primary source, a book published more than three centuries ago. This looks to me as Original Research. Maybe I am wrong and suffering from "article ownership". I dont know. So, if you insist on the edit, I will request a comment from another editor or add a note at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard , whatever you wish. Maybe other editors can help us navigate this.Cinadon36 15:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cinadon36. Again, I disagree that it's trivial. As for citing a book published more than three centuries ago, what's the problem? The whole article is about tracing humanism back to the Greeks. As for OR, Johnson's book is cited by Davies (1997): "According to Johnson's dictionary, a humanist is a grammarian; a philologer'... " (p. 3), to which I added it was derived from the French word. Hardly deep research. As you say, maybe a bit of 'article ownership' behaviour here. I feel my edit is relevant, but consult another editor if you must. Manbooferie (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Johnson's dictionary is also mentioned by Copson in his "What is Humanism?" Handbook chapter (Note 2). Manbooferie (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, I really don't think we need a full RfC for one single line. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Alyo, Agree. Maybe WP:3O (third opinion) would be better. Cinadon36 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
That would make more sense, I agree. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
So @Manbooferie, Johnson's Dictionary is used as a footnote in a long chapter of a long book. Here, at WP, we have to summarize all these chapters, not add bites from here and there. This is what I am trying to convey. Your addition is not a summary. Actually, Copson's book uses less words than WP's article to explain the same thing. Here is note2 pg 28, for those interested: "In Samuel Johnson’s dictionary of 1755, for example, ‘humanist’ was defined narrowly as, ‘a philologer; a grammarian’. (Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language )" Cinadon36 16:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
Because the article just achieved GA status, the standard for additions to it is higher than usual. That being said, entomology includes not just a word's origin but also how the word's meaning has changed over time. Citing dictionaries from various times is certainly a reasonable approach to documenting changes to a word's definition. While it would be fantastic to find a single source that discusses this topic, there is nothing wrong with using several sources. I do not consider this approach to be original research nor do I find these to be primary sources. I am by no means an expert on this topic and found the text discussing the word's change in usage over time to be helpful information and not trivial. However, there does seem to be some question about the connection of the content to the cited sources and, perhaps, a suggestion of an alternative source and content. This matter is somewhat beyond the scope of your third opinion request, but I will dig deeper if that would be helpful. A copy edit of the new content might also make it flow better with the rest of the article. Rublamb (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your input @Rublamb, I really appreciate it. I know it is not an easy job. Just a few points, dictionaries are per definition tertiary sources, when used as a source of knowledge. But in this case, it was not used in such a manner. It was used as a historical fact. Anyways, I think there are 100s of dictionaries around the world, some of them being very old. Should we include them all? What is our criterion? Again, thanks for jumping in. Cinadon36 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Good questions. What kind of dictionariy to use depends on whether the topic is specialized or general, as well as whether you are reviewing the lexicon of a term used by the general public, scholars, or want a mixture of both..Another consideration is English dictionaries vs. those of other language--again the topic dictates what is most appropriate. Each editor has the authority to use their best judgement in selecting a source. As long as ithe selcted source meets Misplaced Pages standard for reliability, it is fine to use. When writing an historical overview, a dictionary or encyclopedia that was popular when it was published reflects contemporary viewpoint and/or helped shape a word's meaning in its era--thus, it is correct to say that a word was defined as xyz in the 19th century when using a 19th century source (although it is always best to mention the name of the dictionary in the text). Misplaced Pages has articles about the most common ad most popular dictionaries; many can easily be found through Category:English dictionaries. This is a great resource when determining whether or not a given dictionary is mainstream. How many sources to include really depends on the topic, specifically whether or not the term (such as humanism) has few changes vs. many changes in meaning. If someone adds three obscue dictionaries to support one meaning, it would probably fall under undue weight. If they add three different definitions that represent change over time, from three different sources that were popular in their era, it would be correct. Of course, another option is to find a reliable source that sumarizes an overview of this topic, meaning that dictionaries would not be needed. Rublamb (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
@Rublamb " Of course, another option is to find a reliable source that sumarizes an overview of this topic, meaning that dictionaries would not be needed." That was the case before adding info based on dictionaries. Cinadon36 10:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add the below text to the "Varieties of Humanism" section:

Secular Humanistic Judaism prioritizes human values, ethics, and cultural identity over religious dogma. It embraces a secular perspective, encouraging personal autonomy, inclusivity, while celebrating life's milestones with Jewish ritual. Aligned with social justice, it reflects a commitment to reason and individual responsibility, and defines Jewish identity as a rich cultural heritage rather than solely a religious affiliation.

Source: Michaelwitkin (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Source fails WP:RS. Cinadon36 18:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: The content you provided has a promotional tone which goes against a neutral-style policy and, as Cinadon36 said, the source you provided can't be considered reliable. Deltaspace (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. https://sherwinwine.com/the-philosophy-of-humanistic-judaism-part-i/

Lede

Cinadon, can you help me understand this part of the lede. It says the meaning of humanism has changed I've read the paragraph a few times and I don't quite understand - I think it is referring to the current meaning of humanism, and the modern organizations dedicated to humanism, have moved away from its original context. Humanism and the very idea of a human agency were, of course, a huge deal in the Renaissance, and this meaning is still the same through the Age of Enlightenment. The first sentence uses this definition, so the newer meaning - is it postmodern or something? I have only done brief reading on this, you have obviously done a lot more reading about this. Do you have any input? Ben Azura (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ben Azura. This is a valid point you are raising. Humanism has held varying meanings throughout history, as evident in the History section. However, I found it challenging to elaborate on these differences in the lede, which I prefer to keep concise and brief. So, the new meaning can be deduct by this sentence: "Starting in the 20th century, humanist movements are typically non-religious and aligned with secularism. Most frequently, humanism refers to a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world". If you have a better suggestion, pls drop it! I acknowledge the issue you are pointing to! Cinadon36 09:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The lede is ok, but could be better. Currently, it doesn't adequately reflect the topics that are covered in the article below. With regard to the meaning of the term changing, I agree it could do with more explanation. Also, the opening sentence didn't sound right (and was unsourced) which I've now replaced.Manbooferie (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Manbooferie Thank you for your input. I have reviewed your edit (), and I have a couple of comments. Firstly, it appears that this edit attributes the authority to define humanism primarily to humanists.international. While they certainly have influence in the field, it's important to note that humanism encompasses a broader range of perspectives and interpretations. Therefore, it might be more appropriate to provide a more inclusive definition in the lead section, avoiding potential bias and over-specification as outlined in MOS:LEADREL.
I'm aware that humanism has many definitions and precisely for that reason the IHEU's "minimum statement" seems an appropriate place to start. In fact, your words, "(It) encompasses a broader range of perspectives and interpretations" could be the next sentence. :-) Manbooferie (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Secondly, the lede should accurately reflect the content of the article without the need for references in the lede itself. If citations are necessary, they should be in sfn style within the main body of the article.
As it says in the MoS, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. In my view, given that humanism is indeed complex and controversial, a few references would seem necessary and should help overall. Manbooferie (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Collaborative efforts involving multiple editors can lead to further improvements, ensuring a balanced and comprehensive representation of the topic Cinadon36 13:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Manbooferie (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is godawful and it has been for years. That editor is not fluent in English and doesn't understand the topics he babbles about. Palm Puree (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: