Misplaced Pages

Talk:Humanism

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Manbooferie (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 6 January 2024 (Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:18, 6 January 2024 by Manbooferie (talk | contribs) (Comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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

A few issues/suggestions

I don't think I have sufficient time or knowledge of Misplaced Pages to serve as GA reviewer, but I saw the nomination and gave the article a read-through. Mostly it looks very good. Here, however, are a few points for possible improvements:

  1. The History section seems quite admirably to cover a lot of ground in a relatively small amount of space. But I was surprised to see Erasmus get only one sentence. The article Wikilinks out, but isn't there something more to say in the main article about the "Prince of the Humanists"? He is usually the first figure I think of when I see a reference to humanism.
  2. Is there some non-obnoxious way to more often remind the reader that the humanism under discussion for most of the article is that of the 20th century on? (Or else change the title of the article, which I do not imagine editors want to do.)
  3. The section on the meaning of life implies Nietzsche is a humanist, but then he is discussed as an antihumanist (which I think is correct). This apparent contradiction should be addressed.
  4. The discussion of the Euthyphro does not make sense to me. The conclusion that "relativism is invited if God creates goodness" seems exactly the opposite of what would follow. I'm sure the dialogue is relevant to humanistic concerns, but the discussion here is not clear.
  5. The Antihumanism section could be much stronger without being much longer. My own sympathies are with humanism, but it would be worth clarifying that plenty of people reject humanism on admirably moral grounds. Just off-hand, I could direct editors to Michael E. Zimmerman's contribution to the Camb. Comp. to Heidegger, in which he links H.'s antihumanism to deep ecology. The argument might be lousy, but the intention is admirable. There are also other, less radical arguments for rejecting humanism in view of, for instance, findings about animal sentience.
  6. This might be overly specific to my own interests, but I would have liked even just a few more sentences explaining the way that Kant "provided the modern philosophical basis of the humanist narrative." Kant explicitly refuses to ground rationality, autonomy, etc. in human nature. It's not hard to see the appeal many of his ideas would have to humanists, but he himself would have rejected such an appropriation. So I'm just curious about how that played out.

Best wishes with the GA nomination —

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA @Cinadon36 :) Alyo (chat·edits) 21:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Alyo, couldnt have done this without your assistance! Cinadon36 21:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @PatrickJWelsh:, I have just seen your comment. I am so sorry I missed it. I was super busy in April. To address your points: (1) I tried to keep history section in a same proportion history covers most RS sources I had read- mostly the Oxford Handbook. Generally, because discussing History is easier than dealing with abstract meanings, I believe that most WP articles are overloaded with historical facts or even trivia. (2) I get your concern, it was mine concern as well. But almost all RS on the topic, use the word Humanism to address the contemporary movement, so I follow their lead. (3)As I get it, Nietzsche's ideas contributed to the development of both humanism and antihumanism; I wouldn't dare to put a label to Nietzsche. (4)The sentence is rephrased now (is it better?), but as I see it, if God creates goodness, it means that goodness is subjective to the will/opinion of God. Therefor, Goodness does not exist independently, which reflects moral absolutism.(5)If you have available RS on humanism, discussing these issues, pls do not hesitate to add/remove/edit the section. (6) I tried to avoid naming Kant as a humanist. I just wanted to highlight his influence on humanism. While I also do find discussing Kant interesting, I believe that it would be UNDUE WEIGHT to discuss him further. But as in 5. if you have the will and RS to improve the section, you are more than welcomed! Cinadon36 21:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Cinadon36,
No worries about missing my note. The GA nomination seems to have gone just fine without my suggestions, so congrats on that!
Just briefly to a few of your responses:
1) I would argue that (with some special exceptions) you do not understand a concept or thing until you understand its history. That said, however, you are certainly right that many Misplaced Pages articles are loaded with factually correct information that contributes nothing to an understanding their topic. And, anyway, I'm not here to start a philosophical argument.
4) I did not adequately explain my objection to your invocation of the Euthyphro. The problem is that the argument, as best I can make out, only works on the anthropomorphic Ancient Greek conception of the gods, who are famously petty and constantly disagree among themselves. In my anecdotal experience, Ivan's position is much more common among Christians today (and probably among many other monotheistic believers as well). According to Thomas Aquinas, for instance, God is the eternal law upon which divine, natural, and (our own imperfect) positive law depend. And it's not just Thomists who are today penning books and op-eds (for good university presses and mainstream legacy media, I must add) diagnosing every sort of social ill as a consequence of the decline of religion. There are obviously problems with their own premises (among other things, very likely), but I do not believe they are captured by the Euthyphro. So, I guess I would just advise against anyone invoking this in the context of a debate. But I don't think there's a problem with it being in the article. My only objection would be that you don't link out to any of the public-domain translations available online. That far down in a humanism article, you're probably just preaching to the choir, but I would still be inviting readers to check out the dialogue for themselves.
5 & 6) I will try keep this article in mind if I come across anything that might be a constructive contribution with respect to either of these points. Developing them could further strengthen the article, but I don't believe it strictly needs them. (My point about Kant, in particular, is probably endnote material that the article does not really need.)
In all events, thanks for all your hard work improving an article on such a dauntingly large and important topic!
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
1-I 've met this argument many times. I am kind of agnostic, both sides have good points. I dont know. I would welcome any bite of historical knowledge that contribute to better understanding today's essence of humanism.
4-Hm, I believe external links shouldn't be used within the text of article, per WP:EL, but maybe we can add this Euthyphro by Plato from Project Gutenberg or this Euthyphro, section 2a (tufts.edu) at external links sections?
5-6-Maybe you are right about Kant. I will give it another thought later. Cinadon36 09:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. ~ Argenti Aertheri 22:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Humanism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argenti Aertheri (talk · contribs) 22:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated at 2024-01-06 14:18:43 by Manbooferie

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
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)
2c) it contains no original research
2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

  • "the brevity of man's life". (80B4 DK) Socrates spoke of" - What's with the stray "(80B4 DK)"? Move to citation maybe?
    • It is a form of citation of ancient texts. It is widely used, see for example here. But you are right, I will move it to citation.
    • Changed
  • "While there is a widely-held belief that the birth of humanism was solely a European affair" = weasel
    • I do not feel it is weasel, because according to source: In western genealogies, one popular starting point for the birth of Humanism is the Renaissance. Supposedly, Europe awoke from its medieval slumber and rediscovered classical knowledge, in particular the Ancient Greeks, which again placed Man as a dynamic agent at the center of the universe. and I believe this opinion is widely shared. It is not a controversial opinion. In any case, would you feel that if I move the attribution to the beginning of the sentence, would that be more appropriate?
    • Reworded
  • "He gives as example the paradigm of Africa" - the what?
    • I have some rewording to do here...(I will do it by Sunday)
      • Is this better? I believe the paradigm is explained now by the second half of the sentence.
  • "This was intended to be an atheist cult" - cult is a strong statement and needs either a direct quotation or an in text attribution (i.e. According to so-and-so this was...)
    • You are probably right. Changed.
  • "Instead of a universal ethic code, Kant suggested a universal procedure that shapes the ethics that differ among groups of people." - this absolutely must be fixed. I think this is probably the right SEP page.
    • Silly mistake. Fixed.

@Cinadon36: That citation must be fixed before this can pass GA.

  • "If goodness is independent from God, humans can reach goodness without religion but relativism is invited if God creates goodness." - choosing a different verb here would make this much easier to understand.
    • I used the word "elicited". Maybe "introduced" is a better word choice?
  • "does God command something because it is good or is something good because God commands it?" - Direct quotes require direct citations
    • fixed
  • "Humanism was associated with prominent thinkers who rationally advocated against the existence of God." - I know you mean rationality as a philosophical concept, you know that's what you mean, but what that says is "they logically/sensibly/obviously advocated against the existence of God"
    • Is this any better? (Humanism was linked with prominent thinkers who advocated against the existence of God using rationalistic arguments)
  • "Copson sees elements of religion, such as belief, practice, identity and culture, in which a person adhering to few religious doctrines could also be humanist." - that's not a sentence
    • Correct, fixed.
  • "Other critics say humanism is an oppressive philosophy because it is not free from the biases of the white, heterosexual males who shaped it." - which other critics?
    • Explained
  • "After the atrocities of World War II" - should atrocities be in wikivoice? I'm not sure if that runs afoul of 1b, or is just a fact.
    • I am not a great fun of wikivoice, but I believe in such cases, it is useful. I mean, there is almost universal consensus that during WWII, atrocities have been committed.
  • You moved (80B4 DK) to the citation (thank you), but you're now defining "FOOTNOTELaw2011chapter History of Humanism, #Ancient Greece" twice.
    • It does not appear in my browser. Has anybody fixed that?

Sorry about just leaving that marked as a weasel before, I must've missed that one when turning my notes into a review. Everything looks okay enough, but those citations have to be fixed before the minor copy edit issues matter. I'm going to put the GA nomination on hold for the week to give you time to track down that failed verification. ~ Argenti Aertheri 05:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to sort this by the end of the weekend. Cinadon36 21:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok, ping me when you're ready ~ Argenti Aertheri 00:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
How does it look now @Argenti Aertheri:? Cheers, Cinadon36 21:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Everything looks good except it's still not clear to me what the paradigm of Africa actually is. Maybe a wikilink? ~ Argenti Aertheri 22:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hm, there is no wikilink to that. I am inclined to removing the sentence, it is not that significant. Would that be ok? Cinadon36 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
@Argenti Aertheri hm, it looks better now, in my opinion. Cinadon36 22:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed! ~ Argenti Aertheri 22:20, 23 August 2023 (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.

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)

Moving ref at the end of the sentence

@Manbooferie:, regarding this edit I assume you have read Norman's work, and your addition is based on that? If that is the case, the reference should be added at the end of the sentence. I fixed it but pls confirm that you have read Norman and the addition is based on him. Cinadon36 20:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you assume correctly, I've read it. 84.92.96.230 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cinadon36 Forgot to log in. Yes, I've read it Manbooferie (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Cinadon36 21:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Incidentally, do you normally ask an editor if he/she has read the text that they've added? I've never been asked in 10 years until now. What matters surely, as per Misplaced Pages rules, is that any such edits are verifiable with good sources, which I believe is the case here. Manbooferie (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I normally do not move refs, but since ref had to be moved at the end of the paragraf, I felt I had to ask. The question was if you had read Norman and whether the addition was based on him.Cinadon36 07:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Kant

The Philosophy section begins with Kant and a bold statement that he "provided the modern philosophical basis of the humanist narrative". This struck me as odd when I first read it and seems out of place. Kant's philosophy of course has humanistic elements (ethics, morality etc) and he could be regarded as a forerunner of secular humanism, but the implication that his influence was in some way foundational to humanism is surely misleading if not wrong? I note that a reviewer of this article (see above under issues/suggestions) also queried the emphasis placed on Kant's role. The main article about Kant makes no mention of humanism at all. So, my suggestion:
- move the first paragraph (about Kant) to the end of the Philosophy section.
- add a sentence or two or reference(s) to clarify that Kant wasn't a humanist as we now understand the term.
Agree? Manbooferie (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

yeap, agreed! Go for it! Cinadon36 10:49, 20 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)
Categories: