Talk:Humanism

There also exists a archives of past discussions. Before archiving, this page has been refactored – see the archive's bottom section details on 2006-08-21 till 2006-11-10 refactoring

Archive 1 contains mainly: comments that had become of little use for the future; all discussions on humanism assumed to be religious/secular/atheist (thus mainly on what the topic is supposed to be about or not); all discussions on which individuals are considered to be humanists, which largely depends on viewpoints regarding the above. Archive 2 contains much more of the same - to December 2008 Archive 3

Revision of Renaissance Humanism: A Fine Line between NPOV and Copyright Violation

I've removed a lot of unsourced sentences with fact tags from the Renaissance humanism section, and put in a lot of material that I thought better represented our current understanding of Renaissance humanism as it pertains to the arts, philosophy, and the church. I was careful to make sure I didn't inject any of my own opinion, but only reflected the statements of the sources I cited. Johnbod, I very much appreciated many of your edits, as you've added additional information and cleaned up some of my rather terse language. I just want to let you know that I welcome and appreciate a good number of those.

However, my goal was to bring this article from "B-grade" by many standards to "A-grade," and I was surprised to see that you thought many of my statements were not from a neutral point of view. As I said, my goal was to inject as little of my own opinion as possible into this article. However, many of your edits are a radical departure from what I was taught about Renaissance humanism, and in fact some of them directly change the language of the sources I've cited. All of your edits to my revision, it alarmed me to see, were completely unsourced. This is what takes a "B-grade" article right back down to a "C-grade" article.

As examples:

1. I tried to make sure I did not give Wikipedia a voice when describing opposing views on Renaissance humanism. Some sources see it only as a course of education that focused on ancient language and arts, without permitting the content of the ancient language and arts to influence the philosophy of the Renaissance. I cited the Catholic Encyclopedia directly as an example of this. You removed my reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, and made the paragraph read as if Wikipedia was itself expressing this opinion. I think this had the opposite effect of what you intended. Please read WP:SUBSTANTIATE to understand what I was attempting to do, and what you've undone.
2. I tried to show two sides of Erasmus: how he both contributed to the church using his knowledge of Latin and Greek, and how the church came to revile him after his death. This is a good illustration of the tricky relationship between the church and humanists, and yet, you completely deleted the fact about his excommunication, and a direct citation to the book from which I had taken this fact. Deleting well-sourced facts is commonly considered vandalism on Wikipedia, but I don't think this was your intention. In making your edit, you commented, "Shortly before he died he was offered to be a cardinal - you might mention that." I would indeed like to mention that, so could you please cite a source for this so that I might include it as part of my contrast of how humanists were first beloved, and came to be reviled by the church over time? Providing more facts and more citations is the correct way to deal with POV. Please help me build and improve, rather than simply deleting and destroying.
3. The source I cited that described the widening schism between the church and humanists says, "in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, a few humanists thought they could use their skills as scholars to reanimate the church. Humanist theologians insisted that the formal theology of the universities was far less valuable than a direct knowledge of the biblical text, and that the documents that supported the church's priveleges should be subjected to critical scrutiny, like any others. But even in the early Renaissance, these men came under fire from the professionals they criticized. And in the later sixteenth century, as the Protestants mounted their radical challenge to papal supremacy and Catholic orthodoxy, the Roman church became a center not only of scholarly inquiry but of systematic censorship." I reworded this some to avoid a copyright violation, but I tried to keep the meaning of the words conveying similar ideas. I changed the words "a few" in the source to "some of the humanists used their scholarship in the service of the church," but you edited that to read, "Though many humanists continued to use their scholarship in the service of the church." Your edit has actually changed this article to say something quite different from what the source cited actually says. Since you did not cite a source of your own, I am going to stay true to the source and use their exact term instead, so there can be no question of either of us imposing our biased point of view on this article.
4. The same is true for the words "systematic censorship," which you also deleted, again without citing a source. These words are not mine; their point of view is not mine. These are historians from the Library of Congress. Please do not change the substance or meaning of the sentence without citing a better source to replace the one you change or delete.

Again, I want to make it clear that I appreciate several of your cleanups and improved language throughout this revision. With citation of more and better sources, we can bring this article out of "B-grade" status and make it more reliable together. OldMan (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I won't have time to finish all points here this time.

1. (different sequence - not your points) On Erasmus, you will find his being offered a cardinalcy in your favourite Catholic Encyclopedia & plenty of other sources. I don't think it belongs here, any more than the fact that a hard-line Pope excommunicated him (rather against Catholic theology, I would have thought - by then he was in the hands of a higher authority). In fact I have never seen this mentioned elsewhere, & frankly wonder if Manchester got it right - he is hardly an expert on this period, and I note from our bio that (on what was his specialist period) "Scholars generally disliked the biographies by Manchester. They were deemed superficial, anecdotal, hyperbolic, and hagiographic." Eugene L. Rasor, Winston S. Churchill, 1874-1965. If you want an excommunicated humanist there are many - I recommend Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stake as well, although his strong interest in astrology etc may not suit your line.
2. To mention in the text the CE on humanist Popes clearly implies this is a partial source - in fact the CE is best avoided whether other sources can be found. But that all these Popes were humanist comes under Subject-specific common knowledge, which does not need sourcing, indeed in the case of 3/4 of those named it is the big thing about them - what they are mainly known for. 2/4 were in the top flight of humanists of their day, and all can certainly be called notable humanists.
3. I will find some sources for what I freely admit I have written from general knowledge of the period - but trust me, all those points can be substantiated. I suggest you add fact tags if you really doubt any.
4. In general the earlier versions seemed to me to go into unnecessary detail for an article on humanism, and much of that detail was to emphasize a divergence between humanism and the Catholic church specifically, when in fact the Protestant churches were just as opposed, in pretty much the same ways, though in many places they lacked the apparatus the Catholics had. This was a distortion I have tried to remove, partly by adding, but also by subtracting. I removed "systematic censorship" because the link was not relevant - few Renaissance artists spoke Latin, still mostly the language of humanism, and the involvement of artists in humanism, with a few exceptions, was surprisingly tenuous. I have no objection to the words being restored, but it should be made clear that they cover Protestant countries as well; they censored just as systematically. Both sides of Europe had vent-holes like Venice and Amsterdam, where censorship was much less. That your LoC source only covers Italy, Rome in fact, is no reason to distort the history. But it is a reason to be very cautious in using it for unqualified statements that purport to cover all of Europe.
5. "Modern scholars of history and philosophy portray different aspects ..." implies older ones saw things differently, which they did not, though as I said in an edit summary, the big scholarly movement in recent decades has been to re-emphasize the "mystical/religious/pagan" side of RH, which older scholars tended to pass quickly over with a shudder. Frances Yates has been the big figure here, followed by many others. It also seems to say that all "modern scholars" just each look at a particular slice of the salami, which is not the case either.
6. One area not covered, that should be, is the gradual move to the use of vernacular languages by humanist writers (like everyone else, but they were in the lead). This was important in massively widening the readership, and also in stiffening church, and often political, censorship. Things that were allowed in Latin might not be in the vernacular.
7. "Some sources see it only as a course of education that focused on ancient language and arts, without permitting the content of the ancient language and arts to influence the philosophy of the Renaissance. I cited the Catholic Encyclopedia directly as an example of this." I very much doubt any source says anything like this - certainly not the CE, in its various articles - see their articles on any of the Hermeticists etc. Nor do I really see how you cited it "as an example of this".

Now I must stop for today. I agree the section is improving greatly, which is obviously a good thing. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any of these arguments as being entirely revert-worthy. You are still materially changing the content of sources cited to say things they don't say, and you are still attributing an opinion to the voice of Wikipedia, where no other major encyclopedias seem to agree. (Encyclopedia Americana, Encarta, and Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion are three sources I have at my fingertips that don't number popes among humanists, and emphasize instead the journey of humanists away from the authoritarianism of the church.) To borrow a phrase from the 2008 US Presidential election debates, "you need a scalpel to make these edits, not an ax." Therefore I am reverting it back, but to show you the right way to make concessions to other viewpoints, I will incorporate your point about "modern scholars of history and philosophy" by deleting the word "modern." Please make your future edits in this fashion, and acquaint yourself carefully with the predominant views of historians so you don't end up changing their words or substance. Thanks! OldMan (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly you have some nerve talking about the "predominant views of historians" given the very limited number of general reference works you seem to rely on, plus google. Have you looked up any of the 4 popes mentioned in those works? No - then I suggest you do so, or try this google search. If I feel in need of any lessons on editing properly from you I will be sure to let you know. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• The section in this article now goes into far more detail on RH & religion than the equivalent section at Renaissance Humanism, which is obviously wrong. I shall be expanding that section, before eventually returning here to restore a balanced and accurate view in a concise form. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed, as I see you've put the contentious issue back in Wikipedia's voice again, which I think you've been around long enough to know is not how Wikipedia operates. Also, you've removed the section about Erasmus again, saying that "he doesn't represent a schism." As explained above, it isn't Erasmus that represents the schism, but what the church did to him after he was already dead. Again, deleting sourced facts that you simply dislike is a powerful way to destroy a neutral point of view. I know, however, that you are editing in good faith so I know if we give you some time you will correct these oversights and restore facts you've deleted even though you may dislike them. If only we could simply delete things from the Encyclopædia Britannica, which dedicates a whole webpage to the difficult relationship between the church and Renaissance humanists, undoubtedly presenting things in a different light would be much easier for us on Wikipedia, wouldn't they? In what time frame should we expect your good-faith restoral of neutral point of view? OldMan (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What contentious issue? Of the 50 important things to say about Erasmus, the nadir of his "posthumous relationship" with the church, and especially one particular Pope, in the 1550s is in the low 40s, but it was the main thrust of the coverage here - a classic case of WP:UNDUE. In any case the reason that he fell out of favour was only because his theology was thought later to come too close to Protestantism. Better to have nothing on him; he is already mentioned above. The relationship between the church and the humanists changed very considerably over the 250-odd years of the movement, and was very complex, which the section now at least mentions. Indeed we don't have all the space in the world - this section is already longer than the "modern" one, and can't be much longer until that is expanded. The section, unlike before, now has a neutral POV as far as I'm concerned, with coverage of both the close links and the divergence between RH & Xtianity, whereas your version covered only one - but I'm willing to discuss specific issues. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally thought the "contentious issues" were spelled out very clearly in the comments to which you responded above, but in following your lead, I've taken the liberty of deleting a few additional sentences in which NPOV phrasing seems to be too elusive. This is fun! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see anything at all POV about "Several popes, notably Nicholas V, Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Leo X were humanists,[11][12] and there was often patronage of humanists by senior church figures.[ " - these are merely basic & very well-known facts, indeed understatements, and were supported by 3 refs. I have reverted. Hale was not talking "of these churchmen" but of Renaissance Humanism as a whole. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted more POV edits - the persistent efforts to remove simple and heavily referenced factual statements (one of which Old Man was happy to have if it was presented as a dubious claim by a source that could be partisan in this context) show how relevant it is that these points are included. I will add more context to the Hale quote. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What you've done is to re-impose your own point of view. I'm going to delete those citations by those historians, because what you've quoted is a statement of OPINION by them. The obvious counterexample is Machiavelli; obviously all the statements of opinion by many published historians can't rectify the fact that he was not a supporter of the Catholic church. Your comments above that they're applicable to ALL humanists is therefore obviously wrong and contradicted by demonstrable fact, and your insistence on restoring the heavily-slanted verbiage that gives opinions as "assumed to be true" betrays your intention to make Wikipedia take a side. As you've just deleted several cited facts that you find "irrelevant," I'm going to continue to delete your cited facts until you restore even those that you dislike. Fair's fair, after all. We'll know that you're ready to have an honest, adult discussion about Renaissance humanism when you are willing to confront the church's eventual ostracization of Erasmus, among others. Until then, won't this continued back-and-forth be fun?!? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is clearly failing. Any general statement on a complicated matter by a historian, like Cambridge history the one just below (neatly balancing Hale's one) can be described as "a statement of OPINION by them", though you have also removed simple facts. You have been edit-warring on this article (and barely editing any others) for months. I don't share your enjoyment of this pursuit, and will be reporting you. The passage by Hale uses "mostly" and does not assert that it applies to each and every humanist. The only "side" I want WP to take is that of all serious historians of the subject, namely that Renaissance Humanism was not the same as modern secular humanism, the POV you and Old man have been trying to force on the article against all-comers for months. The old passage on Erasmus was quite simply misleading, and not relevant here - he was never ostracised while alive, though briefly in serious disfavour under one Pope twenty years after his death. We have gone through all this before. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[Unindenting so formatting of the following will be more legible] "I don't share your enjoyment of this pursuit" appears to be a blatant lie, in light of your continued edit-warring to restore ONLY the wording you prefer. I'm not quite sure why you think it's suddenly going to be accepted without argument on the basis of your childish insistence alone. Your edits have all been suspect and subjected to great scrutiny since your 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC) proclamation of what you WILL "accept" and WON'T "accept," based not on reliable sources but on your opinion alone. True to my suspicion, you continue to demonstrate a woeful misunderstanding of such terms as "a few," "some," "many," and "all."

• 13:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC): you changed the phrase "though some of the humanists used their scholarship in the service of the church" to "though many humanists..." without changing the source cited to reflect the change in content.

We haven't seen the original wording of that source so far. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• 02:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC): OldMan pointed out to you on this talk page that you had altered the meaning of the source cited by doing so.
• 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC): The original phrasing of the sentence, "A FEW," was restored to the article.
• 02:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC): you engage in edit-warring, again to change the actual phrasing of the source to "many."
• 13:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC): OldMan had to revert your edit to restore the original wording of the cited source again: "a few."
• 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC): You removed the quantitative qualifier entirely, leaving the implication that ALL humanists used their scholarship in the service of the church!
• 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC): I had to remove the entire sentence to keep you from continuing to make the Wikipedia article read something that the cited source did not say or imply!

And now you are doing it again: your quotation of Hale implied that ALL humanists fit his generalization about support for the church and work within its context.

• 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC): I edited the article to qualify Hale's statement so that it applied specifically to humanists who ATTEMPTED to keep their scholarship in the good graces of the church.

Exactly, a blatent POV falsification; there is nothing like this in Hale. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC): You deleted the quantifying qualification of Hale's statement, in an effort to make him read like his generalization is, in fact, applicable to ALL humanists.

Which it was, with his qualification. Johnbod (talk)

• 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC): I pointed out to you on this talk page counterexamples to Hale's obviously over-broad generalization, such as Machiavelli.
• 20:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC): Following your lead of simply deleting sentences you don't like, I removed the Hale statement, stating that I would permit replacement when you could figure out how to do it fairly.
• 22:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC): You've added the Hale quote back. To your credit, you included more context that includes qualifying words like "in the main," but it's still an opinion that is contradicted by the later facts of the church's disrespect for even those humanists that supported it.

There is no contradiction at all, except with your over-simplified POV - see below. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's important for you to note what it's going to take to get me on your side, to establish a consensus:

• 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC): I made an edit that said I was following YOUR lead on deleting statements that are not NPOV.
• 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC): On this talk page, I pointed out that I was following YOUR lead in deleting sentences where NPOV was too elusive.
• 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC): On this talk page, I said we'll know that YOU are ready to have an honest, adult discussion about Renaissance humanism when YOU are willing to confront the church's eventual ostracization of Erasmus, among others.
• 20:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC): I deleted some of your POV commentary from the article, pointing out that I WILL PERMIT IT, as long as you are also willing to replace the cited facts that YOU deleted.

It's your questionable changing of others' wording that makes your edits unworthy of trust. I'm deleting the addition of the assertions you want to present as uncontested facts, until such time as I get to check your sources, because you've established for yourself a reputation as a vandal who alters the wording of your sources and unrepentantly peddles a point of view that is at odds with other major reference works. These works highlight difficult relationships between the church and the humanists. When your edits look less suspicious of altering your source material's content, or of attempting to "right great wrongs," you'll find a lot less opposition here, okay? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is in fact very little if any contradiction between the all the statements in my last version; a basic point about the period you still seem unwilling or unable to grasp. Most humanists were still Christians who saw their studies and writings as developing Christianity, but the overall trend of the movement, especially by the end of the period, was to deemphasize religion. The Hale & Cambridge quotes together made these points quite well - I have never tried to remove the Cambridge quote. It was you who tried to wrench the Hale quote to a false context it did not have, & then removed it altogether after I extended it to make the full context clear. I can't access the Cambridge History of Philosophy, but I would be very surprised if it did not say something similar to Hale also - any good work on the period will, & I could quote Davies making similar pairs of points. I'm afraid as far as I am concerned, you & Old Man are the ones trying to cherry-pick points and sources to set up a POV narrative that fundamentally misrepresents the facts, and, almost certainly, your sources too. Very many humanists in the 16th century continued to study almost exclusively Christian texts, and often found themselves, willingly or not, transformed into Catholic or Protestant controversialists after the divisions of the Reformation hardened; that, very large, side of humanist activity is in fact the one that has continued without much alteration into modern Biblical scholarship. On Erasmus, if we were going to have him in at length, the most important points to make are probably: a) he remained a Catholic priest to the end of his life, b) he spent his last years working unsuccessfully to reconcile the RC church and Lutheranism, c)he was always listened to and in favour with the top of the church while alive, d) he was offered a cardinalcy near the end of his life. It might then be worth adding that 20 years after he died, at the height of the Counter-Reformation, one particular hard-line Pope thought he had gone too far in his writings to meet Lutheranism, and placed all his works on the Index, from which most were removed by his successor about five years later. At the same time he remained a figure respected by the Protestant Churches. But this is too much detail for this article, surely? I note that when I added most of this section to Renaissance Humanism itself, a rather better & more knowledgeably patrolled page than this one, the only objection was from an editor who felt the anti-magic POV, refenced but not quoted directly, was too strong ("intellectual dead-end" etc). Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Update - The silly OR just reverted shows the shallowness of the arguments here - Bruno is exactly the sort of figure Hale meant, who "wished to supplement, not contradict [Christianity], through their patient excavation of the sources of ancient God-inspired wisdom" I suggest you read his article. What exactly is the problem with the Humanist Popes, & senior clerics? You'll have to spell it out. Obviously they have inspired dogged resistance, but they are heavily referenced, & in the real world, this is a wholly uncontroversial pair of sentences. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree, that probably IS too much detail for this article, but that just prompts one to ask, "what is the point of the history section of this article, anyway?" That would tell us which details ARE important, which DO belong. For example, is this history section supposed to describe the history of the study of humanities? Is it to describe the history of all studies of latin and greek classics? Is it to describe the history of painting, architecture, and poetry after the dark ages? See, by the title of this article I'd assumed it was to describe the history of HUMANISM. From that assumption, I have indeed extrapolated that relevancy to humanism is important for inclusion in this article, whereby the contributions to the scientific method by Bacon and the dissemination of the works of Lucretius by Bruno really are more on-topic than any quantity of scholars whose only work was to rewrite the Catholic mass in a more aesthetically pleasing form of Latin. Is that not the intention of having a history section in the first place?

That's because you still can't accept the basic point that in Renaissance Humanism religion was more central than science. That is what Humanism was then, and that should represented in the History section accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense; OF COURSE I acknowledge that religion was more central than science for EVERYONE during the Renaissance. It almost goes without saying, because we're talking about the time period that involves the Spanish, Portuguese, and Roman inquisitions, and the authorization of torture for heresy by the papal bull "ad extirpanda." EVERYONE claimed to be a Christian, and did their level best to do it convincingly, on threat of having their fingernails extracted slowly with white-hot iron implements! The fuss in the Renaissance tabloids was about that muck-raker Copernicus and his heretical theory of "heliocentricity," and anyone who doubted what happened to those who challenged Catholic orthodoxy had to look no farther than the Galileo affair. These are all events that coincided with Renaissance humanism, so while the Renaissance humanists all put on their best devotion-to-the-papacy acts, the question remains: until the reformation, EVERYONE was putting on their best devotion-to-the-papacy acts, so how's any of this relevant to humanism, specifically? The historical context of Renaissance humanism is what makes those who renewed interest in not just Greek and Latin TEXTS, but Greek and Latin PHILOSOPHERS, noteworthy for this article. It looks like our primary disagreement is that you want to focus on "all bearers of the name of 'humanism' during the renaissance," only as a sort of abridgment of the Renaissance humanism article, whereas I think it should be a little more directed: Renaissance humanism is notable in the context of this article BECAUSE of the groundwork it laid for the Enlightenment, development of the scientific method, and renewal of interest in otherwise lost Greek philosophy that was not theocentric. I think we are probably agreed that there was a sort of spectrum of beliefs, or changing trends wherein challenge to the authoritarianism of the church was related to both Protestantism and the secular focus of the Enlightenment philosophers. The question is only, what should we do about it? That's what we ought to discuss here, before making additional changes to the article. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No POV there, then! According to the premise of this article, Renaissance Humanism is part of its subject, and does not need to justify being in here by any particular angle. In any case we can't have the sort of misleading POV account we used to have, and you used to defend, which in no way made the points you mention, but emphasized the divergence with Christianity almost exclusively (nothing at all about science as I recall, I think I first added that). We just need a short, concise & accurate overview with links, which I think we now have. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the applicable question is, do you go to articles about stonemasonry and attempt to point out that, prior to the reformation, most stonemasons were devout Catholics and offered their services to the church? Do you go to articles on agriculture and make a point of mentioning that, prior to the reformation, most farmers were devout Catholics and offered their services to the church? Do you go to articles on coopers, blacksmiths, goldwrights, etc. and comment on each that prior to the reformation, they were all quite pious and dedicated Catholics that offered their services to the church? I guess I'm trying to understand why that's notable enough to mention here, to bring "balance" to the accomplishments of Renaissance humanists that HAVE affected modern humanism. I've read several sources so far that make it look like many had to work hard to keep from getting declared as heretics, so their achievements were accomplished IN SPITE of the church. Your efforts to impose your point of view on this history thus far alter this rather broadly-accepted view of renaissance humanism: yes, they were members, but sometimes despite their best efforts, they were unable to stay in the good graces of the authoritarian religious and civic leaders of the day. I don't see that removing such mentions is justified, other than by your loudly-declared taste or opinion. Could you please try your hand at a little better-reasoned explanation? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It is partly because of the modern meaning of humanism; it is necessary to stress they are not the same animal, though there is a relationship. Your mason example is an excellent one; an article on medieval stonemasons probably should point out they were not Freemasons, although there are some who like to claim they were, and the origins of freemasonry do involve stuff elaborated from aspects of the medieval guilds. There is stuff on the increasing tensions between R humanism & religion, though some has been lost in the recent changes, & I don't think we ever quite had enough on the differences between the 3 centuries involved, which were very considerable. At the same time this was given much too much emphasis in still earlier versions. Generally speaking, those, like Bruno, who were in danger of accusations of heresy were so because they were theologians or Biblical scholars, or interested in esoteric religion, not because they were commenting on Lucretius etc - obviously there are exceptions, like Galileo, though as Charles Matthews points out below, a "human-centred" view of the universe is exactly what he was getting away from. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I UNDERSTAND that your opinion is that "this was given much too much emphasis in still earlier versions;" you made your intention to impose your POV on this article crystal-clear back in your comment of 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC). Restating this opinion, however, is not the same as providing a justification by which another might be convinced to share that opinion. Consequently, I still don't agree with you, and intend to change some of the wording back to the original statements with which you disagree, if my research doesn't support the current wording. For example, I've been googling and reading other encyclopedias and reference works to see if they list the popes among their prominent Renaissance humanists too, and in fact the easily-accessible ones DO NOT. Petrarch is nearly universally agreed upon. Erasmus IS universally agreed upon. Machiavelli, Bruno, and Valla are mentioned frequently. The popes? Nearly universally ABSENT. So please: give me something more concrete than your sternly-worded, strongly-held opinion: give me a reason to agree with you. Care to try your hand at presenting a JUSTIFICATION for your opinion, rather than a mere restatement of it? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of reading here, or you could try researching the 4 popes named. The sources you are looking at probably don't mention Pietro Candido Decembrio either (to pick a name at random), but he was certainly a significant figure also, if not able to exert the influence a Pope could. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's it? You have a link to a page of Google search results for a combination of words specific to your POV? Now, with you being a literate person and all, it seems reasonable for me to assume that you could read the discussions I had with Wilson Delgado, above on this very same talk page, and see that such a lazy cop-out is not found compelling by those who wish to determine the prominence of a viewpoint or the quality of scholarship of those who hold such a viewpoint. You are a literate person, are you not? If that's the best you've got, I think I'll go ahead and revert the wording about the popes to the qualified version that first appeared in this article, over which you've been edit-warring so determinedly. AS A FAVOR TO YOU, not because you deserve it but because I am a fair person, I will refrain from doing so until I've gone to the library and checked some additional citations. This will also give you a chance to be a bit less lazy in your editorship, and state a justification of importance TO THIS ARTICLE, that Wikipedia should attribute humanism to popes as an uncontested statement of fact rather than as the claim of a third party. I mean, come on now Wilson, we've been over this ground before. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You wanted to find out about Humanist Popes; a list of links to mostly high-quality or scholarly books on the subject is a very good start, since you don't seem to have any books touching on Renaissance Humanism except general encyclopedias (and for some reason don't want to look up the figures named even in those). The incredulity and hostility with which this these two sentences have persistently been met demonstrates the importance of including these facts - other readers may very likely share the ignorance of Old man and youself. The passage was re-added by Charles Matthews, who knows a good deal more about this area than either of us, & I'd advise you not to remove it without far more justification than the torrent of illogical pique above. Of course if you can find any references denying there were any Humanist Popes, that would be interesting. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I assumed your literacy. Apparently, you do not understand what I meant when I wrote, "I'll go ahead and revert the wording about the popes to the qualified version that first appeared in this article," because you seem to be arguing against my REMOVING the sentence entirely from the article. I won't do that again; I had only done that (AS I WROTE AT THE TIME IN MY EDIT SUMMARY) to show you what bad faith you were demonstrating by YOUR blatant removal of other sentences. Therefore your "advice not to remove it" is utterly useless and shows that you aren't paying attention to this conversation, and don't understand the issue of contention. "Illogical pique" is a great term; I think I'll be sure to reuse it to describe the edit-warring you've perpetrated, and I've described in detail, above. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you really do look like you're having a lot of fun in this process. After all, you've accused me above of misrepresenting my sources, as your only defense of my proof of you having done so. In addition to being a "tu quoque" logical fallacy, I think your participation in this game is undermined by the fact that I carefully dug up DATES and TIMES when you misrepresented sources, and presented them in a BULLETED LIST, whereas all you've done is make the bare accusation. Well, here's another, since it's my turn: I don't like your Hale quote because you use too much ellipsis to cut words out of Hale's quote. When you do this, it prevents me from judging the quality of your quotation, the implications of the original author, and whether you've repented from your hobby of misquoting sources or not. Could you please at least give the entire quote here on this talk page, so we can determine whether it's warranted or not? Can you at least do me the favor of permitting me to see how you're editing Hale in context, so I can assure myself that any faith in your edits will not be misplaced? Thanks! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• No. I assure you I find this really boring. The expanded Hale quotes are - added bits bolded:

"[Start of article]Humanism is a 19thC coinage, invented to describe the programme of studies, and its conditioning of thought and expression ...[details subjects] Such a programme was secular, concerned with man, his nature and gifts, but Renaissance humanism must be kept free from any hint of either 'humanitarianism' or 'humanism' in its modern sense of rational, non-religious approach to life. [then long gap] unless the word 'humanism' retains the smell of the scholar's lamp it will mislead - as it will if it is seen in opposition to a Christianity its students in the main wished to supplement, not contradict, through their patient excavation of the sources of ancient God-inspired wisdom."[end of article] I now await a clear statement of your objections to the Popoes and senior clerics. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is your attempt to restore a NPOV? He gets the source of the term wrong; it first meant "the mere humanity, not divinity, of Christ," when coined in English in the 19th century. That's as heretical (according to Catholicism) today as it was in the Renaissance, so for him to avoid this doesn't look good for Hale. The Italian term from which it was taken far predates the 19th century, so it looks like Hale is actually quite inexpert himself. Phrasing like "unless the word retains the smell of the scholar's lamp it will mislead," and "their patient excavation of the sources of ancient God-inspired wisdom" are not only severely POV, but downright wrong: the ancient Greek texts studied by many of the humanists were often the polytheistic histories of Greek mythology or nontheistic philosophies of Epicurus, all of which far exceed the limits of "god-inspired wisdom" Hale prefers to focus on. It's very clear that Hale's opinion is really only applicable to a narrow view of Renaissance humanism, and if I were you, I'd have omitted those phrases in quoting him, too. (Correction: if I were you, I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to use Hale in the first place.) As for the popes, I'm no expert, but I promise I'll give it a fair shot: I'll look at some of the sources you and OldMan have cited and try to be impartial in figuring out whether it belongs in the voice of Wikipedia or as a citation of another source. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add that though some humanists were "secular" in that they were the Chancellors of Italian cities, Renaissance humanism could be described as predominantly clerical, since the majority of humanists were in clerical orders and many were cardinals and popes. It was the scholastics (whom they opposed) who were secular. The scholastics were the secular teachers of logic, law, and jurisprudence in universities, who clung to their old ways of doing things (though ultimately they too were influenced by the discoveries of the humanists -- i.e, the collection, editing, and transcription of ancient manuscripts.) The notion that Renaissance humanism was secular was popular at one time and perhaps still prevails in books published by the Humanist Association, but it is no longer accepted by historians and scholars. On the other hand, modern humanists like Corliss Lamont wish to claim the Zeitgeist of the Renaissance -- in short the creative energy of the period -- as a precursor of his own modern humanist philosophy of man. Indeed, it can be said that the zeitgeist of the Renaissance that inspired the humanists to comb monastery libraries in a quest for ancient manuscripts (the sacred writings of Church Fathers equally with Pagan authors) also inspired other non-humanist achievements of the era: linear perspective, maps with grids, double entry book keeping, modern banking, Brunelleschi's dome, the discovery of America, and so on. Ironically, one reason we have had a mistaken idea of Renaissance humanism is that the hundreds and hundreds of treatises written by the humanists themselves lay forgotten, unprinted, and unedited for 500 years in various archives. The scholar who has done the most to track them down was P.O. Kristeller, author of Iter Italicum, available online [1], which is a master list of previously uncatalogued Renaissance manuscripts and their locations. These have just now, only in the last few years, begun to be edited and published in facing translation by the Warburg Institute, so that we now have a more authentic idea of what humanism really was -- ad fontes! Kristeller has flatly maintained that the humanists were not philosophers and that there was no Renaissance philosophy of man!Mballen (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod is correct. 151 and Oldman are sadly off base. The word "Humanism" never ever referred to the humanity of Christ. This erroneous notion is a mere supposition on their part, grounded in fantasy. "Humanists" were teachers of the humanities, a program of studies designed to prepare lawyers and clergy for the study of rhetoric and which was based on the writings of Cicero and Seneca (or what was thought to be Seneca). Bruno and Erasmus are important figures in the history of free thought, but that does not change the fact that humanism arose in church circles and that its main figures were predominantly clerics, including Petrarch, who was in minor orders. Alberti (ordained as a priest and canon of the cathedral of Florence), Valla, and Poggio, were all three secretaries to the Vatican (or Lateran as it was then called). Scientist, polymath, and mystic, Nicholas of Cusa was a Roman Catholic Cardinal. As was Bembo. Another celebrated humanist was the great book collector and translator Cardinal Basilius Bessarion, Dean of the College of Cardinals: wikipedia writes:

In 1463, his fellow humanist Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, then [Pope] Pius II, gave him the purely ceremonial title of Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. As Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals (from April 1463), he [Bessarion] presided over the Papal conclave, 1464 and Papal conclave, 1471. For five years (1450-1455), he was [Papal] legate at Bologna, and he was engaged on embassies to many foreign princes, among others to Louis XI of France in 1471. Vexation at an insult offered him by Louis is said to have hastened his death, which took place on November 19, 1472, at Ravenna

The greatest modern scholar and authority on the Renaissance, the German-born scholar P. O. Kristeller, thought that Saint Augustine, unquestionably a great influence on Petrarch, was the also the key religious influence on the Renaissance humanism as a whole. Any implication that these priests, popes, and cardinals did not accept the divinity of Christ is risible.24.105.152.153 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A big problem with this article is that it appears to be based on Norman Davies' History of Europe as a source of information on the Renaissance. Norman Davies is not a specialist in the Renaissance, but rather on the history of Poland. Moreover he has a general reputation as a maverick, who is generally rather opinionated and contentious (according to wikipedia). I was wondering what his book was doing in the bibliography. Looking it up on Google Books I see that Davies draws on Jacob Burckhardt's Civilization of the Renaissance (1878) for his ideas about the period (Burckhardt's dates were 1818--1897). Needless to say, Burckhardt's book, while a classic, is 130 years old and its thesis about the Renaissance as the cradle of individualism has long been superseded. An article in Wikipedia ought rather to reference the specialists in the field (like Garin, Kristeller, and Cassirer) who are familiar and have worked extensively with the primary sources.24.105.152.153 (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. In three sentences, you've used the terms "off base," "erroneous notion," "mere supposition," and "grounded in fantasy" to describe a fact that originates from the Oxford English Dictionary itself, as noted in footnote 29 of this Wikipedia article. Nonetheless, I'm always happy to see new contributors try their hand at Wikipedia, and strongly suggest you read the following Wikipedia policy pages to make sure your contributions improve, rather than hinder, our progress at building a useful encyclopedia: WP:VERIFY and WP:TIGERS. Thanks! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many sources, including Hale & Plumb, who are certainly specialists. Davies is only a minor source. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"In the century and a half since Burckhardt wrote, his notion of the individualism of the Renaissance has been rejected, rethought, and revised along several lines. Medieval historians have asserted that the individual was important in learned philosophy, theology, and political theory . . . since at least the tenth century, or perhaps far earlier. Conversely, scholars of the Renaissance and early modern periods have emphasized that . . even among the subjects of Burckhardt’s study- upper class Italian men living in cities – corporate groups remained central to their understanding of themselves and their place in the world."(Cambridge history of Modern Europe, p. 73 and 77 and passim).

Well, if the main thing about humanism (the nineteenth and twentieth century versions, probably the ones referenced in the Oxford Dictionary) is that it rejects the divinity of Christ, how does it differ from Unitarianism, or even Arian Chrisitanity? I see that the British Humanistic Religious Association was founded in 1853 and the American Humanist Association about 100 years later. What I object to is associating these, no doubt very worthy, organizations (whose positions I agree with), with the humanism of the Renaissance, which is a very different animal. It is not in keeping with the principles of humanism, which I imagine include faithfulness to historical truth, to suggest otherwise. You are confusing humanism with free thought.24.105.152.153 (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying the "main thing about humanism" is that it rejects the divinity of Christ; in fact, if you read your OED more carefully, you'll see that definition is obsolete. The "main thing about humanism" is stated in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on it; it's just that rejecting the divinity of Christ was the FIRST use of the term in English. As for how it differs from Unitarianism, why should it? Some Universalist Unitarians have even created an organization for themselves called "hUUmanists," which is humanist according to the definitions given by footnotes 1 and 2 in the article.

The topic of this article is humanism in its most common form today. If you prefer to think, write, and teach about Renaissance humanism, just click this link, enjoy, be well, have fun! Talking about renaissance humanism in THIS article is really only useful if you want to relate it to modern humanism somehow, and it is useful to show how it contributed to enlightenment philosophy, which gave rise to the current common use of the term, as the sources cited in the main article show. Considering the number of mainstream general reference works that document this relationship, I think it's fair to include it here.

As for "humanism" and "free thought," I am not CONFUSING them, though I may be CONFLATING them a little. That's okay, since humanists and free-thought advocates seem to recognize the large overlap between such philosophies, too. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, fine, conflate them. But don't suggest that the humanism of the previous 2,000 years should be conflated with the secularism of post-1800s. The humanism inherited from Classical antiquity is quite interesting in its own right, was vastly more influential than the later incarnation that you are concerned with, and deserves to be represented accurately. Humanists like St. Thomas More and Calvin were perfectly comfortable with burning heretics like the Unitarian Servetus or the translator of the Bible Tyndale And did More's good friend, the Catholic priest Erasmus protest the execution of Tyndale? I don't think so. I can't even remember if the humanist Papal secretaries present at the burning of Jan Huss at Constance were particularly upset by it when they described it in their letters. You should make that clear. To say that "some" Renaissance humanists were members of the clergy fudges the issue. 24.105.152.153 (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A modern historian has this to say:

Humanism was not an ideological programme but a body of literary knowledge and linguistic skill based on the “revival of good letters”, which was a revival of a late-antique philology and grammar, This is how the word “humanist" was understood by contemporaries, and if scholars would agree to accept the word in this sense rather than in the sense in which it was used in the nineteenth century we might be spared a good deal of useless argument. That humanism had profound social and even political consequences of the life of Italian courts is not to be doubted. But the idea that as a movement it was in some way inimical to the Church, or to the conservative social order in general is one that has been put forward of a century and more without any substantial proof being offered.

The nineteenth-century historian Jacob Burckhardt, in his classic work The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, noted as a “curious fact” that some men of the new culture were “men of the strictest piety, or even ascetics.” If he had meditated more deeply on the meaning of the careers of such humanists as Abrogio Traversari (1386-1439), the General of the Camaldolese Order, perhaps he would not have gone on to describe humanism in unqualified terms as “pagan”, and thus helped precipitate a century of infertile debate about the possible existence of something called “Christian humanism” which ought to be opposed to “pagan humanism”. --Peter Partner, Renaissance Rome, Portrait of a Society 1500-1559 (University of California Press 1979) pp. 14-15.

Machiavelli may have been against the abuses of the church, but he supported Cesare Borgia, the Pope's son, in his attempt to conquer all of Italy for the Vatican. He was no Voltaire.173.77.110.110 (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaissance humanism

I have tidied up the section, removing some stray pieces of anachronistic language and comment ("agnostic" is a coinage of the nineteenth century). There is now a reasonable flow (what was humanism in the Renaissance sense? - religion - science) which basically works outwards from the literary central point. And I think it is reasonably descriptive (and not trying to argue too many points). The para on science is still a bit too vague for comfort - after all we think of Copernicus as removing the human-centred aspect in astronomy, so what exactly is the point here? Civic humanism and Christian humanism might be mentioned as topics in their own right, but I suppose there are significant definitional issues (certainly with the first). Charles Matthews (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these edits, but I think in the context of this article it is necessary to spell out clearly that Renaissance Humanism was not an early version of modern secular humanism, which earlier versions of this article tried to claim. For this purpose the following passage was included, and can be worked in to the new version:

Several popes, notably Nicholas V, Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Leo X were humanists, and there was often patronage of humanists by senior church figures. The historian of the Renaissance Sir John Hale emphasizes that though

the programme of studies, and its conditioning of thought and expression ... was secular, concerned with man, his nature and gifts, ... Renaissance humanism must be kept free from any hint of either 'humanitarianism' or 'humanism' in its modern sense of rational, non-religious approach to life. ... the word 'humanism' will mislead ... if it is seen in opposition to a Christianity its students in the main wished to supplement, not contradict, through their patient excavation of the sources of ancient God-inspired wisdom."

The Hale quote is very apposite, and balances the Cambridge one below nicely. The amazing fierceness with which this passage has been resisted shows I think the importance of including these points, which should be uncontroversial. This is not a subtle article, and one likely to be used by the full range of WP readers, and some things need to be spelled out. For example, the new text says: "No one religious position covers the diversity of Renaissance humanism, however. It includes: a secular world-view, in writers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Francesco Guicciardini; the skeptical approach of Francis Bacon and Michel Montaigne; and the satire of François Rabelais." - which does not mention Christianity as one of the range of options, though this implication can be picked up from the surrounding text. But I think clearer statements are necessary. What do you think? Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've placed your text in the article, and will consider how to move on from here. There may of course be people who disagree with Hale. It would be good to keep that section concise. (By the way, I'm tempted to archive this talk page somewhat fiercely, as we approach half a megabyte.) Charles Matthews (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have a go - the misplaced top section, on the lead & very long, dates to February 09, but below that we go back to 2006, & that can be archived. I will leave anything from this year. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I have respect for the "Humanism" consider myself a humanist in most respects, I find the depiction of Renaissance humanism here misses the point somewhat. I don't believe that Renaissance humanism has much to do at all with the modern quasi-religious "humanism" movement that dates from the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. It is very dated and anachronistic to connect the supposedly secular outlooks of Machiavelli to the modern secular movement. (Francois Rabelais was a priest who said Mass every day. His outlook has nothing whatever to do with modern secularism and the same is true of Montaigne. If they are to be classed as humanists, it is assuredly because of the huge amount of quotations from ancient authors to be found in their works, not because of their secular outlooks.) The omission of mention of Italian humanists here is incredibly odd. Prominent Italian Renaissance humanists ought to include besides Petrarch (the first modern humanist), Lorenzo Valla (incredibly important), Poggio Bracciolini, Alberti, and Ficino, at the very least. Virtually all of these were clerical humanists. Many (like Petrarch) were in clerical orders (Valla, Alberti, and Poggio worked for the Pope). The most authoritative secondary sources on Renaissance humanism are the scholars, P.O. Kristeller and Eugenio Garin. Renaissance humanism was an educational program:

Paul Oskar Kristeller emphasized strongly that humanism was not only a classical revival, but a fundamental educational movement. Humanists were often educators, and humanism flourished in schools and universities. . . “By the first half of the fifteenth century, the studia humanitatis came to stand for a clearly defined cycle of scholarly disciplines, namely grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry, and moral philosophy, and the study of each of these subjects was understood to include the reading and interpretation of its standard ancient authors in Latin, and to a lesser extent, Greek. . . . Thus Renaissance humanism was not . . . a philosophical tendency or system, but rather a cultural and educational program that emphasized an important but limited area of studies". --[Kristeller quoted in] Paul F Grendler Renaissance Education between Religion and politics (Ashgate, 2006 ISBN 086078989), p. 1

According to Eugenio Garin:

Humanistic education sought to form the whole man, the good citizen, and the man of culture who embraced life in this world but did not forget God. The means for creating this new man was the studia humanitatis, ‘the ideal instrument for forming the complete man.” Italian humanist pedagogues did not intend that ancient works should be studied as grammatical or rhethorical ends in themselves, but to develop the human being open to all possibilities. -- Paul F Grendler, Renaissance Education between Religion and politics, p. 3.

Quentin Skinner reminds us that the most important influence on Renaissance humanism were the writings of Cicero and the Roman Stoic philosophers. Cicero's political and educational ideals had never been forgotten but in the Renaissance there was a revival of emphasis on the philosophy behind them. For Cicero the aim of civil government was justice and harmony under a rule of law, to which men were to be led, not by violence and tyranny, but of their own free will by reason and rhetoric. Skinner contends that for Renaissance civic humanists, particularly the early Italian ones, the purpose of humanistic education was to inculcate the virtues: Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, and Justice, which (along with the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity) would form the quality of onestas (honesty) a prerequisite for citizenship. The studia humanitatis (inherited from Classical Rome) were to be the means to this moral education. As Cicero had written of literature (the most humanizing of them all):

Si ex his studiis delectatio sola peteretur, tamen, ut opinor, hanc animi remissionem humanissimam ac liberalissimam iudicaretis. Nam ceterae neque temporum sunt neque aetatum omnium neque locorum; at haec studia adulescentiam alunt, senectutem oblectant, res secundas ornant, adversis perfugium ac solacium praebent, delectant domi, non impediunt foris, pernoctant nobiscum, peregrinantur, rusticantur.

Even if mere entertainment were our only objective in the study of letters, you would still, in my opinion, regard this pursuit as the most humanizing and liberating of intellectual activities. For no other pursuit is appropriate to all times, all ages, all situations; but these studies [i.e., the humanities] nurture our youth, delight our old age, brighten the good times, and provide a refuge and comfort in bad times; literature brings us pleasure at home, does not hamper us at work, and is the companion of our nights, our travels, our country retreats. --Cicero,Pro Archia Archia Poeta 7.16

Mballen (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but you will see from here, the archives, and the page history that the current version is something of a compromise, after some sharp debate. Obviously the main article is Renaissance Humanism. You will also see at the bottom of the page here a revived debate about what, if anything, this page is for. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion to say that the older definition of humanism "smells of the scholar's lamp" is anti-intellectual and violates the spirit of humanism, which is based on reason and evidence. As I see it, modern usage of the term is just a blip -- and a relatively unimportant one in the scheme of history, considering that the older version lasted over 2,000 years. Even the coverage of modern humanism, as personified, say, by Irving Babbit, founder of something called "The New Humanism" in the 1920s, lacking here. For my part, I'll take the scholar's lamp over miasma and hot air.

On second reading I see I think I may have misunderstood the quotation about the scholar's lamp. In any case, one can be a modern agnostic and even a critic of religion and intolerance and still strive not to project one's own attitudes and opinions onto the people of the past. As Johnbod says, this is not a field that ought to be controversial.74.72.190.219 (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that at least some Renaissance scholars today take a dim view of the modern American incarnation of humanism, regarding it as an "odd brew of Enlightenment rationalism, utilitarianism, scientific positivism, evolutionary biologyand pragmatism concocted by the American Humanist Association". It seems to me that negative or lukewarm views of modern American humanism ought to be mentioned in any article that purports to be objective:

Humanism in [the modern philosophical] sense reduced the divine to the human, was opposed to any sort of religious dogma or revelation, and based philosophical reflection on a conception of the human being as a purely biological entity formed as the result of an evolutionary process, without an immaterial or spiritual nature. This philosophical sense of humanism begins essentially in the “humanistic realism” of Ludwig Feuerback (1804-71), but later included Marxist humanism (Antonio Gramsci), existentialist humanism (Jean Paul Sartre), humanist pragmatism (F.C.S. Schiller, following William James), ethical humanism (Irving Babbit), as well as the odd brew of Enlightenment rationalism, utilitarianism, scientific positivism, evolutionary biology, and pragmatism concocted by the American Humanist Association. In twentieth-century scholarship on Renaissance humanism a great deal of confusion was caused by mixing up these two broad meanings of humanism. Thus a “humanist philosophy of man” was imposed upon Latin writers from Petraca to Castiglione by means of selective quotation, hermeneutical forzatura, and by adding professional philosophers like Marsilio Ficino and even Pietro Pompanazzi to the ranks of “humanists.” The confusion of terminology has now largely subsided, at least in the Anglo-Saxon academic universe, thanks to the influence of the great Renaissance scholar P. O. Kristeller (1905-99). Kristeller argued cogently and with immense learning that the humanism of the Renaissance could not be construed as a “philosophy of man” but was rather best seen as a movement, rooted in the medieval rhetorical tradition, to revive the language and literature of classical antiquity. Humanists were not philosophers, but men and women of letters.--James Hankins, Humanism, Scholarship, and Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, 2007) P. 31.

173.56.192.79 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Further editing (Renaissance section)

I'm certainly not happy with the unilateral deletion of one point from the Columbia Encyclopedia. We can try this section structure, but the logic is as of yet unconvincing: perhaps it can be sorted out with some further minor alterations. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Pletho, that was moved by Old man, but is still there, more or less. Or was there another? Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was the other point, namely that the majority of humanists were sincere Christians, and Pletho stands out as an exception. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Plethon was an adviser to the Greek Emperor about the feasibility of a reunion between the Greek and Latin Churches and attended the Coucil of Florence with the Greek and Latin prelates (including the Pope). Wouldn't he have been burnt as a heretic if he had proclaimed non-belief in Chritianity? Plethon's later teachings were "mysteries" meant for the very few. In any case Plethon was certainly not secular in outlook: he was a Platonist and mystic (as were some Renaisssance Catholics prelates, such as Cardinal Bembo, who wrote a Platonic dialog, Gli Asolani whose depiction of Platonic love is memorialized in Castiglione's The Courtier).Mballen (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Wind, author of the Pagan Mysteries of the Renaissance (1958) writes that Plethon really was a sincere Christian and that the rites at Mistra involving the Greek Gods were purely secular. (Wind notes that several other scholars have observed that similar ones were practiced in Rome itself at the time, although at least one of the Popes, Paul II, was disturbed by them). According to Wind, Plethon celebrated feasts "devoted to a spiritual communion with the ancients, on the pious and not unreasonable assumption (cf. Augustine, Retractiones I, xiii) that if the truths of Christianity were fundamental, they could not have been withheld completely from the sages of antiquity. The classic revival was thus bound up with utopian hopes for a universal creed that would transcend sectarian differences. Una religio in rituum varietate ["One religion with various rites"] was the formula proposed for that doctrine by [Nicholas] Cusanus" [later a Cardinal] (See De pace seu concordiantia fidei; also the earlier Concordantia catholica, written for the Council of Basle during the presidency of [Cardinal] Cesarini). Pagan Mysteries p. 245. I. In other words, it was boilerplate Catholic doctrine that at least some of the truths of Christianity had been revealed to the great pagan sages and philosophers (as well as to the Jewish ones of the Old Testament). The pagan Sibyls. for example (painted by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel), are also supposed to have prophesized Christian truths and are even mentioned in the Catholic Mass for the dead: Dies irae, dies illa/ Solvet saeclum in favilla / Teste David cum Sibylla. ("Day of wrath, that day, when the world will dissolve in ashes, as David and the Sibyl have foretold.")Mballen (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch For POV Editing

[Personal attack removed]

[Blatant lie removed]

[personal attack removed]

Not sure what your point is here - I was referring to yesterday's edit, as linked. Original was perhaps not the best word, I agree. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry about it: your use of "original" to refer to your edit-warring version, rather than the ACTUAL original, has been removed also. We're all good here! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To 151.190.254.108: personal attacks on discussion pages of articles are entirely unacceptable. To be quite clear, arguments ad hominem are not permitted. Either discuss the article content, not the editors contributing here, or keep out of the discussion. Chapter and verse on this: WP:TALK, section Behaviour that is unacceptable: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. You, like anyone else, must conform to this basic norm of life here. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article and its discussion

Well, the Renaissance history now seems to me to be in better shape than the rest of the history. I have archived much more discussion. If people need to continue threads, perhaps they can be somewhat more terse and address current content. It is axiomatic that it goes better if specific improvements are addressed here, and forum-style postings on the general topic are avoided. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dante and Petrarch favored a strong centralized princely (and even imperial) government because republican civic government in their day in Italy had been mired in blood feuds and corruption. Petrarch wrote lots of letters of advice to princely families about how they ought govern and seek worldly glory in doing so. There was a whole genre called "Mirrors for Princes." Petrarch believed that the best government was one in which poets like himself were allowed to study in peace without getting involved in civil affairs. (He was influenced by St. Augustine in this as in much else.) Also, although he looked to Cicero, only a limited number of Cicero's works were available to him as yet. Petrarch himself was rather appalled what he discovered about how the historical Cicero had acted. Late in life he wrote a letter of reproach to Cicero, saying, in effect, "Cicero, how could you?"). In the next generation of humanists, however (i.e., in the 15th Century), prominently with Leonardo Bruni, the idea of Ciceronian Civic Humanism and citizen participation was revived. Machiavelli believed in civic humanism and in republican government, but he also wrote a treatise, The Prince, which Quentin Skinner believes is a throwback to the fourteenth century advice books (and also somewhat ironic). There probably should be a separate Wikipedia article about civic humanism.173.52.253.91 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To me, it still looks a bit disjointed and out of place: it doesn't mention the ways the Renaissance humanists conflicted with political leadership (especially for civic humanists) and religious leadership. Most major reference works recognize the role human-centered ethics played in both sorts of conflicts, which coincides neatly with Paul Kurtz's note that church-centered (or god-centered) ethics and ethics based on political totalitarianism (like Soviet communism) can only be considered "humanist" with irony (and is better off not being considered humanism at all). It's this connection I intended to restore when I titled one section, "The legacy of Renaissance humanism," but you were right to rename it, as I haven't written that part yet. Perhaps once I've had time to reinstate the text supporting that legacy, I'll add the word "influence" to the title to show that Renaissance thinkers are not just a footnote in the history of Latin and Greek, but have indeed been inspirational and influential to later philosophers. Hopefully I'll be able to complete such work this weekend. OldMan (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but this is supposed to be subject to Wikipedia:Summary style. Since Renaissance humanism has its own article, we hit the highlights here, and require that fuller details go to that article. I'm not saying that there is nothing to add now, but the point would be not to say "let's do the show right here". I said above that civic humanism is a possible topic, but (as you are probably aware) that is a contested definition. It may seem rather foreshortened to say "we mention Machiavelli already", but we do ... something about republican thought can be sneaked in round about there. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not really true that Renaissance humanists conflicted with political and religious leadership. They were the leadership. 24.105.152.153 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Renaissance humanists conflicted with the Scholastics, not with the political leadership (Coluccio Salutati, for example, was the Chancellor, the highest official, in Florence and his mentor Petrarch was a close friend and correspondent with some of the leading political families of his time). Some of the humanists had bitter enemies (often other humanists), but it is simply fallacious to project on them an anti-clericism of the kind that flourished among the 18th century philosophes. Unfortunately, some of the modern "humanist" associations base their ideas about the Renaissance on the tendency of John Addingtion Symonds and Jacob Burckhardt's highly influential nineteenth century popular histories to do just that. That is because these modern humanists naturally desire their organizations to be associated with the great the prestige of the creative and intellectual giants of the former ages. The fact is, however, there is virtually nothing in the values that they call "humanist" that isn't shared with most other religious and secular ethical and educational systems (except perhaps for the extreme fundamentalist ones).24.105.152.153 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Humanism

Should mention of Third Humanism be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluttermoth (talk • contribs) 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening needs work

Shouldn't the opening paragraph delineate between humanism and secular humanism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.1.2 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Over the years, several others have also noticed how deficient the intro is. But there is an entrenched consensus that will not allow change to the basic idea that is there now. See the talk archives for the fuller story. Wilson Delgado (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is still misleading. Most of what is there is correct for a given variety of humanism, but greater emphasis needs to be placed on the diversity of the word's meaning. The term Humanism applies to a broad sweep of philosophical doctrines, most of which are connected by their placing greater emphasis on human (as opposed to religious) affairs than was previously the case. To say that this necessarily renders divine or spiritual affairs unimportant is a gross distortion. Renaissance humanism (which remains the most common understanding of the word) didn't do this at all. Religion remained central.

Please can someone do a rewrite?

CharlieRCD (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not correct that Renaissance humanism remains the most common understanding of the word; this viewpoint seems to be solely held by those whose only awareness of humanism comes from very narrowly-scoped academic studies. Volumes have been written on this very talk page about how to tell which is the most frequent and common use, and those who advocate the Renaissance sense have been challenged to cite sources that show frequency of use repeatedly, with none being provided. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is quite open to verifiable evidence that Renaissance humanism is indeed the most prominent usage of the term, so I look forward to seeing the data upon which you base your viewpoint! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with 151's stance. Accurate meaningful statistics on range of usage of the term humanism have been provided by no one. The default position should follow what leading dictionaries and reference works give as the current range of usage. (See the talk archives for what is found in the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary.) In any case, the secular humanistic usage is a subset of the more general, more abstract term, which does not carry any anti-religious bias. This is the meaning toward which CharlieRCD points. Yes, the word is rich and diverse, and the opening paragraph in an encyclopedia article on the general term should respect that. It is not sufficient to say that the rich history is taken up later on in the article. Furthermore, ample proof has been given that abundant usage of the term in its substantive adjectival form humanist occurs without reference to secularistic philosophy, e.g., in the frequent pairing of "scientists" and "humanists." Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I support Wilson's stance and would humbly suggest Sir 151 to go get a wikipedia account. There seems to be a certain modern usage of "humanism" to oppose against religion, which can be treated by the article too, but that is not, AFAIK, the main usage. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a consensus that cannot be challenged by a better version. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not the number of usages but their quality which is important. This article reads like advocacy for the modern humanist movement rather than a dispassionate and reasoned account of its history, which could have been very informative. For example, secular humanism strikes me as really a strawman set up by religious conservatives who wished to get political control of educational curriculums rather than a real entity.24.105.152.153 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I support your opinion, 24! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles, of course not, but that cannot be the major objective when trying to reach a consensus. In order to have a working evolution, there must be a state that have some quality, this quality must be as socially wide as possible, and that state must be challenged by a better version. Never reaching consensuses will simply fragment the text and make it a mess, not the kind of evolution that readers (of any kind of interest) generally wish. That change occurs, is no defense for editors not caring for a consensus, however much mental energy it requires to negotiate and compromize. If we editors aren't compromizing, we will make a bad figure! Consensus is a responsibility, not a personal option. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinking a lot of article lengths, consensuses, and evolution, I consider proposing a splitup policy – not for this article, of course, this is a short article, but for f.ex. Stellar classification that has grown beyond consensusability. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Campaign

Could anyone who is interested in improving this article, especially its introductory paragraph, demonstrate good faith by discussing it here before making changes in the real article? That would help us separate out the good-faith efforts from the vandals and tendentious editors that this article seems to draw. Thanks! Contributions/151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are unfairly casting as vandalism what is a solid improvement of the article. If you want to change what is clearly sourced and supported by external authorities, you need to give good reasons for doing so. Many people have called for a different direction in the article over the years and you know it but have done nothing to improve the article in those respects. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Wilson. Do not use those words unless really called for. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Another new beginning - invitation to open dialogue

I have made these improvements in the opening of the article, with references backing them up:

Humanism is a broad category of attitudes, approaches, philosophies, and cultural and educational traditions and practices that put emphasis on the human life-world and experience. The history of its usage shows that it is a polysemous term that must be defined in context.[1] It carries no pro- or anti-religious connotation in itself: there have been religious as well as atheistic and anti-religious humanists.[2] The word humanist or humanistic can even simply serve as a synonym for cultural.[3] One popular (but by no means exclusive) use of the term humanism today is that of certain secular philosophical circles where it means the ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without recourse to any supernatural authority.[4][5]

What do people find unacceptable and why? We need more voices than just those of a couple of intransigents who disallow needed changes in the opening. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, except it flatly defies and contradicts the following Wikipedia policy pages:

• "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."
• "The article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
• "It should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one."
• "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view."
• "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."
• "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
• "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."
• "Articles are about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness, but encyclopedia articles rarely contain multiple distinct definitions or usages of a term."
• "Wikipedia articles are not usage guides or slang and idiom guides."
• "Articles are about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth."
• "The same title for different things (homographs) are found in different articles. For example: backup (to move backwards) and backup (save computer data)."
• "Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors."
• "How disruptive editors evade detection: their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."
• "A disruptive editor is an editor who: Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research."
• "A disruptive editor is an editor who: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits."
• "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is an accepted rule when it is not."
• "Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor: You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both."
• "You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors."
• "A particular problem is to assign undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. For example, you might know that there is some controversy surrounding a particular politician’s behaviour with regard to a property dispute. You may be very interested in that dispute, and be keen to document the politician’s role in it. So you would create an article on the politician which goes into detail about that, but includes little or no other data. This is unacceptable because it gives undue weight to the controversy."
• "Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability."

Since this breaks 20 quotable Wikipedia policies, I can't support it at this time. A great place to start working on revising this paragraph would be in its compliance with WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE policies? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an entirely unfair list of accusations. Stick to the content of the article. Too many reference works give a broader range of meaning than the one that you want the article to zero in on exclusively at the beginning. I am presenting not a reductionistic meaning or a tiny-minority meaning but a wide range of meanings, hence I am not tendentious but respectful of the ambiguity of the word. It is only fair that an encyclopedia article take account of the real-world usage and ambiguity that has been verified. I would like other informed voices to contribute to a solution. 151 and Oldman and I will be forever at odds. We must look to a genuine consensus of other informed individuals for a solution. Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That first para seems to me not unreasonable, in itself. I might need to think over whether it is fulfulling the purpose of a lead section, namely summary of the article, as well as providing a defining "topic sentence". Charles Matthews (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your voice is most welcome, Charles. I hope you and several others can weigh in honestly. To all: consider the use of the word humanism in this article written about a lecture given a little over three weeks ago (Leon Kass: Jefferson Lecture of May 22, 2009):

For while the sciences have lost touch with their humanistic origins, Kass said, the humanities have forgotten their relationship "to the 'divinities' -- the inquiry into matters metaphysical and ultimately theological." ... //... In the conclusion of his lecture, Kass argued for a return to his own "old-fashioned" brand of humanism. It is best to read books, he said, "in a wisdom-seeking spirit"; that is, students and professors both should "search [for] the true, the good, and the beautiful." (from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/22/kass)

This seems to give the word humanism a flavor different from that desired by others in this discussion. It ties it to the study of the humanities, the reading of great books. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that, as with your last attempt at cleanup, is that it introduces confusion by trying to reference "religion." This is a tricky term in the context of humanism, because humanists tend to take one of three positions for themselves: 1. Humanism is a religion. Members of the "hUUmanists" organization seem to occupy this group. 2. Humanism is not a religion. Self-titled "secular humanists" are the majority of this group. 3. Humanism is like a religion, but is better termed a "life stance." Members of IHEU member organizations seem to prefer this title. Further complicating use of the term "religion" in the context of humanism are the responses of Christian evangelicals to humanism, who have historically done both of the following: 1. declared that humanism is a religion when arguing against science-based curricula to be taught in schools; 2. declared that humanism is not a religion when arguing against organizations getting the same tax-exempt status they enjoy.

Consequently, when humanists take different stances among themselves and opponents of humanism take different stances at different times, the rather flexible definition of "religion" does not clarify the concept of humanism, and is therefore better handled by being clarified with greater details in the "Religion" section below the introductory paragraph.

Furthermore, the new introductory text is still as horribly vague as that I deleted earlier, so I'm disappointed to see it's been put back without any alteration. The problem is, there isn't a single article on Wikipedia that you couldn't kick off by writing vague hand-waving introductions like, "X has meant many different things to different people over the years, and its definition must be judged in context. When defined precisely, however, X means..." and continue with the current first sentence. The problem is that, while this may be true, it does not strengthen the lead of the article, even articles that can be very contentious. For example, look at the opening sentence in the article on Christianity: it's solid, makes a clear positive assertion, and has been a featured article partly on this strength. Yet, the history of Christianity is rife with conflict, disagreement, and revision.

I think we should use this as a model. First step is to be very clear on what concept this article is supposed to be about, as Wikipedia policy is very clear: these articles are not supposed to be mere dictionary entries. Once that's defined, then we can talk about how to strengthen and make precise, rather than weaken and make vague, the introduction. I'll revert to the opening we had before, and then make proposals here, rather than unilateral edits in the article space itself. OldMan (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. After reading this paragraph I had absolutely no idea what it was even about. It seems like a bunch of vague, almost random thoughts, amalgamated together with a lot of hand waving that effectively says nothing. "There have been religious as well as atheistic and anti-religious humanists"?? It's like writing "There have been tall as well as short and midget humans" in the article describing Humans – you could achieve more by writing nothing. "...put emphasis on the human life-world and experience"? The "human life-world"? As opposed to what, the world before humans? The "animal life-world"?? The current introduction seems vastly superior. ← George ^[talk] 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To George's remarks: The statement about religious and non-religious humanists is necessary to counter misleading implications. That is a good reason to make it. See my answer to Oldman. The human life-world is different from say, the study of the geology under the North Pole or the theological speculation about circuminsessions in the Trinity. It is meaningful, even if you yourself do not understand it. There is no hand-waving, but sourced and necessary commentary introducing the article. But let others speak on this. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The "misleading implications" should be fixed or removed, not buttressed with sentences that don't really say anything. And yes, I definitely don't understand what a "human life-world" is referring to, nor will most readers. It's important for an article – especially the lead of an article – to be understandable to the reader, as well as being accurate. ← George ^[talk] 07:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To Oldman's remarks: First, the reference to religion is not a problem: humanists can be believers in God or non-believers. (The status of humanism as religion or like a religion or not a religion is not at issue.) What is a problem is implying that a person who is called a humanist must not be a religious person. That is what the lead has been implying incorrectly for years. It is contradicted time and again by usage over the years.

You say the article must be about only a single narrowly-delimited concept. Well then it must be announce what strand of meaning is being seized upon. That is precisely what my version of the intro did. It segued into the secular philosophical humanist meaning. If you want to write an article that only talks about that narrow concept of humanism, then you have to label the article appropriately. It cannot just be labeled Humanism. It has to be something like "Humanism (secular rationalistic philosophy)." (Doing this would solve many of our differences. Why not do it? Please say why you do not want this appropriate delimiter in the title of the article when this is exactly what the article goes on to be about.)

If there is any common ground to all the humanisms it is simply the idea that there is weight being given to the human realm in some sense. That is what my intro made clear. That is the core concept. It is not vague, even if it is abstract and general. These are different things, vagueness and abstractness or generality.

As for editing the article: People make edits all over Wikipedia without first establishing consensus on the talk page, particularly when they source their alterations. You wish to let the default lie with a most misleading presentation that does injustice to the concept of humanism by reducing it to one of its submeanings. That is a greater sin than insisting on an open, broad, inclusive concept under which your favored version of humanism can find a place. The error of the opening has been noticed time and again through the years, but the many people who speak up do not seem to add up to a stronger consensus in your eyes than the insistence of a couple of intransigent editors. Please let us hear other, perhaps more objective voices! Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The title should be determined by common usage. If the case can be made that the "secular rationalistic philosophy" is not the common usage, then the article should be moved, and whatever is the common usage should replace it, or it should be replaced with a disambiguation page.

Unfortunately, consensus is what people generally agree to, even if some of those people are zealots. I think the better way to reach a consensus is to tackle the lead, sentence by sentence. Identify a sentence, what you think is wrong with it, propose an alternative, and explain why it's better. Trying to change a lead en mass is almost guaranteed to be disputed by someone. You might also want to follow the dispute resolution process. ← George ^[talk] 07:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear that one way to go is simply to declare that this will be a disambiguation page. If that is not the outcome of further discussion, then the obligation of the lead section is, firstly, to support a good "topic sentence", and, secondly, to summarise for the reader the content of the rest of the article. So it is definition+executive summary we aim at. The proportionality and neutrality issues should really be dealt with by developing the body of the article, and then discussing the lead in terms of whether it is a fair, quick summary of the article as a whole. The correlation or lack of it of humanism with religious views is one aspect that the reader will expect to be covered in Wikipedia. The idea of a "negative report" - low correlation between humanism in some senses and religious views - is valid, but should not dominate the lead. Nor should it be excluded. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I favor a disambiguation page also. The common usage issue has already been debated. Who knows what the real majority usage is? It depends on how you are counting the implied correlative forms and closely related concepts: not just humanism but also humanist and humanities and humanistic. Some folks disallow the linkage and come up with a higher count for their own meaning. Furthermore, even if it could be proven that 51% think of "secular rationalistic humanism" when they hear the word humanism there is still some necessity of dealing with the other 49% in a general article on Humanism in an encyclopedia, especially when other leading reference works give the other meaning its fair due, or highlight it as the leading meaning (cf. Encyclopedia Britannica). Thus a disambiguation page is probably the best solution. Wilson Delgado (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the numbers "51%" and "49%"? Surely you didn't just make them up because they were convenient to your viewpoint, did you? In fact, when I was looking at modern-day examples of common use, I found much closer to 95%/5%, and in most sources 100%/0%, which makes the "modern study of humanities" definition a tiny minority of usage at best. I guess we'd better get back to demonstrating usage from real-world searches of books, news articles, and web pages, such that you cannot continue to misrepresent usage statistics by simply making them up. This is sad, because I thought we'd covered this territory very well several months ago. I guess I'll have to continue doing so every time this talk page gets archived, to counteract your feigned ignorance of the facts and sources that have already been presented.

For your convenience, I've created a user account at last. I'll try to do most of my edits on this article while logged in from now on. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just using those figures in a hypothetical example for the sake of making a point. I have never accepted the parameters or methods of your study and do not wish to debate your figures. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) All of this has gone several very lengthy rounds before, with the same 3 main participants, as you can see from the history. The current text is essentially there because two very determined and agressive editors have maintained versions of it over the years, against one equally persistent dissident, with others on both sides passing in and out. Further discussion between them is unlikely to produce agreement on the main issue. The disam page route is a real option, or perhaps someone else might try a lead para draft. But don't expect an easy ride. "... without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts" is the core of the disagreement. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod is right. It seems to have been so non-productive. I certainly do not feel like using another minute on this effort, except that occasionally I find it hard to accept the fact that Wikipedia should have such a misleading article on such a major topic. Almost all would be well if only the article were labeled correctly. I am happy to leave the discussion and the disambig page to competent and understanding editors. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be clarifying to point out, to those trying to write the lead section as if "secular humanism" was the only serious meaning to be entertained here, that they are really arguing for the disambiguation page solution. I note that humanist is already a dab page. The choice is really between a lead that attempts to include more than the nineteenth century relaunch of "humanism" as secular, and no lead at all. This is how Wikipedia ultimately handles these matters, if the attempt to write an umbrella article breaks down. If there is a dab page solution, there are two modes, one in which humanism is the dab page, and one in which humanism is a redirect, presumably to secular humanism, and humanism (disambiguation) is created and noted in a hatnote there. I'm mostly concerned to get the history right, myself, I have to say. It is a bit "presentist", for me, just to go to current definitions and assume they over-write past meanings of the term. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please do not confuse "secular humanism" with other forms of humanism that claim varying degrees of religiosity. Although practitioners of humanism may all claim a human-centered ethical philosophy that is not theistic, the point of this article is to be inclusive of all such humanists, not just the specifically-termed secular humanists. When you use the phrase "those trying to write the lead section as if 'secular humanism' was the only serious meaning to be entertained here," this is a red herring, as I have never seen anyone trying to make that claim here. This failure to distinguish between types of humanism, religious and secular alike, is precisely why it is not sufficient merely to link the term "humanism" to the article on secular humanism.

You make the same mistake when you talk about "the nineteenth century relaunch of 'humanism' as secular," because the very first incorporated humanist organization to use the word was the "Humanistic Religious Association." Religious, not secular. It's interesting that you would call this "presentist" and "assuming they over-write past meanings of the term" when this activity occurred over a century and a half ago. It is not a debate for us today; it is the subject of many books and essays that have become part of history over two hundred years of use in English.

On the other hand, your suggestion about a disambiguation page is a good one, though I think the two options you list present a false dichotomy. In fact the appropriate action to take is neither of your suggestions, but is the second of the three disambiguation options recommended at WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate. To this end, I have now created the disambiguation page you've suggested, and am updating our hat notes on this article to match the policy guidance on that wikipedia policy page. Thanks for pointing out the opportunity to do the right thing according to Wikipedia policy! OldMan (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, having a dab page is a step forward in that we don't have to imagine what it would look like if it existed. Thank you for the work on this. To get more technical, there is the disambiguation issue, and the "default meaning" issue. The "default meaning" you argue for is "humanism = group of human-centred philosophies". You can have this, by all means, at the cost only of proposing a topic sentence and lead section that gives a coherent summary of this topic; and getting consensus on the content and coherence. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If I type in humanism, the Wikipedia search should send me to the DAB page, but it doesn't. How do we change this? Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No it should not; the Wikipedia policy page I linked to says, "Any article which has primary usage for its title and has other uses should have a disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic." OldMan (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The primary usage is contended. No definitive, generally accepted proof of one primary usage has been given. Reference works give a variety of meanings, or even highlight usages other than the one on this page. (To take just one example: in the standard reference work The Encyclopedia of Philosophy under humanism, the first sentence reads: "Humanism is the philosophical and literary movement which originated in Italy in the second half of the fourteenth century and diffused into the other countries of Europe, coming to constitute one of the factors of modern culture.") Therefore I propose that the dab page be used for searches on humanism. What do others think? Wilson Delgado (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, I thought this would be clarifying on the issue. Translating it into WP-specific terms means the discussion can be seen in the encyclopedic context. If we get deadlocked here, it should by rights go to Wikipedia:Requested moves or Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. If Humanism were to be redirected (as one suggestion has it) to humanism (disambiguation), then we'd be talking about splitting this article and merging it into other ones, with the possible creation of new articles from existing material. In any case there are routes to such forums where community input is sought. Since what I'm seeing is a foundational disagreement, I think this approach must now be contemplated. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Charles. I would hope to hear from more people on the solution of just using the dab page for the term humanism. It seems the simplest and fairest approach. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says this:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

We can agree that there has been extended discussion. If one takes into account (and weights appropriately) the encyclopedias, dictionaries, all the times that the term humanism is used in scholarly articles and books (though they may not become webpages), and the consensus of quite a few folks who have spoken up over the years (but then disappeared), then I think that the suggested dab-page solution is preferable. Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No Renaissance Humanists criticized Christianity. Here is the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, for example, on erroneous and anachronistic depictions of Italian Humanism:

Modern scholars, and some politicians, have added complications by applying aprioristic conceptions — Christian, liberal, or atheist —- in their evaluation of humanism. For example, there has been a wide-spread tendency among Anglo-Saxon and German Protestant historians to regard not only Erasmus (because he did not become a partisan of Luther) but even more the Italian humanists as pagan, irreligious, and immoral. But not even the most skeptical humanists undertook a general critique of Christianity, as was done by eighteenth-century philosophers. Those humanists -— from Petrarch and the Florentine Augustinians to Ambrogio Traversari, Erasmus, and Thomas More —- who took a genuine interest in theology, showed an approach to this subject similar to that of others condemning scholastic theology, i.e., the application of logic and dialectics to theology, and advocating the return to the original sources of Christian doctrine, the Bible, and the Church Fathers (especially Saint Augustine). Their intention was to harmonize humanist learning with the essentials of Christian religion based on these sources. To this end, Italian humanists like Valla and Manetti applied their newly developed method of textual criticism to the study of the Bible and the Latin Church Fathers, later to be followed by Erasmus and others. They translated the Greek Fathers, such as Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others. Furthermore, they applied textual and historical criticism to the study of church history; Valla's attack on the Donation of Constantine serving as a famous example. "Italian Humanism", Philip P. Wiener, Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas (New York Scribners, 1974)[2]

24.105.152.153 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What would be really interesting would be an article that traced the evolution of the term "humanitates" -- from its use by Cicero in Pro-Archia and its rediscovery by Petrarch in 1333 (?) to the invention of the abstract noun by German scholars (to designate Classical learning? In German it still does) to its absorption by Unitarians and other new and reforming Christian groups in the nineteenth century under the influence of the 18th Century Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The Humanist "New Man" movement of the nineteen twenties and thirties and the attacks on "Secular humanism" by religious and social conservatives in the 1950s ought to be mentioned as well. But it should be made clear that there is no direct connection between any of these meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.110.110 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have found an article by Vito Giustiniani in the Journal of the History Ideas (1985) that addresses the very subject we have been arguing about. He says that word humanism in its modern philosophical sense was used as early as c. 1750 during the French Enlightenment and then in the early nineteenth century by German Hegelians (including Marx), and by the anarchist Proudhon. In the meantime its use to designate the great figures of the Renaissance and their epoch (Renaissance Humanism) is quite as accepted and legitimate -- as famously was done by Georg Voigt. Giustiniani goes through the philosophies of the various modern humanists and points out how they conflict with each other. He also addresses the question of whether and how much the philosophical humanists are actually indebted to the Renaissance humanists, as many of them claimed to be.

Humanism as an ideal of Greek paideia, humanism as a revival of ancient culture, humanism according to Ruge, Marx, Schiller, Babbitt, the Humanist Manifesto, and Heidegger: humanism as a discovery of man's virtus, as a new vision of history and establishment of new ways of thinking: all these humanisms show how differently human beings can be and actually have been understood from one time to another, from one cultural era to another, from one language to another. It has been said that our epoch undergoes a sort of reversal of what happened when the Tower of Babel was being built and "non audivit unusquisquam vocem proximi sui". Nowadays a common vocabulary is being worked out in all languages to express the new values which continuously appear and the way the old ones are understood. The same terms occur in almost the same shape everywhere. But humanism, humanisme, Humanisimus, umanesimo or umanismo, gumanism, are doomed to be perpetual signum contradictionis. God's curse still rests on a term which should define the very essence of God's most perfect creature.--Vito R. Giustiniani, University of Freiburg im Breisgau, "Homo, Humanus, and Meanings of 'Humanism'", Journal of the History of Ideas: 46 (no. 2): 194-95.

What is not recognized is that the blow to Renaissance Humanism was dealt by the great philosophers of the 17th Century Age of Reason: Descartes, Bacon, Hobbes, and Spinoza, all of whom aimed to sweep away everything that had preceded them (although the humanistic educational ideal persisted well into the 20th century). Mballen (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on Naming Articles

According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there are three ways to determine a primary topic:

1. Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
2. Wikipedia article traffic statistics from http://stats.grok.se/
3. Google web, news, scholar, or book searches from http://www.google.com/

According to WP:NAMECON, "A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English."

• The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
• International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
• Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
• Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
• Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .
• Scientific nomenclature. Check usage by international bodies like CIPM, IUPAP, IUPAC, and other scientific bodies concerned with nomenclature; consider also the national standards agencies NIST and NPL. Consult style guides of scientific journals.

According to WP:NAME, "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail." Emphasis exists in original.

With all of this very clear guidance from Wikipedia's policy pages, I have to restore several comments to this talk page providing verifiable demonstrations of popular usage that were actually DELETED, rather than archived. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is helpful to look at the wording on the page:

Tools that may help determine a primary topic (but are not determining factors by themselves):

are the three you mention. That is not very clear guidance, it is indicative. It is unhelpful to take a one-sided view of policy. This seems to need saying: policy pages are not there to win arguments for you, but to improve the encyclopedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have further checked the policy pages you have cited, and consider that this collection of cites doesn't add up to much of relevance to this case besides the comment that other reference works may be relevant. What is controversial, in fact, is the scope of the article rather than the name. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Greatest hits from the Archive

Best-Selling Book Survey Results

Here are the results of my interpreting the use of the word "humanism" in the top 25 best-selling books that contain the word, according to amazon.com:

1. The White Tiger: A Novel, by Aravind Adiga. Human-Centric Philosophy. 2. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, by Timothy Keller. Human-Centric Philosophy. 3. Anticancer: A New Way of Life, by David Servan-Schreiber. Human-Centric Philosophy. 4. The American Journey of Barack Obama, by The Editors of Life Magazine. Human-Centric Philosophy. 5. Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (Thumb Index), by Donald Venes. Human-Centric Philosophy. 6. Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, by Barack Obama. Human-Centric Philosophy. 7. First Aid for the USMLE Step 1 2009: A Student to Student Guide (First Aid Series), by Tao Le and Vikas Bhushan. No context. 8. Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception To Keep You Misinformed, by Christopher C. Horner. Human-Centric Philosophy. 9. Couples, by John Updike. Human-Centric Philosophy. 10. Thinking with Type: A Critical Guide for Designers, Writers, Editors, & Students, by Ellen Lupton. Renaissance Study of the Classics. 11. Rick Steves' Italy 2009, by Rick Steves. Renaissance Study of the Classics. 12. The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, by C. S. Lewis. Human-Centric Philosophy. 13. 1984, by George Orwell and Erich Fromm. Human-Centric Philosophy. 14. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, by Michel Foucault. Human-Centric Philosophy. 15. The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions, by Huston Smith. Human-Centric Philosophy. 16. Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy, by Gerald Corey. Human-Centric Philosophy. 17. America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, by Mark Steyn. Human-Centric Philosophy. 18. Rick Steves' Paris 2009, by Rick Steves. Renaissance Study of the Classics. 19. Unstuck: Your Guide to the Seven-Stage Journey Out of Depression, by JamesS. Gordon M.D. Renaissance Study of the Classics. 20. The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why, by Phillis Tickle. Human-Centric Philosophy. 21. The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World, by Michael Pollan. Renaissance Study of the Classics. 22. Bridge of Sighs: A Novel, by Richard Russo. Human-Centric Philosophy. 23. The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever, by Christopher Hitchens. Human-Centric Philosophy. 24. A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East--from the Cold Warto the War on Terror, by Patrck Tyler. Human-Centric Philosophy. 25. Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior, by David R. Hawkins. Human-Centric Philosophy. 26. The Princeton Companion to Mathematics, by Timothy Gowers, June Barrow-Green, and Imre Leader. Human-Centric Philosophy.

Of particular note is #7. The First Aid book lists humanism in a comma-delimited list of "eclectic interests" of an acknowledgee; it provides no context to tell what kind of humanism it means. I meant to capture the top 25 best-selling books here, but since we must discard this one, I did 26 instead. That gives us the following totals: 20 books refer to human-centric philosophy. 5 books refer to Renaissance study of the classics, 1 has been discarded for lack of context, and 0 refer to modern study of humanities. This gives us 80% human-centric philosophy, 20% Renaissance study of the classics, and 0% modern study of humanities. By being charitable, we can excuse ourselves for leaving perhaps one mention of modern study of humanities in this article, but it is very clearly a minority definition based on usage within best-selling books. OldMan (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

These statistics are useless. I took the first item and searched insided the book, but "humanism" did not appear. Furthermore it is a novel, not "philosophy." Thirdly, if "human-centered philosophy" can cover just anything that gives weight to humanity, then it is not specific enough to the particular (philsophic) meaning being proposed as the overriding common use. Also: C.S. Lewis is in this list, a believing Christian who was also a literary humanist. He was God-centered as well as human-centered, I think he would say. He "resorted" to scripture quite a lot for guidance. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're not very familiar with C. S. Lewis's actual writings, so I must suggest you at least read the Wikipedia article on the book in question, "The Screwtape Letters". The short summary, though, is that Lewis speaks through the voice of a demon advising another demon how to tempt Christians. Thus, when Lewis writes, "Hence the encouragement we have given to all those schemes of thought such as Creative Evolution, Scientific Humanism, or Communism, which fix men's affections on the Future, on the very core of temporality," Lewis is actually stating that humanism is a BAD thing for Christians to engage in. In fact, he's "demonizing" humanism in a very literal sense, praising it from the voice of a demon! So we have this book for sure as one example of how horrible Lewis thought humanism is for Christians to engage in. But my ears are open: can you please name one place where Lewis referred to himself as a humanist? Thank you! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific Humanism" please! Whoopee, we need another article. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if he ever called himself such. But others certainly have. Search on ( C.S. Lewis humanist ) in books.google.com to see how Lewis defines humanism and what he means by humanist. It is not your favored meaning. You might also take a look at http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1650 where you can read: "Far from being private and idiosyncratic, Lewis’ métier was the public, as in universal. He was in the fullest and finest sense a humanist. He was a Christian humanist, to be sure, but he could say with the pre–Christian Terence, "I am a man: nothing human is alien to me." Being a Christian humanist was in no way a limiting factor. Quite the opposite is the case, if Christ is the Logos who informs, sustains, and fulfills all that is. Lewis frequently used "humanism" and "humanitarian" as pejoratives, but only because in common usage those terms reflected smug liberal prejudices that were not nearly humanistic enough. For Lewis, the great fact is that God became a human being, and you cannot get more humanistic than that." Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not select C. S. Lewis's "Screwtape Letters" as an example of common usage simply because he agreed with me; in fact I selected him only because he was near the top of a best-seller list. The fact that he agreed with me is merely incidental, however inconvenient it may be to your POV. You, on the other hand, had to go find that eleven-year-old article specifically because of its bias, and even then the author, Richard Neuhaus, writes in contradiction of your thesis that "Lewis frequently used 'humanism' and 'humanitarian' as pejoratives, but only because in common usage those terms reflected smug liberal prejudices that were not nearly humanistic enough." Consequently Lewis's disdain for humanism, and Neuhaus's acknowledgement of it, and calling it "frequent" and "in common usage," does indeed support that the primary meaning "in common usage" is what Lewis considered detrimental to Christian theology and practice. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And then Neuhaus calls Lewis "in the finest sense a humanist," illustrating another living and recognizable and commonly understandable usage. Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

News Article Survey Results

I liked your approach to categorizing the use, so I've redone my own categorization to match. The results were predictable, but please note the following: like you, I found one that basically offered no context, in "Nepali woman writer Parijat." I also found two articles listed in the search results that did not contain the word "humanism," but the reader comments at the end did. None of these oddities affect the outcome at all: aside from the one with no useful context, every single instance referred to human-centered philosophy. Even if you discard the reader comments, the result is 100% unanimous. Read those reader comments, though: they are written by Christians who use the term as perjorative, which also leads us to conclude that it isn't the MEANING of the term that's in question, just whether WE OUGHT TO HOLD that philosophy. Here are examples of my search results, where "GGN" means I found it on google news, "MSN" is msn.com, and "YHN" means I found it on Yahoo's news search:

Click here to see:

2-16, GGN: "Reforms would slow recidivism rate," Florida Times-Union. Human-centered philosophy. 2-16, GGN: "Implications of religion for employers," Liverpool Echo. Human-centered philosophy, as a religion. 2-16, GGN: "How Civil Society and Human Rights Have Been Strangled in the Colonial 'Ethiopian' Tyranny," American Chronicle. Human-centered philosophy. 2-16, GGN, MSN: "Murakami defies protests to accept Jerusalem prize," guardian.co.uk. Human-centered philosophy. 2-16, GGN, YHN: "Dr. Paulette Y. Saddler Launches SaddlerMD.com: Healthy Bodies Inside and Out," eMediaWire. Human-centered philosophy. 2-16, GGN, MSN, YHN: "Murakami wins Jerusalem Prize, calls for end to conflict," Times of India. Human-centered philosophy. 2-16, YHN: "Medical attention guaranteed before, during and after the hurricanes," Granma Internacional. (This is an old article. Not sure why YHN aggregates it on this date.) Human-centered philosophy. 2-15, GGN, MSN, YHN: "Vatican: Migrants Are Family," Zenit News Agency. Human-centered philosophy. 2-15, GGN: "Murakami, in trademark obscurity, explains why he accepted Jerusalem award," Jerusalem Post. Human-centered philosophy. 2-15, GGN, YHN: "Ingrateful Caultron: The Arab World," Dartmouth Review. Human-centered philosophy. 2-15, GGN: "Nepali woman writer Parijat," Media for Freedom. Not enough context. 2-15, MSN: "Peter Singer," Guardian Unlimited, Observer Profile. Human-centered philosophy. 2-15, YHN: "Haruki Murakami wins Jerusalem Prize," Japan Today. Human-centered philosophy. 2-15, YHN: "Karzai takes swipe at Obama," Richmond Times-Dispatch, reader comment only. Human-centered philosophy. 2-14, GGN, YHN: "Pittsburgh's Bible Belt rivals South's, scholars say," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Human-centered philosophy. 2-14, MSN, YHN: "25 years of writing for the Whig," Kingston Whig. Human-centered philosophy. 2-14, MSN: "Obama's Faith: Rumor vs. Reality," Belief.Net. (This is an old article. Not sure why MSN aggregates it on this date.) Human-centered philosophy. 2-14, MSN, YHN: "Remembering MLK," Al-Ahram Weekly. Human-centered philosophy. 2-14, YHN: "AM steps down for career in secular wedding ceremonies," icWales. Human-centered philosophy. 2-12, MSN: "BHA: 'Bullying' Vatican threatens a secular Europe," Politics.co.uk. Human-centered philosophy. 2-10, MSN: "Salazar rejects Bush drilling plan," Washington Times, reader comment only. Human-centered philosophy. 2-09, MSN: "Humanist Society names president" Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Human-centered philosophy.

151.190.254.108 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Google and similar searches should be used mainly if there are no other sources, and then only to:

determine whether a topic is notable or not,

find sources.

what you succeeded to do with these searches is to convince me (I cannot speak for the others) that there is a movement or organisation called "Human-centered philosophy". Maybe you could create an article for that philosophy or politics ("philosophy" is nonbiased and purely intellectual by my terminology)? And why don't you go get yourself a wikipedia account?? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BBC News

My attention has been drawn to Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references, which gives additional news sources to check in case there's a conflict over what to call something. This new section on the BBC, and the next section on CNN, covers those two bases to show what the name "humanism" most commonly means.

As before, "HUM" marks human-centric philosophies (as opposed to theocentric philosophies), "REN" marks Renaissance study of classics, and "MOD" marks modern study of humanities and liberal arts.

Results: 0% refer to modern study of humanities. OldMan (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs)

Proves what? That old humanist studies shall be removed in order to promote modern "human-ethic movement"? The only thing it proves, is that the "human-ethical movement" uses the term "humanism" and therefore should be mentioned here too. This is an encyclopedia: if there are old uses and academical uses, they are as important as modern politicial/religious movements, but the topic of this discussion is not the one against the other, and if one usage erases the other usage; the article should treat a correct neutral point of view on usages, academical genres, and modern flagwaving idiosyncratic anti-religious people. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

CNN News

As before, "HUM" marks human-centric philosophies (as opposed to theocentric philosophies), "REN" marks Renaissance study of the classics, and "MOD" marks modern study of humanities and liberal arts.

Results: 0% refer to modern study of humanities. OldMan (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs)

Top Ten Alexa Websites on Humanism

How do the top ten most-visited websites present humanism? Here are results of a web search for content on each of the 13 top-ranked, most-visited websites according to Alexa.com. I was going to do 10, but Wikipedia was one of them and Orkut and Rapidshare do not permit searching of their content. I used context to determine whether the page presents an aggregate of all meanings of the term (AGG), or refers most specifically to "human-centric philosophy" (HUM), "renaissance humanism" (REN), or "modern study of humanities" (MOD).

Click here to see:

Alexa site #1: Yahoo.com http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/Philosophy/Humanism/ - Directory page that links to 7 other pages, all "HUM" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sechum-L/ - HUM http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Entertainment___Arts/Humanities/Philosophy/Humanism - Not all of these ten Yahoo groups are in English, but those that are, are all "HUM" Alexa site #2: Google.com http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7283784341137401656 - HUM http://www.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Humanism/ - All search results on this page are "HUM." There is an "Arts" subcategory listed, so I clicked through and... NONE of those pages had to do with modern study of the humanities alone; ALL were linked to secular humanist organizations! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8436349968265240993 - HUM Alexa site #3: Youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=513iP6x_32I - HUM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbVDF5CHVlo - HUM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0jnuLGygmQ - HUM Alexa site #4: Live.com http://profile.live.com/Results.aspx?tp=3&q=humanism&pg=0&scope=2&form=people_search_tag_profile - Impossible to say; these are profiles of individual users without context. http://eugenemao.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!3FEEB089A7E9C212!290.entry - HUM http://bharathamaathaelango.spaces.live.com/ - HUM http://cid-91194fa02befdcad.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.res/91194FA02BEFDCAD!522/ - Impossible to say; these are just miscellaneous photographs under the title "Other social/humanism photograph". Not enough context. http://cid-a7eabe9b597f10bf.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.res/A7EABE9B597F10BF!210?ct=photos - Same; these are all photos of humans, but still, to be fair, going to discard this one for lack of context. http://fredblomson.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!3005A0A7A352A72F!701.entry - HUM Alexa site #5: Msn.com http://shopping.msn.com/prices/on-humanism/itemid24052051/?itemtext=itemname:on-humanism - HUM http://shopping.msn.com/prices/architectural-principles-in-the-age-of-humanism/itemid24058838/?itemtext=itemname:architectural-principles-in-the-age-of-humanism - REN http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564121/humanism.html - AGG Alexa site #6: Myspace.com http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=253999191&blogID=439034099 - HUM http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=395035548 - HUM http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=311700025 - Not enough context to tell; it's a graphic design webpage. http://groups.myspace.com/SpiritualHumanism - HUM Alexa site #7: Wikipedia.org (All these ought to be discounted, as we need to ensure verifiable reality is driving Wikipedia, and not the other way around. They are included here just for comparison to the other sites above and below.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism - AGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism - REN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist - AGG Alexa site #8: Facebook.com http://apps.facebook.com/blognetworks/searchpage.php?tag=humanism - I didn't click through to all the blogs to ensure they're all the same meaning, but I did through most of the vague ones. Only one lists "art" among its tags (humanistmom.com) and upon clicking through there, it turns out she's a member of [3]. I think it's fair to label this list of blogs "HUM". http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204637814 - HUM http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=11277041019&topic=5313 - HUM Alexa site #9: Blogger.com http://www.blogger.com/profile/17933863742692708976 - Blog about "intellectual property" [sic] not in English. Not enough context to tell. http://www.blogger.com/followers.g?blogID=1361014580076478425 - This page makes no mention of humanism... probably an old copy was indexed, with a person whose blog included a mention of humanism? No context. http://www.blogger.com/profile/02317079628372298031 - HUM http://www.blogger.com/profile/11765166843439006384 - HUM http://www.blogger.com/profile/17078244177993489659 - HUM Alexa site #10: Yahoo.co.jp http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=secular&dtype=1&stype=0&dname=1napagenum=1&index=06405000 - HUM http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=ã¢ã³ã&dtype=0&stype=0&dname=0ss&paagenum=11&index=100704600000 - Translation says "Philosophical stance to criticize the style of thinking oriented humanism that are characteristic of modern humans. Anti-humanism." This doesn't clarify what "characteristic of modern humans" means, so though I think it's referring to human-centric philosophy, I'll discard this for lack of context to make absolutely suããµã³ã¹æ&dtype=1&stype=4&dnamm http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=1ss&pagenum=1&index=199900 - AGG http://page6.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/f76298837 - No context. http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=ã¦ã¼ã&dtype=0&stype=2&dname=0na&pagenum=21&index=17908115694000 - AGG Alexa site #11: Orkut.com www.orkut.com/Communities.aspx?cmm=1462 - Cannot search Orkut or view pages without an account there. Alexa site #12: Rapidshare.com - No searchable files Alexa site #13: Baidu.com http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/24428683.html - HUM http://hi.baidu.com/odpo/blog/item/9c93a0135dfd1327dd5401ab.html - AGG http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/4635086.html - REN

Totals: 24 HUM (80%), 2 REN (6.7%), 4 AGG (13.3%), 0 MOD (0%). 8 discarded for lack of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Top Alexa Search Results for "humanism"

I searched Alexa for the term "humanism" and discarded all entries that do not have an Alexa ranking, or a ranking over 1,000,000. The following results probably show the top-visited sites that use the term "humanism," according to Alexa's ranking algorithm, and whether it is an aggregation of all meanings (AGG), or refers most specifically to "human-centric philosophy" (HUM), "renaissance humanism" (REN), or "modern study of humanities" (MOD).

Click here to see:

7: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism - AGG 28: www.amazon.com/Humanism-Introduction-Jim-Herrick/d... - HUM 78: atheism.about.com/od/philosophyschoolsystems/p/hu... - HUM 179: www.answers.com/topic/humanism - AGG 207: dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanism - AGG 297: psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Humanism - AGG 359: www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism - AGG 1126: humanism.meetup.com - HUM 3126: www.loc.gov/exhibits/vatican/humanism.html - REN 3278: www.bookrags.com/Humanism - AGG 4913: www.yourdictionary.com/humanism - AGG 6607: www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/c-hum... - REN 9940: www.onelook.com/?w=humanism&ls=a - AGG 20850: www.religioustolerance.org/humanism1.htm - HUM 27849: www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/u.htm - HUM 33491: www.iep.utm.edu/h/humanism.htm - REN 41442: chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/affsys/humed.html - HUM 42942: www.conservapedia.com/Humanism - HUM 150831: www.friesian.com/why.htm - HUM 171568: www.historyguide.org/intellect/humanism.html - REN 303282: www.allaboutphilosophy.org/humanism.htm - HUM 324023: www.americanhumanist.org/humanism - HUM 358534: www.secularhumanism.org - HUM 381029: www.prairienet.org/boedicker/humanism.htm - HUM 431110: www.humanism.org.uk/humanism - HUM 436279: www.iheu.org/humanism - HUM 487874: www.learning-theories.com/humanism - HUM 628709: www.nullifidan.net/tag/humanism - HUM 680755: uuhnepal.humanists.net/?page_id=13 - HUM 753501: www.humaniststudies.org/humphil.html - HUM

Totals: 18 HUM (60%), 4 REN (13.3%), 8 AGG (26.7%), 0 MOD (0%)

OldMan (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs)

Top 25 Google search results

Wilson had once decried Google search results as not being trustworthy, but since he is now citing Google search results himself to back a minority opinion, here are the top 25 Google search results for "humanism." As with all preceding searches, please note that the percentage of pages that use "humanism" to mean "modern study of humanities" remains 0%.

Click here to see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism - All meanings, with due weight given to each. www.jcn.com/humanism.html - All meanings, with a primary focus on human-centered, non-faith-based philosophy. Read this page! It's the best summary of modern usage of the word, including the differences between religious and secular humanism! www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/c-humanism/Humanism.html - Renaissance, including commentary on the drift away from Christian orthodoxy www.humanism.org/ - Human-centered philosophy, humanitarianism. www.secularhumanism.org/ - Human-centered philosophy www.wsu.edu/~dee/REN/HUMANISM.HTM - Renaissance, focusing more on the dignity of humanity and epicurean fulfillment than faith-based fulfillment. www.historyguide.org/intellect/humanism.html - Renaissance. Focuses on differentiating humanist curriculum from Christian faith with such phrases as, "favor of the pagan classics," "growing secular view of life," "in spite of allegiance to ascetic Christian doctrine," and "welcomed classical writers who revealed... secular attitudes." www.iep.utm.edu/h/humanism.htm - Renaissance, specifically opposed to scholasticism."The Italian Humanists were not concerned in the reformatory movements of the fifteenth century. They drifted into a palpable paganism or semipaganism..." www.loc.gov/exhibits/vatican/humanism.html - Renaissance. "The relation between popes and scholars was never simple, for the humanists evolved their own views on theology. Some argued that pagan philosophers like Plato basically agreed with Christian revelation. Others criticized important Church doctrines or institutions that lacked biblical or historical support. Some even seemed in danger of becoming pagans... In the end, it proved impossible to consummate the marriage of humanism and the Catholic condition." www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm - Human-centered philosophy, specifically categorized under "non-theistic religions." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism - Renaissance. www.newadvent.org/cathen/07538b.htm - Renaissance www.loc.gov/exhibits/vatican/humanism.html - Duplicate of #9 above www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Secular-Humanists-Believe.aspx - Human-centered philosophy humaniststudies.org/humphil.html - Human-centered philosophy www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275932/humanism - Aggregate www.metafilter.com/78797/Humanism - Human-centered philosophy www.mrdowling.com/704-humanism.html - Renaissance dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/Philosophy/Humanism/ - Human-centered philosophy chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/affsys/humed.html - Human-centered philosophy www.newhumanist.com/ - Human-centered philosophy dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanism - Aggregate www.progressivehumanism.com/ - Human-centered philosophy www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html - Human-centered philosophy www.allaboutphilosophy.org/humanism.htm - Human-centered philosophy

âPreceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs)  

These statistics are also useless. I chose one item at random (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html) and found this: "Accurate definitions are difficult to come by. When one hears the word “humanism,” several different ideas may come to mind. For example, Mr. Webster would define humanism something like this: "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, or dignity predominate."[1] Others may think of a liberal arts education. Both of these are well and good, but what we are seeking is a definition of the worldview known as Secular Humanism." This website therefore encourages the idea that the main page for Humanism should be the dab page itself. Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are they useless? Wikipedia's article naming policy is based on the weight of usage of a given term, and this editor (or editors) has made a good attempt to show that, statistically speaking, and in a non-biased manner, the current meaning is the most common one used by English speakers. I think they make a fairly compelling case. A single definition from christiananswer.net, which I would question as a reliable source, does nothing to counter such claims. You should try doing your own unbiased survey or reliable sources and show that the statistics favor your preferred meaning (or that there is no preferred meaning, which would lend itself to a disambiguation page). ← George ^[talk] 18:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They are useless because the particular implications and understandings of people are not adequately probed by raw statistics. The case I brought up shows that Serpent was using in favor of his own argument an item that cuts against his argument. The person who wrote that article said that one may think of liberal arts education (i.e., a humanistic one or a humanities-oriented one) when one thinks of the term humanism. Well that means that that person is testifying to what Serpent says does not occur at all, namely, the association of humanism with humanities. Yes, the word humanities was not used, I agree, but the content of the idea is still there as a meaning-designation associated with humanism. Furthermore, many literary, cultural, and educational uses of humanism, humanist, humanities, humanistic in books may not turn up in Alexa searches, but they occur in abundance in texts and reference works. The weighting is not adequately respected if one sticks to such "hard" data. Also, human-centric philosophy as a category as used here is not exactly the same as the way the opening of the Humanism article now describes it. There are Vatican documents that talk about authentic humanism, for example. Serpent and OldMan might say, "See! Human-centric philosophy!" But it is one that is integrated with a deeply religious and scripture-friendly world-view that their favored meaning does not permit. These Church documents may be taken as being relevant to the billion or so Christians, so this meaning would have to be given full weight too in the lead of the article. It is not a tiny minority usage. Using webpage statistics alone prima facie skews towards what tends to appear on webpages, does it not? Secular humanist groups have adopted the noun humanism and webpage advertisement, so of course their usage is going to come up disproportionately on webpage statistics. Humanist groups might adopt some synonym like liberal arts or humanistic or literary studies or cultural instead, but one of the major meaning of humanism is still at issue and may well be quite relevant in the members' conceptual universe. I do not think it is fair to ignore the living semantic linkage. Have we seen the results for occurrences of a phrase like humanistic studies? What about humanists as paralleled with scientists? No, these have been excluded, unfairly. But they all hook into the history and meaning of humanism. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What, to your reading comprehension, IS the meaning of the term "humanism" as presented in that article, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html ? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the author, something that can have several meanings, as indicated at the start of the piece. A particular meaning is chosen as a focus for the article. Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And what is that meaning? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The question was not unanswered. "The" meaning of the term can go in several directions. As for your further question, you can look up the answer. Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me be sure I understand this correctly. Serpent More Crafty attempts to make the case that one particular definition of the term "humanism" is more common than others by doing some rough statistical analysis across a wide variety of reliable sources, that include both printed and electronic formats, and your counter argument is citing an excerpt from the Summit Ministries website, whose founder is a noted critic of "secular humanism", and which hardly constitutes a reliable source? Do you have any reliable sources that discuss the Vatican documents you mention, or that make the claim that they are "relevant to the billion or so Christians" worldwide? Can you provide us with your own statistical analysis and methodology for how common the different usages are? The fact that humanism has multiple meanings isn't disputed; the commonality of those meanings is. In order to make your case, you should be attempting to provide statistics that demonstrate that the current usage in the article is not the common usage, or that it represents a plurality, but not a majority of usage. ← George ^[talk] 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1. For a reliable source, see http://www.zenit.org/article-14574?l=english:

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Amid the prevailing individualism and relativism, Christians have the mission to present Christ as model for a new humanism, says Benedict XVI. The Pope presented this proposal in a message sent to the annual public session of the Pontifical Academies, held Tuesday, in the Vatican's new Synod Hall. In this session, the 10th since Pope John Paul II established the Coordinating Council for the Pontifical Academies in 1995, the central theme -- "Christ, Son of God, Perfect Man: 'The Measure of True Humanism' '" -- was prepared by the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Pontifical Academy of Theology.

This is discussing Pope Benedict XVI urging his followers to view Christ, whom he describes as "the perfect man", as a role model to follow in a "new humanism". I'm not sure what he's talking about by "new" or "authentic" humanism, and it's unclear if he's talking about the same humanism that this article discusses, or a different meaning. ← George ^[talk] 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the pope's idea of humanism doesn't cohere with the secularistic rationalistic philosophical version given in the lead of the article. The pope's humanism is necessarily religious. If he were talking about the other kind, it would be obvious. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical Caritas in Veritate, addressed to a rather large readership (including all Christians and all people of good will) is out today. He makes repeated mention of humanism: "Only if we are aware of our calling, as individuals and as a community, to be part of God's family as his sons and daughters, will we be able to generate a new vision and muster new energy in the service of a truly integral humanism. The greatest service to development, then, is a Christian humanism that enkindles charity and takes its lead from truth, accepting both as a lasting gift from God. Openness to God makes us open towards our brothers and sisters and towards an understanding of life as a joyful task to be accomplished in a spirit of solidarity. On the other hand, ideological rejection of God and an atheism of indifference, oblivious to the Creator and at risk of becoming equally oblivious to human values, constitute some of the chief obstacles to development today. A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism. Only a humanism open to the Absolute can guide us in the promotion and building of forms of social and civic life — structures, institutions, culture and ethos — without exposing us to the risk of becoming ensnared by the fashions of the moment." Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, religious humanists argue that humanism advocates a realization of the whole person and a definition of humanity that omits the spiritual dimension is an incomplete definition of man. They have also argued that secular humanism leads to permissiveness. They stress that unless truth is based on "the absolute", man is in danger of arrogantly deifying himself. Not only religious humanists caution about this, Bertrand Russell, a secular humanist, also said something similar in his criticism of American pragmatism (in his article on Dewey in A History of Western Philosophy). Bertrand Russell appears to have believed that truth had an absolute quality and cannot be determined on solely on the basis of "what works" as he accused Dewey of doing. He too thought pragmatism could lead to a dangerous lack of humility about human limitations. (I am neither philosopher nor theologian and so am probably simplifying horribly, but do I respect Bertrand Russell). However, Bertrand Russell also would have agreed with Serpent More Crafty that revelation (i.e., arguments from authority) is not a superior guide to truth. Dewey was a signatory of the Humanist declaration and was one of several prominent American pragmatist philosophers who identified as humanists. I think Russell may have as well.Mballen (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, according to the Wikipedia article, Gandhi criticized rationalism, on which secular humanists say they exclusively rely, as a kind of idolatry:

Rationalists are admirable beings, but rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of a stick and stone believing it to be God. (Fisher 1997)Mballen (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

2. How many Christians? http://www.spiritualworld.org/christianity/how_many.htm

There are eighty-five main Christian denominations. These denominations make a distinction between Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians. There are 1,026,501,000 Roman Catholics and 316,445,000 ** Protestants in the world. Most Catholics are Roman Catholics; there are 60,018,436 ** in the United States. Protestants in the U.S. number 42,513,059 as of 1997.

I didn't need a source of how many Christians there are in the world; I need a source that says that this message from Benedict XVI was relevant to them. There are many Americans who don't agree with the President of the United States; there are many Christians who don't agree with every stance held by the Pope. We need something specific to this topic, that discusses how his message was received by Christians worldwide. It's an enormous leap of faith to make, going from the words of one man to the views of a billion, and needs to be heavily sourced. ← George ^[talk] 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If such a figure talks to / about Christians, they are all in play in the meaning / potential relevant subject or audience, just as all Americans are in play if the U.S. president says something about all American citizens, whether or not they agree. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

3. The important point is not that Summit Ministries is a reliable and sufficient authority, but that the methodology used is vitiated because the contents and understanding of the individual webpages are not examined. Serpent was using Summit Ministries to support his argument when it doesn't really work. Summit Ministries actually cites another authority (Webster's) in such a way as to disprove one of Serpent's long-standing contentions (i.e., that humanism is never used to refer to humanities).

I can't imagine that any Wikipedia administrator would agree with you regarding the alleged reliability of that website, but that's besides the point.I think we can all agree that humanism has had different meanings today and throughout history, but we need some way to establish if one definition holds a majority of usage or not. ← George ^[talk] 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again: Serpent USED this website in his analysis to support his case. Doesn't compute. It also makes his analysis highly suspect. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

4. No reputable encyclopedia seems to use the methodology used by Serpent and OldMan to determine the most common meanings.

5. I don't claim to have definitive accurate and comprehensive statistics. I do claim that no one has presented here accurate meaningful ones. I claim that reason and some case-studies lead us in a direction different from the one that the OldMan and Serpent have taken. They ignore the evidence that point to significant usage of the term humanism to mean something other than their favored meaning. Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What then would you propose as a specific way to take a sample and garner accurate, comprehensive statistics as to whether the current definition of humanism is the most common one or not? Serpents lists – if not all of them, at least some of them – seems like as fair a way as I can see to figure out an accurate measure. I've seen the same technique used repeated in discussions on other, more contentious issues, so what is your proposed alternative? ← George ^[talk] 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a way to get accurate specific statistics. I do have a norm that should be the default: respect for leading reference works. A negative norm is don't follow statistics that you know are going to be bogus (see my fuller critique above for why this is this case with these statistics). Another principle is to admit the wide range of actual usage. Another negative norm is not to assume that the standing use in one limited circle is the general use, even if that circle generates reams of written material (and websites) and even if some outside that circle use the circle's own self-chosen title. The point is to look to other streams of meaning with a very long history embedded in scholarly and other discourse. Raw numbers don't tell the whole story, especially numbers drawn from a narrowly selected range of materials, or numbers based on something as vague as "human-centric philosophy." That phrase can be used of religious humanisms too. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're still sowing confusion with your terms "secularistic" (in your comment about the pope above) and "that phrase can be used of religious humanisms too." It looks like, after all these years, you're still vague on the point that both secular and religious forms of humanism exist that fit the description in the first paragraph of the article. As long as you remain unaware of this simple fact, and how to tell what the difference is, you're not going to be able to make a compelling argument for change. That aside, though, the "way to get accurate specific statistics" is suggested by Wikipedia policy pages. If you don't agree with Wikipedia policy pages, may I ask what your intention is in visiting the Wikipedia website at all, let alone this one article? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The opening of the first paragraph of the article on Humanism now reads: "Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts." Now does the pope and the religious view in which he (and most Christians) are invested "resort" to divine authority from religious texts or not? You are trading speciously on an ambiguity in the word religious: it can refer to organized religion OR to the transcendental dimensions of human existence. One can therefore be religious in one sense without being religious in the other. The opening paragraph remains a misleading affront. Secondly, Wikipedia policy suggests consulting major reference works. This I have done and used in my argumentation. Thirdly, you have not answered the full range of my critique (e.g., the use of the pair "humanists" and "scientists" to make humanist a synonym for "teacher of the humanities," or the use of the phrase "humanistic studies" to refer to liberal arts studies.) What is clear, whatever Wikipedia policy recommends, is that your statistics are not really helpful. If one small sector shouts and repeats the word humanism in their own sense a million million times, and even if in addition some outside that circle engage that sector with its own vocabulary, it does not erase the other streams of usage in the broader population. That million million could be a higher number, but it is far from determinative of the whole picture. If Yale University press can publish a book like Literacy and the Survival of Humanism, using the word humanism in a different sense than the lead paragraph suggests, then that is a good clue that other usages must be attended to. Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note, all passers-by who might be trying to catch up with this debate: he uses the phrase "whatever Wikipedia policy recommends" and then directly contradicts the policies quoted above. Then he carefully avoids answering my question. You will find that this is in character for this editor; if you ever feel the need to engage him, please try to pin him down on this point because it is important to the continued quality of Wikipedia.

Everything else he writes in this comment is also incorrect; the archives are full of discussion about how dictionaries don't give frequency of use (Wilson is actually the one who wrote that!) and how the Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees with Wilson on which is the "most correct" use of the term, and how the "Institute for Humanist Studies" is specifically devoted to non-theistic human-centered philosophy rather than study of the humanities. That's all in the archives for anyone who is interested in reading it; he is merely trying to restate his argument here in the hopes that you'll find it too inconvenient to read back and find that all such arguments have already been refuted. However, none of that is as important as the fact that Wilson DOES NOT want to follow Wikipedia policies, and WILL NOT answer for his persistence in ignoring them. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Such charges are baseless, off-point, deceptive, and time-wasting. Let the argument be decided by wise, informed, indifferent arbiters who are interested in the quality and helpful accuracy of the article. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can find hundreds of modern textbooks that define the Renaissance according to Burckhardt's mistaken nineteenth-century interpretation of humanism as pagan and irreligious. They are all wrong, and have always been wrong. No historian today (except maybe Norman Davies) accepts Burckhardt's theses. You can find hundreds of mistaken interpretations of Darwin as well, but that does not make them right. Looking for corroboration for the theories in modern best-sellers is foolish and unworthy of people pretending to advocate for "humanism" -- if "humanism" is to have anything at all with the ideal of reason. The fact is that it takes many decades (even a century in this case) for the scholarly research to filter to the popular level. I believe that Wikipedia ought to accelerate the diffusion of knowledge, not spread more obscurity.18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.152.153 (talk)

June 2009 news results

• June 15 top search results for humanism in the news

http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/17258/38/ - "the fifth Guru of the Sikhs who made a supreme sacrifice for preserving the rich values of humanism,secularism and unity of mankind."

• June 16 top search results for humanism in the news

http://www.examiner.com/x-4435-Milwaukee-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m6d16-Evolution-not-a-religion-of-humanists - "Some believe evolution is a "religion" of nonbelievers. That it is a "religion" of humanism."

• June 17 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/news/2009/jun/17/human-rights-unborn/ - "Therefore, so many today in our public schools and universities are taught the religion of Humanism and Evolution which teaches that there are no moral absolutes. This is the foundation for man to rationalize the murder of 50 million innocent unborn children in our country today." From a position OPPOSING humanism, a Christian both identifies it as a religion and points out its lack of theistic faith.

• June 18 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/17/religion-ethics - Secular humanism given as a way a state can be called secular Serpent More Crafty (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• June 19 Top Search Result for Humanism in the News

http://www.daily-times.com/ci_12626719 - "Secularism AND HUMANISM has become the RELIGION in our society and schools." This writer, lamenting that humanism is NOT compatible with Christianity, still recognizes it as a religion! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• June 20 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.examiner.com/x-13669-Boise-Secular-Humanist-Examiner~y2009m6d20-World-Humanism-Day - Presents the IHEU statement on World Humanism Day. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• June 21 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705311658,00.html - This intense focus on the emancipation of the individual led to a humanism which "is accordingly charged with inverting the relation between man and God, with atheism and the secularizing of society." Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• June 22 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.examiner.com/x-8947-LA-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m6d22-Atheist-vs-Christian-debate-Final-smackdown - "If I want the greatest degree of freedom and happiness for myself, my family and my community, goals which I share with many others, then I will always prefer the ideals of Western humanism preserved in documents like the American Constitution over an absolutist system such as Islam where the goal is serving the will of God." Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If anythng these quotes show that there are many different kinds of humanism and that there is njo agreement about whether they are compatible with religion or not. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether "they are compatible with religion or not" is indeed a very contentious issue among humanists; some call themselves "secular humanists" to differentiate themselves from those who hold humanism as a "life stance" (like a religion). However, neither of these classes of humanists seem to have any problem with the definition of humanism as defined in notes 1, 2, and 3 of the article; that debate arises only from those who think that American Heritage Dictionary definition 4 is the most commonly used definition. In fact it's not, and no one who thinks so has ever offered any verifiable evidence that it's even close to contention. I think this article is pretty balanced from the perspective of "life stance" vs. "secular" humanists, so don't get too caught up on such an argument: the terms "religion" and "secular" are thrown about often, but only by people who seem not to have read the articles on Humanism (life stance) and Secular humanism. Read those first so you can understand what is meant by "religious humanism" and "secular humanism." The articles in the "Humanism" template under the heading of "Religious humanism" are useful, too. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• June 23 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/14170/54/lang,en/ - "It's very much part of the Borlaug style, his marriage of science and humanism. And it's a message that continues to inspire those around him." This is a perfect example of how "science and humanism" are used in conjunction with each other as complementary, but definitely NOT in reference to the study of humanities, nor of Renaissance humanism. If you see anyone trying to point out how the phrase "science and humanism" refers to modern study of the humanities, point them to this article as a great counterexample. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again Serpent twists phrases to make things come out his way. Search for scientists and humanists (without quotes) in google, and you will see that humanists tends to mean "teachers or students of the humanities." The first item from my search has this:

"UCSB Scientists and Humanists Discuss the Origins of the Universe October 27, 2008 (Santa Barbara, Calif.) –– The debate on the role of religion and science in public life –– and on the boundaries between them –– has become distinctly relevant in political as well as intellectual discourse. Richard Hecht, Tommaso Treu, and Stefania Tutino, three UCSB scholars with differing areas of expertise, will examine the question of "origins" from scientific, religious, philosophical, and historical perspectives in a talk titled "Origins of the Cosmos: A Dialog Between Scientists and Humanists"

The second item is entitled "e-Infrastructure adoption in the social sciences and humanities: cross-national evidence."

And as for the page Serpent proposes as some kind of counter-example, "humanism" there means something like "helping humanity" or "humanitarianism" ("Another journalist said to me, "I have never met anyone so 'on message'." It's very much part of the Borlaug style, his marriage of science and humanism. And it's a message that continues to inspire those around him. "A lot of us who go into agriculture want to do something to help humanity.) This is clearly NOT the systematic philosophical meaning Serpent wants to focus on in the lead of the article. Furthermore, I have never argued that he word ALWAYS means the study of humanities. It is a question of a decisive frequency.

Arguments such as Serpent's are truly shoddy impositions on the editorship of Wikipedia. Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For those who insist that the first definition in the dictionary is the primary or only meaning that ought to be considered in a Wikipedia article, [Merriam Webster online http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanism] lists secular humanism last and Cultural humanism and Renaissance humanism first. I guess these days more people go to college and take a course in European civilization than belong to the American Humanist Society:

hu·man·ism

:::

Function: noun Date: 1832

1a: devotion to the humanities : literary culture

1b: the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance

:::

2: humanitarianism

:::

3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

173.56.197.14 (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "the first definition in the dictionary is the primary meaning" was ever anyone's intention. I know I, for example, have always agreed that there are many definitions listed in the dictionary, and that dictionaries don't show frequency of use. Can you find somebody who said this, or are you just ranting because you don't understand the nature of the dispute? See, Wikipedia even TELLS us a few useful ways to tell what are the primary uses of a given word, and "which one comes first in the dictionary" isn't among them. Do you know what those ways are? Do you intend to actually do any of the searches Wikipedia suggests, and offer your results here, or again... could you just be ranting because you don't understand the nature of the dispute? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, what is all this SPAM about? I had to add some compressible tables in order to get away all the space occupied by all these meaningless lists. We don't do wikipedia with some kind of statistics, we use specific reliable sources. You may use your surveys to find some reliable, academical sources, pick these out and drop the ones you have selected here, so that we may use these for citations. This is not a war between the evil religious wikipedians and the good human-ethical crusaders with sharp blades to decapitate for the one and only true faith, this is an irritated debate between encyclophiles and some external people that haven't understood the wikipedia culture yet.

We encyclophiles are desperately trying to cling to absolute neutrality, according to the WP:FACT, but sometimes it is hard... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice 151 is virtually identical in method and tone to Serpent More Crafty. My sense here is that the aim is not to honestly describe the development of various types of humanism but to discredit and undermine secularism while appearing to uphold it, by presenting it as a mirror image of the weird fundamentalism of Tim LaHaye and his ilk.Mballen (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, uh! 151 might be a real human-ethician. I've seen the same kind of behavior in real Swedish human-ethicians – age and experience use to file of the crudest corners, and experience tend to convert the uncontrolled impulses to sane dynamicism, but who can say? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Humanism and Science

For some reason, a misconception has persisted on this talk page that searching for "science" and "humanism" together will show a larger usage of American Heritage Dictionary definition 4 than of 1/2/3. I say "for some reason" because this has always been easily disproved with a simple Google search, but just so there's a clear record of it here on this talk page, here are the top results:

1. http://humanisteducation.com/area.html?area_id=2 - "The humanist worldview includes a commitment to rational inquiry based on verifiable evidence. In the last 500 years, this commitment has given rise to modern science. But what claims are testable, and what constitutes evidence? The Science and Humanism Study Area focuses on the scientific method, the body of scientific knowledge, the interaction between science and humanism, and the conflict between science and religion, where it exists."
2. http://humanisteducation.com/class.html?module_id=7&page=1 - "Humanists are convinced that the scientific method is the cornerstone of human knowledge. We can be sure that the inventor of the wheel did not have its schematics delivered by a fairy godmother or benign deity. The wheel was developed through trial and error, perhaps with the observation that loose logs roll and that putting a series of logs under heavy objects causes them to move. Refinement, trial, and then more refinement led to the wheel we know today; the humanist life-stance extends those strategies to all areas of human inquiry. Even those who are not scientists per se (or even interested in science, or very knowledgeable about the "body" of scientific knowledge) must have some idea what kinds of claims are testable and what constitutes actual evidence. Area II will nurture a deeper understanding of those concepts and develop the critical thinking skills so necessary to a humanist outlook on the universe."
3. http://edspencer.net/2009/06/darwin-humanism-and-science.html - "Darwin, Humanism and Science." It's about this conference by the BHA (an IHEU organization) with Dawkins as guest lecturer.
4. http://friendlyhumanist.blogspot.com/2009/05/science-chiropractic-and-libel-laws.html - A blog entry about skepticism of chiropractic practice, with focus on implementation of the scientific method. If you're unclear what "humanism" has to do with this blog, see the IHEU "happy human" logo halfway down the page.
5. http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1995/artsept95.htm - "Some understanding of the scientific method and at least a basic knowledge of the various fields of science is important to becoming an effective humanist. Atheism, the denial of a belief in god, and agnosticism, the lack of knowledge about god, are both negative philosophical attitudes based primarily on a non-belief system. Humanism is a positive philosophical attitude based on a belief in the scientific method. A humanist believes that accurate scientific research has provided convincing evidence that animate and inanimate objects exist naturally. Even humanists without a formal education in basic science believe that scientific research is a valuable tool for discovering truth and put their faith in scientific evidence."
6. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/11/26/great-scott-eugenie - Even though this Christian website questions whether humanism is a religion or not (and differs with Eugenie Scott on the answer), this Christian website very clearly associates the term with American Heritage dictionary definition 1 rather than 4!
7. http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol3/ - An entire issue of Humanism Today dedicated to science from the perspective of IHEU member organizations
8. http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol3/hoad.pdf - One article from the above issue of Humanism Today
9. http://www.amazon.com/New-Humanists-Science-Edge/dp/0760745293 - The reviews focus more on opining on SCIENCE than on humanism, so it's hard to say, but one reviewer does mention "humanities scholars" by name. I'll chalk this one up as referring to American Heritage Dictionary definition 4, even though the contributors (like Steven Pinker, a winner of the American Humanist Association Humanist of the Year Award, and Daniel Dennett, author of "Why Religion and the Promotion Of It is Harmful" for the British Humanist Association) are noted for being rationalists and not theistic. Consider this one a freebie.
10. http://www.iheu.org/darwin-humanism-and-science - IHEU website.

Of the top ten websites, it looks like ONE of them refers to study of the humanities, and that might be because the reviewer on Amazon misunderstood the usage of the term in the title, and the affiliations of the contributors to the book. By being charitable, then, we can say that as high as 10% of usage of "science" in conjunction with "humanism" refers to modern study of humanities. This means, of course, that even by being charitable, 90% of usage of "humanities" and "science" together refers to exactly what this wikipedia article says it is. 90%. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Try searching for scientists and humanists, not science and humanism. The typical usage: humanists means scholars in the humanities. Wilson Delgado (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Most common usage of "Humanist Studies?"

As above, sometimes a commenter here will mention that "humanist studies" most frequently applies to humanities. As above, this isn't actually true, and is in fact ridiculously easy to disprove with a google search. There isn't much commentary needed here; none of the top ten search results for "humanist studies" refer to humanities; all the search results are for IHEU, AHA, or BHA affiliated websites, or personal sites for people who advocate the view of humanism endorsed by these organizations. Here they are:

1. http://humaniststudies.org/ - Institute for Humanist Studies
2. http://humaniststudies.org/humphil.html - IHS :: What is humanism? Are you a humanist? (Humanist philosophy)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism - This article (Not counted among top ten, as I want a fair sampling of all webpages OUTSIDE of wikipedia)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Humanist_Studies - Also not counted among top ten, again to make sure the sampling is fair
5. http://canada.humanists.net/ - IHS :: The Institute for Humanist Studies promotes humanism
6. http://www.myspace.com/humaniststudies - MySpace.com - Humanist Studies - 29 - Female - ALBANY, NEW YORK ...
7. http://www.americanhumanist.org/hnn/podcast/ - Humanist Network News Audio Podcast
8. http://humanisteducation.com/ - COHE :: The Continuum of Humanist Education
9. http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/related_content.html?topic=Institute%20of%20Humanist%20Studies - Orlando Business Journal: Institute of Humanist Studies related ...
10. http://humanistcenter.org/ - IHS :: The Humanist Center, home of the Institute for Humanist Studies
11. http://www.iheu.org/node/1461 - Institute for Humanist Studies | International Humanist and ...
12. http://www.cmehumanistas.org/en/node/2 - World Center of Humanist Studies (WCHS). General information ...

So that's 0% referring to American Heritage Dictionary definition 4, and 100% referring to the definition given here in the current Wikipedia article. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally off-point again. The issue is the meaning of "humanISTIC studies," not humanIST studies. Wilson Delgado (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment usefully demonstrates exactly how difficult it is to find ANY usage of ANY permutation of the word "humanism" that refers to your preferred definition. If we have to be this excruciatingly cautious in order to find even a SINGLE instance of American Heritage Dictionary definition 4 in the wild, then yes, it must surely be a tiny-minority viewpoint indeed. Thus, WP:UNDUE policy is in effect. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not even close, Serpent. Search for "humanistic studies" in google: most items on the first page of results clearly refer to liberal arts types of studies. Are you just throwing out random denials with no substance at all behind them, or what? Wilson Delgado (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not just "throwing out random denials with no substance at all behind them;" I'm giving plenty of substance. I'm not only giving the search terms I use, but also showing the links themselves, identifying each result with relevance to the various definitions of humanism, and providing percentages so we can determine prominence at a glance. This is to make it easy for anyone else to come along and verify that I am not just restating an opinion over and over again. Verifiability is a key policy on Wikipedia. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it's irrelevant. We all agree that Secular humanism is the most commonly used meaning - we also agree that there are other meanings as well. Then those meanings also fall under a general definition of humanism and therefore should be included without being given undue weight. It's as simple as that really.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not sure I agree that secular humanism is the most commonly used meaning. I would direct you to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I for a good overview of what it means most commonly. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

An idea for the lead definition

I would suggest that the lead be worded likes this: "Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without necessarily resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts." The addition of the qualifier necessarily allows for the possibility of "resorting to the supernatural" when "affirming the dignitiy and worth of all people". It also to my view reflects well the Oxford definition when it says "prime importance to human rather than divine matters". This in turn allows christian renaissance humanism to come under the definition of humanism while still maintaining christianity as an ideological basis.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that would be an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of the work "necessarily". ← George ^[talk] 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Humanism (in this restricted sense) essentially "a broad category" or is it rather "a philosophical affirmation of the dignity and worth of all people." I still prefer my proposal of some weeks ago, with a little alteration:

Humanism is the position involved in any of a range of attitudes, approaches, philosophies, and cultural and educational traditions and practices that put a decisive emphasis on human experience, values, and concerns. It is a polysemous term that must be defined in context. Though it implies a contrast with the sub- and the super-human, it carries no bias against either of these realities. In secular philosophical circles, however, it means the ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without recourse to any supernatural authority.

Such a description is more inclusive and accurate. The reader realizes at once the full referential range, power, and ambiguity of the word. Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the goal of making an article a catch-all repository for all definitions of a word. In my experience, an article is supposed to be about a single topic, and then other topics with similar names but different meanings have their own articles. This was my purpose in creating the Humanism (disambiguation) page, and is in fact supported by Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Please see WP:NOT#What Wikipedia entries are not numbers 2-5, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This latter page provides us with the following guidance under the heading, "Good Definitions:"

• A good definition tries to state exactly what it is that makes a term unique and different from other terms; and is easy to understand.
• A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym, too broad or too narrow, or able to have too many meanings.

To me, it seems consistent that the numerous "Ethical Unions" and humanist organizations have published several books that try to make it very clear what is considered "humanism" and what is not, and that Wikipedia attempts to capture this precision in its articles. Trying to be all-inclusive in this article contradicts both such attempts, and is also needless because of articles that are already well-developed at Renaissance humanism and humanities, such that editors interested in those topics may focus their attention there.

Does anyone know of any guidance in Wikipedia policy that would indicate the definition should be as broad and all-inclusive as possible, or is that just idle opinion being bandied about here by inexperienced editors? Thanks! OldMan (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that when we try to make the definition of a multifaceted word too narrow we are bound to disagree about what is the most "essential" meaning. And instead of an article that tells the reader about the possible meanings and usages of a concept we have long term edit-war, which is of course what has happened here. It is simply a fact that you cannot make a precise definition of a concept that is not reducible to that - writing an article that doesn't allow humanism to mean different things when said by different persons in different times is not presenting facts, and is bound to run into problems of original research and point of view as editors fight it out to see which dictionary definition they each agree more with. Anyway OldMan - it seems that a large group of editors believe that a more inclusive definition is the way to go. Now would be a good time for you to present your compromise proposals and start building consensus instead of simply continue restating the same arguments, because that is a road that will only lead to conflict resolution processes, and I am sure we are all mature enough to be able to work together to build this article without that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My proposed compromise last year was agreed upon by Wilson Delgado, who then went back on his agreement. I took the suggestion of a different editor this year who pointed us to the disambiguation guidelines (although he misrepresented them somewhat), found the verbiage that was applicable to our situation, and implemented it on the Humanism (disambiguation) page, which has apparently been accepted by all other editors, as it's been improved upon by all. With that track record, I feel somewhat lonely being the only editor who actually reads Wikipedia's policies and quotes them here in order to establish guidance that we all ought to live by.

Lonely, and also saddened that I specifically requested "guidance in Wikipedia policy that would indicate the definition should be as broad and all-inclusive as possible," and got not Wikipedia policy guidance, but more unsupported statements of opinion, from two of you. I acknowledge your statement of opinion; thank you for sharing it. Now, could you please focus on my simple request for your next response? Thank you! OldMan (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not really being cooperative. The article is not built by you and Wilson Delgado - and he has no reason to stand by any "promises" of accepting a specific wording. If you want a wikipedia policy then how about the Good Article Criteria criteria 3 of which states that the good article is: "Broad in its coverage:(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". You can also read what wikipedia is not - under "dictionary". The alternative to having a single article describing the relations between ALL the different kinds of humanism is to have a disambiaguation page and have single articles for each. I would find this to be a bad solution because it would make it harder for the reader to find all the relevant information about the topic. Wht is not a possibility is to chose just one kind of humanism based on the preferences of one or more editors and relegate the other kinjds of humanism to other articles - such a choice cannot byut be subjective. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore the argument that "Articles should treat One topic" is a non-issue. Humanism is still one topic even if it includes the possibility of being compatible with religion. You are trying to redress the disagreement which si not whether "definitions should be as broad as possible" but whether the possibility for combinations of humanism and religion belong in the article or not. The majority of editors seem to believe that it should - adress this instead instead of ytouting irrelevant policies. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may be a bit under-informed about the history of humanism as it is commonly used today. In the nineteenth century, humanist organizations were founded AS A RELIGION, and in fact the first Humanist Manifesto referred to humanism AS A RELIGION several times. Therefore, I do not seek to debate whether humanism is compatible with religion; I AGREE that humanism is compatible with religion. Once again: humanism IS compatible with religion. The opening paragraph of this article does not say otherwise, and in fact a lot of work and discussion has been put into rewording it so it is not as unfortunately inaccurate as American Heritage Dictionary's definition 1 on this point. Please be very clear on this point when trying to frame the debate, so we can be sure to avoid straw-man argumentation. Thank you! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I should of course have been more explicit I meant specifically "theistic religion" and I think you knew that.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"The alternative to having a single article describing the relations between ALL the different kinds of humanism is to have a disambiaguation page and have single articles for each." This is incorrect; please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This article should only document the primary topic, rather than all meanings, and the disambiguation page guides readers to other definitions. Such a disambiguation page exists; I am the one who created it. You can find it at Humanism (disambiguation).

"I would find this to be a bad solution..." How you find wikipedia policies are for discussion on those policies' discussion pages, not in an individual article where you seek to contradict established wikipedia rules "just this once."

"Wht (sic) is not a possibility is to chose (sic) just one kind of humanism based on the preferences of one or more editors and relegate the other kinjds (sic) of humanism to other articles - such a choice cannot byut (sic) be subjective." While you are technically correct, this statement is only relevant in one direction. As you can see from this talk page and its archives, I've put a lot of work into making sure the topic of this article is not subjective but based on occurrences within news articles, books, web pages, and periodicals, and the popularity of each. Those seeking to impose subjectivity on the topic of this article are those insisting, over a period of years, that modern study of humanities or other uses somehow rival the human-centered philosophy meaning. Please direct your comments about subjectivity to those who do not provide verifiable evidence of their viewpoint. Thank you. OldMan (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for gratuitously inserting (sic) next to the typoes in my quotes - goes along way to show that you are interested in a civil discussion. Quoting from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"."·Maunus·ƛ· 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." Just a few lines down, that same page gives tools to determine whether there is a primary topic. I have used several of them; those who wish to give greater prominence to other meanings have used none of them. It's convenient for them that they may contravene Wikipedia rules simply by making noise, but there is no confusion in my mind between simple noise-making and substantive verifiability. Even if you present such examples of verifiability with typos, I'll be happy to respect them once you've actually presented them here. OldMan (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not "the ONLY editor" seeking guidance in Wikipedia policy. I do find it telling, however, that since I am often in agreement with you, that appeals to Wikipedia policy only seem to come from one side of the debate... as do examples from real-world usage as suggested by those Wikipedia policy pages. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize; you are correct. I was mostly focused on those who seek to dilute the topic of this article. I did not mean to downplay your efforts. OldMan (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My proposed definition hones in on the single, focused, core-meaning of the word: a position that valorizes the human. That is clear and pointed. My definition also allows a segue to the philosophical version of the term and it allows those looking for something else to go to the disambiguation page. To look to the "Ethical Unions" and humanist organizations exclusively for their take on the meaning forces the article into a POV mode. Suppose I looked to literary, historical, educational, and cultural groups' definitions of humanism and relied ONLY on them, without reference to the philosophical? That is an illegitimate move: using the meaning only as given from a particular sector... UNLESS, that is, the article is more clearly labeled not with the generic word "Humanism" but something more precise, like "Humanism (ethics)" or "Humanism (philosophy)." I still don't see why there is resistance to the proper labeling that would make the article not POV at all but a precise description of what the title advertises. Wilson Delgado (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly added the word "necessarily" into the lead of the article. It doesn't look like there was any opposition to the term, despite the derailed discussion. ← George ^[talk] 23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Maunus wrote above: "What is not a possibility is to choose just one kind of humanism based on the preferences of one or more editors and relegate the other kinds of humanism to other articles - such a choice cannot but be subjective." I agree with this statement, so we must ask: did you make this change on the basis of "the preferences of one or more editors," rendering it subjective, or did you base it on a verifiable source? If the latter, what is it? OldMan (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The point you quote me for has no bearing on this change since it makes the topic more inclusive not less. You are the one arguing that non-secular forms of humanism are of peripheral importance and should be treated elsewhere.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. If a change "cannot be but subjective" when "the preferences of one or more editors" disagree with your POV bias, then it "cannot be but subjective" when "the preferences of one or more editors" agree with your POV bias, either. OldMan (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And you apparently don't deal well with elementary logics. In this case the truth of statement A does not imply the truth of statement B. The exclusion of a topic is subjective because you cannot SHOW with sources that a certain point of view should not be part of the article but you CAN show with sources that it should. The inclusion of a subtoic in the article only needs to SHOW that SOME sources include a certain subtopic. This makes a decision to exclude a topic that has been shown in sources to be includable subjective while the decision to include the same subtopic is objective. Not so hard to understand is it? The case is that we have sources to show that Atheistic philosophies are not the only kinds of humanism includable in the general definition of the term "humanist philosphy", but that it is also in some cases be used cover theistic philosophies with a strong focus on the human aspect. You cannot show with sources that this not the case - at most you can show that there is disagreement and that some sources do not accept inclusion of theistic philosophies under the term humanist while others do. This is the reason that inclusion of the topic is made on objective criteria while exclusion is made on a subjective evaluation of which sources certain groups of editors "feel" fit best with their idea of humanist philosophy.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please cite the Wikipedia rules that say "exclusion is made on a subjective evaluation of which sources certain groups of editors 'feel' fit best with their idea of humanist philosophy?" All I can find is WP:VERIFY, which states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." When all major humanist organizations, manifestos, dictionary definitions, and Christian critiques of humanism make specific note that lack of theism is a part of humanism, the burden of verifiability falls upon you if you want to contradict all such sources. OldMan (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is exactly verifiability there are sources that include theistic forms of humanism - this means that theistic humanism exists and is sourceable there fore it is to be included. Even 100 sources saying that it doesn't exist cannot prove its non-existence - it can at most show that some people don't believe or don't want it to exist. But yes the burden of evidence is on those who would include the existence of theistic humanism and they have lifted it many times in the pages above.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, the burden of evidence is not just to demonstrate one or two examples of theistic humanism, but to show that it is a PROMINENT viewpoint, and therefore deserves PROMINENCE in this article. From WP:UNDUE: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." Please note that I do acknowledge the use of "humanism" in American Heritage Dictionary definition 4, which is why I added a link to the article on Humanities under the "Other Forms of Humanism" heading in the article. Please note that I also acknowledge the use of "humanism" in American Heritage Dictionary definition 5, which is why I think it's good to have links to the Renaissance humanism article in the history section, humanism template, and disambiguation page. Both of these definitions have articles devoted to them specifically, so I think we can all be on the same side with this issue. What remains to be shown, then, is whether American Heritage Dictionary definition 1 adherents who are also theists are common and popular enough to warrant giving them a position of prominence within this article. I would expect to see a large number of them in book search results, news search results, magazines devoted to their interest, etc. if their popularity rivaled that of IHEU and Council for Secular Humanism humanists. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

we are not arguing for prominence- We are arguing that the general definition should be broad enough to include them. We are all in agreement that secular humanism is the most commonly ocurring usage - but the definition must be broad enough to allow other kinds as well. The prominence can simply be asserted by writing that theistic humanisms are the minority, but that they exist - such as MBallen's suggestion for the lead does for example.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do not agree that secular humanism is the most commonly occurring usage; following Wikipedia's policies on determining primary topics has convinced me that the humanistic "life stance" advocated by the IHEU, BHA, AHA, and similar organizations is the most often referenced, as derived from the clearly-pronounced RELIGIOUS humanism of the Humanist Manifestos. So the umbrella statement should be inclusive of both life stance AND religious humanism, rather than just secular humanism. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

←Outside opinion based on a request at WP:EAR. (Necessary disclosure: I self-identify as a secular humanist.)

I think this entire discussion is founded on a faulty premise, which is that the lead section of the article needs to define "humanism". It does not. Word definitions belong in a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Likewise, the etymology of "humanism" belongs in a dictionary. Instead of trying to define humanism in any great detail, just move the Wiktionary link to the top of the page; let Wiktionary say what it means.

See WP:LEAD for what the lead section should really contain.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

sources for the possibility of theistic humanism

• Sartre, Jean Paul - "Existentialism is Humanism" p. 63-64[4] :"Unfortunately the term humanism is used to designate schools of thought, not only according to two meanings but according to three, four, five or six. Nowadays everybody is a humanist. Even certain Marxists who pride themselves of being classical rationalists, are humanists in a diluted sort of way, stripped of the liberal ideas of the previous century - embracing instead a liberalism infrcted through the current crisis. I Marxists can claim to be humanists, then followers of various religions - Christianity, Hindus and many others - can also claim to be humanists, as do existentialists and in general all philosophers." ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your typos are actually obscuring the meaning of this quote, which is why it is very important for you to be most conscientious about them especially when quoting sources. In fact the original quote says, "If Marxists can claim to be humanists, then followers of various religions... can also claim to be humanists." He is not granting them his permission to use the word; he is lamenting that they might! In other words, he doesn't think they should. Thus he says "unfortunately" in the first sentence of your quote. Sartre, and particularly this book, are oft-quoted sources for authors and essayists throughout multiple implementations of human-centered philosophy. He certainly is not fond of using it to describe theistic humanism. OldMan (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Sartre thought they should or not - it matters that he acknowledges that they do.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• This[5] article on aout.com shows a usage of "Humanism" that is fully compatible with theism.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Any religious belief system which incorporates humanistic beliefs and principles might be described as religious humanism — thus, Christian Humanism could be thought of us as a type of religious humanism. It might be better, however, to describe this situation as a humanistic religion (where a pre-existing religion is influenced by humanist philosophy) rather than as a religious humanism (where humanism is influenced to be religious in nature).

"Regardless, that is not the type of religious humanism being considered here. Religious humanism shares with other types of humanism the basic principles of an overriding concern with humanity — the needs of human beings, the desires of human beings, and the importance of human experiences. For religious humanists, it is the human and the humane which must be the focus of our ethical attention."

Emphasis added by me, to show that this article takes exactly the opposite viewpoint to the one you attribute to it. Didn't you read it before posting the link? OldMan (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

same goes here - the matter isn't whether the writer is sympathetic to christian humanism - only that he shows that christian and other theistic humanisms are also describable as humanism.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already a wikipedia page entitled Humanism (life stance). It is peculiar that this page doesn't link to it, given that some of the same people worked on it as worked on this one. The two pages cover much the same material, namely the beliefs of the American Humanism Organization. Since the rubric Humanism (life stance) explicitly refers to the various world-wide humanist associations and their beliefs, it seems to be that this page ought to cover the broader phenomenon of humanism.

Also some of the information here is erroneous. For example Ariosto did not "coin" the term humanist in 1540 though he did use the word. (I have seen this error elsewhere on the web). The assertion that Ariosto used "umanista" to mean "a student of human nature" -- is quite laughable. By the sixteenth century humanists (the professors of literature who had discovered all those manuscripts) were remembered rather unfavorably for their notoriously quarrelsome nature --- along with other vices. Ariosto in his Sixth satire says that anyone with a vein of poetry must be an inveterate sodomite: "so don’t turn your back if you have to share a bed with one": "Few humanists are without that vice that forced God – not that it took much persuading – to smite Gomorrah and her neighbors with sorrow".Encylopedia of Italian Literary Studies p. 94. Sometimes real facts are much more interesting than made up ones!173.52.253.91 (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted major changes

I reverted huge edits to the introduction of this article because the new edits gave prominence to several aspects of historical uses of "humanism" that are very rarely used today. I know the editor intended good faith, but unfortunately approached the subject in a way that reflected his/her very narrow academic studies on the topic, without consideration for how it is used in the real world. This is akin to making the article on Christianity be primarily about the Gnostics, if that were one's chosen area of study, or like making the article on the Bible be primarily be about the apocryphal books.

This talk page has many, many attempts to show the most common primary topic associated with "humanism." I think it's fair to say that, whatever our opinions about the fine details, we are largely agreed that secular, "life stance," and religious humanism of the kind discussed in the Humanist Manifestos are the primary uses in books, magazines, news, and web sites. Let's try to refine and build up to an A grade article from there, rather than reverting to disagreements that take us farther backwards from there. OldMan (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"I know the editor intended good faith, but unfortunately approached the subject in a way that reflected his/her very narrow academic studies on the topic, without consideration for how it is used in the real world. This is akin to making the article on Christianity be primarily about the Gnostics, if that were one's chosen area of study, or like making the article on the Bible be primarily be about the apocryphal books." You are not the only editor who frequents the "real world" - decrying everyone else as "world ignorant eggheads" is really not a very good argument. secondly your analogy fails - we are not trying to make theistic humanism to the main topic - we are merely trying to allow for its inclusion under the general definition of humanism. Just like Gnosticism should be includable under a general definition of christianity and the article about the Bible should also treat certain apochrypha.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent me as having said that everyone else is a "world ignorant egghead." Making such false accusations will be regarded as a personal attack. The point has always been that any one person's individual opinion or bias is not relevant to this article; anyone whose personal experience with a term cannot be verified by the methods suggested in WP:NAMECON (see section "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage") must provide even greater evidence; that personal experience alone (academic or otherwise) is not sufficient for achieving verifiability. OldMan (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with the anti-intellectual stance that academic studies should be automatically smeared and disparaged as "very narrow" per se. This is like saying the theory of relativity is "very narrow." There are an academic use and a philosophic use of the term. Both are valid and attested by scholars. And each word has a different etymology. (The fact that compact dictionaries sometimes omit one of the definitions is neither here nor there.) I advise you to read my revision again. You will see that I agree that the popular usage, philosophic humanism, is the more common one. My opening also makes clear that the philosophic humanists have (mostly unsuccessfully) tried to conflate the two usages. This is what all the arguing about. This is not my opinion, but the considered conclusion of Vito Giustiniani writing in the periodical Journal of the History of Ideas. I advise OldMan to make a new entry under "Humanist Manifesto" and to stop acting like a fanatical and obscurantist guardian of religious dogmatism such as his creed pretends to deplore. The fact that the talk page is so contentious ought to be telling you something. (It is really too ironic).Mballen (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent me as having said "that academic studies should be automatically smeared and disparaged." Making such false accusations will be regarded as a personal attack.

Do not make presumptions about "my creed." I have made no statements about my creed, and such future presumptuousness, as well as describing me as "fanatical and obscurantist guardian of religious dogmatism," will be regarded as a personal attack.

"Humanist Manifesto" is not an appropriate title for an article about the multiple strains of human-centered philosophy and ethics, as it is but a small part of that history. WP:NC enumerates the rules you must follow when choosing a name for an article about a given topic, and WP:DISAMBIG tells what to do when there is a primary use and multiple other possible uses. This article follows those guidelines, so to contribute meaningfully, you must read and understand these policy documents first.

Furthermore, your use of "philosophic humanism" is not a name agreed upon by the publications and organizations that have taken on the name "humanism," so attempting to impose your preferences without precedence, discussion, or citation, based on your opinion alone, will always be reverted. Please acquaint yourself with popular usage so that you can be descriptive, rather than prescriptive, about usage. OldMan (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Wilson Delgado. I am adding my censored paragraph here so that people can read it, unfortunately the footnotes and formatting appear to be lost. It incorporates the definition preferred by OldMan while clearing up the misconceptions about the etymology of the word:

Broadly speaking, the word humanism has had two meanings with two separate etymologies.[1] Traditionally, the Latin word humanitates meant the study of literature and rhetoric (as opposed to divine or theological studies) and umanista ("a humanist") was the Italian word for teachers of such subjects. Around 1808 humanismus was used to describe the classical curriculum offered by German schools. In 1836, the great German historian and philologist Georg Voigt used humanism to describe the movement that flourished in the Italian Renaissance to revive classical learning, a use which won wide acceptance among historians in many nations.[2] The other and arguably more popularly recognized meaning of the word humanism, denoting a philosophy centered around man, is coined from the word human, in the same way that socialism is based on the word social and communism on the word common. This use of the word also dates from the nineteenth century and refers to a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity of humankind, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to rationality, while tending to reject the supernatural or the divine authority of religious texts.[3][4] Many modern philosophers, as diverse as the young Hegelians Arnold Ruge and Karl Marx; the anarchist Proudhon, the pragmatist philosophers, F.C.S. Schiller, and John Dewey; the literary critic Irving Babbitt; religious historian Ernest Renan; the existentialists Martin Heidegger and Sartre; and the pragmatist philosopher and civil libertarian Corliss Lamont have aligned themselves under the banner of philosophical humanism, although profoundly disagreeing with each other. There have also been human-centered religious movements, such as Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophical humanism and the Catholic humanism of Jacques Maritain.

Philosophical humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation; as such, views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.[5]

Mballen (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

for what it is worth, I would consider this paragraph an improvement to the current version - It gives much more context and actually mentions how different philosophers have aligned them selves with humanism - which seems to be pretty fundamental information for a page that claims to have "Philosophical humanism" as its central topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a false equation to suggest that a scholarly or historical use of a word represents a "minority" view, much less to suggest that it ought to be suppressed or minimized. This implies that there is a conflict between the minority and majority views with the "minority" view being wrong and the "majority" view being right. In fact, both uses are equally correct and legitimate and there is even a connection, though contested and hard to trace, between the two uses of the term that ought to be acknowledged and clarified. I believe Vito Giustiniani's article does this quite well and is very even handed (although "narrowly" academic). I also object to the implication that the history of education is an obscure topic of interest only to specialists. On the contrary it is highly relevant to our times and ought to be of interest to everyone. Again, I highly recommend that there be another Wikipedia article about the Humanist Manifesto and its doctrines and followers, where people could rant as much as they wish. Humanism itself is a more complex topic and deserves serious treatment. (By the way it was the historian Georg Voigt who identified Petrarch as the first Renaissance humanist, an identification that is now virtually universally accepted. Also in the nineteenth century and ever afterward specialists have objected to Burckhardt and Symonds's portrayals of Renaissance humanism as "pagan" or secular in any modern sense. Erasmus and his model Valla are now termed "Evangelical", meaning, roughly, that they were moderate Catholic reformers).Mballen (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent me as suggesting that any definition of humanism "ought to be suppressed or minimized." This is easily disproved by the fact that I created the disambiguation link to Renaissance humanism in a compromise agreed to by all parties last year, and I replaced that disambiguation link with a more comprehensive link to a disambiguation of all meanings after I created the humanism (disambiguation) page. Making such false accusations will be regarded as a personal attack.

Do not misrepresent me as "suggesting that a scholarly or historical use of the word represents a minority view;" in fact all definitions of humanism have been addressed in scholarly and historical contexts, both the majority use and all minority uses alike. The fact that your education has not made you aware of the scholarly and historical uses of humanism by its other definitions does not make such use any less popular. Making such false accusations will be regarded as a personal attack.

Do not misrepresent me as implying "that the history of education is an obscure topic of interest only to specialists." This accusation is not even remotely based on anything I typed; it is a blatant fabrication. Making such false accusations will be regarded as a personal attack.

Again, you appear to be lacking in knowledge about the Humanist Manifesto, and incarnations of humanism before and after its publication, that render you unaware that this article is the one in which you think "people could rant as much as they wish" on a subject you don't care about. You are the misplaced editor: your contributions will probably be more valuable at Renaissance humanism; as long as you misunderstand the topic of humanism and its most common uses, you will be the one seen as "ranting as much as you wish." In fact too much "ranting as much as you wish" is what renders this a simple B-grade article. Your piling etymology and lists of names into the opening paragraph, lack of regard for Wikipedia policy pages, lack of clear thesis statement, and other poor writing skills are what we seek to eliminate in order to achieve an A-grade by the projects that have claimed this article. Please make sure that all future comments and edits are focused on content and how to improve it, not on misrepresenting what I type or on trying to obscure the topic of an article. OldMan (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You are very quick to regarding statements by others as personal attacks - you are not as quick to adopt a civil and friendly tone of argumentation yourself OldMan. If I were to regard every one of your misrepresentations or misconstruals of one of my arguments as a personal attack I would probably have filed a civility report long ago. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference, of course, is that when I put your words in quotation marks, I make those quotation marks delineate something you've actually said, whereas when you complain, it's about something I haven't said. Is English your second language? If so, please accept this as friendly advice: when you quote someone, please make sure the words you put in quotation marks actually originated with the person you're accusing. OldMan (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Civil argumentation does not consist of a series of imperative sentences accompanied by threats.173.52.253.91 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition of humanism as one of the study of literature and rhetoric, vs. philosophical humanism.

Let us be honest on this one - when Googling "Humanism" 2 out of the first 20 results defined it as the study of literature and retoric, one of those being from a religious websites dictionary. Going on a few pages this ratio seems to hold fairly constant. It seems that the common usage of humanism IS philosophical humanism, something that has been reflected in the books I have wandered into during my own studies.

There are books about Renaissance humanism: However, they are all marked "Renaissance Humanism" or "Classical Humanism" somewhere in the title - not once have I opened an "about humanism" book and found a dry, scholarly, essay on the study of literature and rhetoric, though EVERY book I have read on the subject makes at least a reference to modern humanism evolving from this study. Philosophic humanism has been referred to simply as "humanism" since at least the early 70s, and Renaissance or Classical Humanism was long ago taken up as the accepted term for its older usage.

A reference should be made to classical humanism and a link provided to it - for those not interested in learning about philosophical humanism - but the claim that people reading "Humanism" aren't primarily interested in philosophical humanism is a bit silly (To be honest). - (Unsigned contribution [6], not by me Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

If this is true, then label the article "Humanism (Philosophy)" and have it focus on that. What could the objection possibly be? See the archives, particularly under "Current Usage" to see my fuller take on the question.

The usage issue involves more than the word humanism alone and more than an either/or between philosophy and literary studies. If you use the word humanist or humanistic (searches for which are, I repeat, directed to this page) then you are implicitly engaging the noun form humanism as part of the semantic field. If C.S. Lewis can be called a Christian humanist and the pope can talk about "authentic humanism" then the content of that word has to open upon something other than what was described as antipathetic to biblically-based religious belief. There is a larger usage of the word that doesn't contradict the idea of "human-centeredness" but that does not conflict with that kind of Biblically-based belief either. And we can still obviously talk about an "old-fashioned humanism" to mean the reading of great books, i.e., the usage of great literature for education (see my citation of the article on the Jefferson lecture of May 2009).

And once again: search on "humanistic studies" or on (scientists and humanists). These phrases are part of the meaning of the correlative noun form humanism. Uninformed readers need help to realize that, if they look up "humanistic" or "humanist" when they read them in these contexts, the humanism implicitly referred to is not the philosphical rationalistic version. I don't see how that is not obvious to people. Honestly. Wilson Delgado (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact uses of "humanism" and "humanistic to just mean Renaissance humanism are very common, though mostly in historical contexts. I have disamed dozens of such links myself, & no doubt there are plenty more. Authors of books on historical subjects obviously don't bother to add the "Renaissance" at every, or even any, mention. Clued-up readers may not need this, but many do. Look up What links here, which I have gone through in the past weeding out the more obvious ones, but there are clearly dozens more left - just looking at the first page & trying to guess the context, I'd imagine at least 50% can't mean modern secular humanism. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate that compact and abridged dictionaries are designed for quick reference for people in a hurry or for school children, and thus they are not reliable sources for agreeing on how to describe the meaning of so complicated and nuanced an idea as philosophical humanism. For that a specialized philosophical dictionary is more appropriate. Also, the Oxford English Dictionary is not so concerned with meanings (except in the minds of literalists and fundamentalists, meanings are not fixed but shift and must be deduced from historical and other contexts). The OED is a historical dictionary, designed as a record the first appearances of words in the English language and tracing subsequent uses in chronological order. The OED is not a record of who coined or invented a word, contrary to what some people mistakenly assume. Scholars, can and often do come up with earlier uses, that is why supplements are always being issued to the Oxford Dictionary. Ariosto certainly did not coin the word umanista, for example. P.O. Kristeller, one of the great modern discoverers of forgotten and neglected manuscripts, found umanista in a text fifty years older than Ariosto's poem cited in the OED, and others may find earlier uses still. Kristeller thinks umanista must have originated as student slang in the fifteenth century.

Verifiable sources simply means that they can be looked up and checked. Reliable sources means appropriate to the subject at hand, according to Wikipedia: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative ... in relation to the subject at hand."[7]. Serpent/151/Old Man persistently confuses the two. The books, pamphlets, manifestos and declarations the various modern humanist societies do indeed constitute primary sources. They are not at all reliable for historical information about antiquity or the Renaissance, however, as a cross check on Wikipedia will quickly reveal. In most cases, the authors of these pamphlets and manifestos are not historians.Mballen (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New page for Humanism (philosophy)

Shall we go ahead and create a new page entitled "Humanism (philosophy)"? This will allow for a trimmer page and a more fruitful discussion here while giving ample room to the advocates of the philosophical meaning to compose to their hearts' content. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We already have Secular Humanism and Humanism (life stance); I don't think a 3rd page can be justified. The disam option remains open. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You already asked that once, you put it up for a vote, it was voted down by a consensus. Please see WP:IDHT: "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not." OldMan (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus may change over time. And your accusations of stubborness might equally apply to yourself as to any other editor here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The most common usage may change over time, too. Since I acknowledge this may be the case, I look forward to seeing your evidence that the IHEU and Council for Secular Humanism usage of "humanism" is no longer the most prominent. Please choose objectively verifiable sources, and present them here. Thank you! OldMan (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You are shifting the goalposts. I am not (nor are Mballen and most other editors) trying to prove that secular humanism isn't the most prominent meaning. We agree it is (at least in the US). But we do not agree that this means that the description of "humanism" should not also include the changing historical usage of the term and the contemproary minority usages. It is a question of weighing - obviously the common secular humanism usage should be given it's due weight - but not all of the weight. This is what I have been arguing up to now and what you have been contradicting with red herrings like "articles should be about a single topic" (when the issue is that the topic humanism includes both the historical meaning of the concept and its contemporary minority and majority meanings).·Maunus·ƛ· 18:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please quote the applicable policies from Wikipedia here that apply when there are multiple definitions of words that must be addressed, and what to do when different viewpoints carry different weight in frequency of use. Please note that I am not interested in your opinion, but in what Wikipedia policies say. Please quote the applicable sentences here. OldMan (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, OldMan. On that earlier occasion, I proposed that this article's title be changed, NOT that another page be opened with the title "Humanism (philosophy)". (Of course it is completely within my rights as a Wikipedian to open up a new page, even without consensus, and others can propose it for deletion should they want.) Even so, few people were involved in the argument at that time and the turnout was too low to be a true and long-standing indication of consensus. I truly wish that you would stop trying to present me in a bad light. You should know better. Wilson Delgado (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If Oldman wishes to see evidence that the most common meaning of humanism is no longer "secular humanism" I invite him to look at the Merriam Webster online dictionary cited above.24.105.152.153 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As above, though, you are mistaken in two ways: 1. No one thinks that prominence within a dictionary gives prominence of real-world usage. Wilson Delgado agreed with me on this months ago, so that can't possibly be the issue of contention. Wikipedia gives us ways to tell which usage has the greater prominence, and quoting from a dictionary isn't one of them. If you don't intend to perform any of the other suggested methods, then your contribution isn't very useful, now, is it? 2. I don't think OldMan is arguing that secular humanism is the most common form of humanism (and I KNOW I am not). Don't forget, humanism started as a movement to create a new RELIGION based on reason and human-centeredness, so secular humanism is somewhat new to the scene. If you don't know what the differences and similarities are between secular and religious humanism, well again... your contributions can't be very useful, can they? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that there's no need of a new page, and that Humanism (life stance) may cover what most of the editors here quarrels about. Humanism is much more than Humanism (life stance), and partially something else than Humanism (life stance), since by nature Humanism, as an academical study, studies myths. Humanism (life stance) should instead have been named called Anti-religious human-centered ethics, but people like to grab words and flagwave with them. Those adherents of Humanism (life stance) should concentrate on proving that Humanism (life stance) is a natural consequence of Humanism, instead of trying to deny the existence of a former existence of the word Humanism as connected to human studies. Both topics have the place in an encyclopedia. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Catching up on backlog of top uses of "humanism" in the news

• June 24: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102026
• June 25: http://www.christianmessenger.in/interviews/neil_250609/727.php
• June 26: http://www.newschief.com/article/20090626/NEWS/906269997/1014/OPINION?Title=Humanist-atheist-groups-are-options
• June 27: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6591236.ece
• June 28: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6300.4746.0.0
• June 29: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/29/747965/-Religiously-intolerant-promote-values-ofhate-crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the term humanist

The paragraph titled "History" is a a howler, as Ariosto began writing in the sixteenth century. How could he have "coined" a term that was purportedly "coined" before he started writing? It makes one's head spin. Humanism as a philosophical term and as a historical term both date from the 1750s (according to Vito Giustiniani's article from the Journal of the History of Ideas) and were not "coined" in 1808 but (in the historical sense) adopted into English from German. The article now reads:

History:

The term humanism was coined in 1808, based on the 15th century Italian term umanista, meaning "student of human affairs or human nature," as coined by Ludovico Ariosto.[8]

In fact, Ariosto (a sixteenth century comic poet) used the word in the usual way to mean a teacher of Classical subjects (in his satire on the prevalence of sodomy among poets and teachers of literature). Ariosto's is one of the first attested uses of the term, but P.O. Kristeller, who thinks the term originated in student slang, has found other examples from the late fifteenth century. This error is an example of the confusion between the two meanings of the term that writers on the subject agree is very prevalent (and which I believe should be mentioned in the opening paragraph).

This paragraph is more or less correct:

Origin of the term humanist: The term umanista comes from the latter part of the 15th century, and was associated with the studia humanitatis, the novel curriculum that was then competing with the quadrivium and scholastic logic.[14] Renaissance humanism revived the close study of the Latin and Greek classical texts, and was antagonistic to the values of scholasticism with its emphasis on the accumulated commentaries; and humanists were involved in the revival of the science, philosophy, art and poetry of classical antiquity. They self-consciously imitated classical Latin and deprecated the use of medieval Latin. By analogy with the perceived decline of Latin, they applied the principle of ad fontes, or back to the sources, across broad areas of learning.

,

On the other hand, humanism as a movement to revive classical learning originated in the fourteenth century (or earlier), although the contemporary sources never used the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if we can refer to Ariosto's Italian word, why shouldn't we be able to refer to the eighteenth century French and German uses of the word (which were adopted into English in 1808)?Mballen (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just looked up "humanist" in the OED and I see that even lexicographers can be misleading (or misled). The OED says that Ariosto used the term in his seventh satire and defines it as a "student of human affairs or human nature", but the English example it gives (from 1617) is: "Him that affects a knowledge of State affairs, Histories, etc.", -- "State affairs" means "politics", and "affects" means "pretends", so the writer means "him that affects a knowledge of politics and history" -- in other words, not a "student of human nature" but rather a pedant and fake. This would be consistent with what scholars observe about the disrepute that humanists had fallen into in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Dennis Looney (in The Encylopedia of Italian Literary Studies [CRC Press, 2007], p. 94), says, "“any positive value associated with this relatively new word in the Italian language is undermined by its context . . . . By impugning humanists as potential sodomites, Ariosto suggests that the typical humanistic education is deficient and sterile, much as Dante implied in his portrayal of Brunetto Latini in Inferno 15B." According to Wikipedia, Dante places poet and philosopher Brunetto Latini within the third ring of the Seventh Circle of Hell with "clerks and great and famous scholars defiled in the world by one and the same sin, presumably the unspeakable one of sodomy." Ariosto, himself a humanist, believed in learning from experience, as well as, or even in preference to, books.

In 2001, The Oxford Companion to Western Art in Art & Architecture defined Humanism this way: "An ambiguous term covering both a 19th-century moral movement and Renaissance classical learning. Later humanism might be described as a secular version of Christian ethics, redirected to ‘human’ and social goals; Renaissance humanism had no such ethical ..." (my emphasis. By the way, these opinions about homosexuality are not mine but those of the sources quoted).Mballen (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your're right, and I also noticed that the current intro is flawed. There has been edit wars here before, deeming from the previous discussion but hopefully there will soon be a consensus that Humanism does not only refer to Humanism (life stance) and that Humanism (life stance) is not the sole definitition that have the right to a place on wikipedia. ... said: Rursus (bork²)

Why is there nothing on this page about the criticisms of humanism?

Well, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.232.181.85 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would guess for the same reasons that there is no criticism of Christianity on its page, no criticism of atheism on its page, etc. It would break NPOV. ES2 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The history paragraph does mention criticism of humanism as deification of man. Other sections also stress that nineteenth century humanists and historians, confusing the different meanings and etymologies of the term, mistakenly portrayed Renaissance humanism as a version of their own, erroneously attributing modern secularist attitudes to the figures of the time. Did you have other sorts of criticism in mind?Mballen (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A short Google search shows pages like http://www.aboundingjoy.com/humanism_chart.htm in which the criticisms of humanism are identical to what humanists claim about themselves. Humanists say, "we center our thoughts on humans rather than God, and that's good." Critics of humanism say, "they center their thoughts on humans rather than God, and that's bad." So it seems an article that just presents the facts about humanism is sufficient to explain both sides of any controversy. All we have to do is say "they center their thoughts on humans rather than God," and whether that's good or bad is for discussion outside of Wikipedia. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even realize that that link was anti-humanist until I went to the front page of the site. I even thought that the quote at the top of the page ("See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.") was being used in an ironic sense. I am truly at a loss for words. 76.79.237.162 (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All of Western civilization is based on humanism, that is, reason, as initiated and elaborated by the Greek pre-Socratics, as noted on this page.

Most world religions incorporate reason (usually by making it identical with God). The various fundamentalisms are an exception to this (usually because their adherents are very uneducated?) Religious humanists also believe in reason, but they oppose the idea that people's welfare must be subordinated to impersonal forces such as "the market", or "the march of progress", providence, or even "destiny", manifest or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful not to let this POV creep into your edits of this article, as you make several statements of opinion that are not supported by any verifiable evidence. For example, you appear not to have a clear understanding of what "religious humanists" believe (see the Humanist Manifesto for a clear statement), and you attribute opinions about poorly-defined concepts such as "the market," "progress," "providence," and "destiny" to humanists when they are not really supported by common philosophy among them. For that matter, this page is not really appropriate for this editorializing either; this page is for discussion of improving the article instead. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The humanist manifesto may not be a reliable source for what religious people believe. Some might even say that the humanist manifesto is itself a "statement of opinion".

It happens, as a matter of fact, that I do have a verifiable source, namely the Cambridge Companion to Philosophy's entry on "Humanism", which you might want to take a look at, since I think it is pertinent to the discussions about improving this page. Merely copying the literature of the various humanist societies is inadequate, as the long and contentious history of this wikipedia entry indicates. I should have said, however, that the positions of religious and secular humanisms contrast with those of science (or what purports to be science) as well as with religion when they appear to conflict with human values. Also, in future, you may want to avoid making what appear to be imperative statements to other posters, as they are contrary to the spirit of civilized discussion. It is not that difficult to find ways of modulating one's tone, when one is motivated to. One way to do it is to focus on what you yourself think, rather than on what you think other people ought to say or think.Mballen (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The humanist manifesto is what's considered by scholars to be a "primary source" in historical study. As a statement of a philosophy, it is of course a statement of opinion, purposefully at odds with those who held more traditional philosophies like those of Christianity and Islam. To say that it isn't a reliable source for what religious humanists believed when it was published is a bit disingenuous, seeing as that was its sole purpose, and that it was authored by the most prominent leaders and prolific authors of that group. One might compare it to saying the "communist manifesto" is not a reliable source for what communists thought, or that the Bible is not a reliable source for what Christians believe. You might be interested in reading the articles on primary source and historiography to better acquaint yourself with how historical research is conducted. Also, in the future, you may want to avoid making statements of contempt towards imperative statements to other posters, because Wikipedia is not a platform for editorializing and discussing opinions: it is a project with specific goals and specific methods for accomplishing those goals, which are themselves imperatives. If you are not comfortable with working within a framework with such specific goals and guidelines, might I suggest looking for a forum website aimed at providing an open platform for all opinions and free speech instead? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Pope Benedict is a religious humanist and I don't think the Humanist Manifesto is a reliable authority about what he believes, since it was written quite a while ago (I will add, just as a point of disclosure, that I agree with the humanist part of his belief and not with the theological part). I think you can expect that people will make edits as they see fit. Mballen (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The following comment contains a false accusation of which the original commenter has been notified, but which remains, at present, uncorrected. Please beware of provably false statements in the following comment, and note my correction in the followup comment. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, Serpent, I think people should know that the first humanist manifesto of 1933 presents what it calls "religious humanism" as a new and alternative socialist and materialistic (though reformist, not revolutionary) religion. The second (1973) declaration makes no mention at all of "religious humanism" and it repudiates the optimism of the first manifesto (while offering a vision of hope, hmm). It also acknowledges that: "Many within religious groups, believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation." Therefore, it would seem to acknowledge what you deny and what other on this board have been affirming over a period of many years, namely, that theists can have humanistic beliefs as well as non-theists.Mballen (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Amsterdam Declaration of 2002 is the only one of these documents (so far as I can tell) to affirm the centrality of music, art, and literature (but not scholarship) as values in human life if only on the level of promoting individual fulfilment, thus connecting somewhat to older Classical (Ciceronian) and Renaissance humanism. It rejects dogmatic religion, but not religion as such.Mballen (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that new contributors are so hesitant to read the archives of this talk page, and also that some editors have seen fit to delete several comments from the talk page too, because pretty much all the points you've made above have already been proven incorrect, proven a tiny-minority viewpoint, or otherwise gone challenged but undefended. For example, you write, "what you deny." I have never denied that theists can be humanists, and if you intend to accuse me of such, you must link to a comment in which I've said so or you will be reported for making personal attacks. What I HAVE said is that that is a tiny-minority viewpoint, and in fact, all three humanist manifestos and the Amsterdam Declaration you quoted agree with me on this:

• Humanist Manifesto I, tenet 6: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
• Humanist Manifesto II, tenet 1, second paragraph: As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.
• Humanist Manifesto III, first sentence of introduction, ninth and tenth words: Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism...

I'm sure, to prove that you are indeed commenting in good faith, you will not only apologize to me for making a false accusation about my opinion, but you will also quote the Amsterdam Declaration of 2002, tenet 2, sentence 3 to demonstrate that you are not attempting to hide, mask, or lie about the obvious commonality in most attempts to define and frame humanism.

Wilson Delgado has brought up Pope Ben XVI already, and was challenged to show some evidence that he speaks for all catholics in this or that his viewpoint is the majority, using sources selected for being representative of a majority rather than hand-selected for their POV bias. He has, to date, always opted to refrain from doing so. Since you didn't notice that from reading this talk page's archives, I will now extend the same invitation to you: I am open to evidence. Please demonstrate with verifiable, objective evidence. Otherwise, please enjoy this light reading and be assured, you will be welcome back to Wikipedia once you are willing to share our goals and submit to our guidelines for verifiable content. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't noticed anything much being "proved" on this page, though we have assertions aplenty. As for "tiny minority", that'll be the number of people identifying as humanists who have even heard of "all three humanist manifestos and the Amsterdam Declaration". Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad, your not having noticed the top-ranked book sales from Amazon, the top-ranked websites from Alexa, the top-ranked Google search results, and news results from the BBC, CNN, Google, and others, several of which were suggested by Wikipedia policy as the way to determine primary usage of a term, in multiple places down this page. One might almost be afraid that you were very selectively ignoring any facts that are inconvenient to your POV. I know this isn't true of you, of course, because you would only edit in good faith and you would never be that intellectually cowardly, so instead, I shall just have to resume posting top results from news article searches. This is so you can't say you "haven't noticed anything being proved," and will continue making it really obvious, through the contrast, that those who disagree with the most common use of the term have no verifiable evidence of frequency of use in their favor. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Because those criticism should be on Humanism (life stance). The current page should treat all definitions of "humanism". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Top News Article Search Results for Humanism

• July 1 - http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=52712fb08dbbc5d2a6b35770ae72967f "Wait a minute. That sounds suspiciously like the scientific method! Itâs the foundation of secular humanism, which eventually produces moral relativism and the denial of the existence of God, the afterlife and moral absolutes."
• July 2 - http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/716443 "Popular culture and educational systems were hijacked by faulty philosophies and false notions based in mid-20th century liberal humanism and 1960s youth culture."
• July 3 - http://europenews.dk/en/node/24666 "Adapted from the speech delivered at the session on Humanism and Islam at the IHEU World Congress 2002."
• July 4 - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/07/04/nytimes-sneering-christianity-patriotism "promotion of expressions of New Age, Wicca, secularism and humanism."
• July 5 - http://www.examiner.com/x-14678-Dallas-Business-Commentary-Examiner~y2009m7d5-Q-70-Who-is-Thomas-Cleary-and-why-is-he-important "Dr. Cleary redefined the military treatise by linking it to Taoist thought found in classics like the I Ching and Tao Te Ching. He purposefully highlighted "a profound undercurrent of humanism" to the often misunderstood book on warfare."
• July 6 - http://www.linuxlegal.com/content.php?content_id=96851 "It was envisaged that beliefs such as pantheism, atheism and humanism would be covered."
• July 7 - http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-07-2009/107974-civil_upheavals-0 "They then would proceed to pass and uphold every sort of socialist legislation such as: hate speech laws, gun laws, immigration laws, socialized medicine, social activism and secular humanism agendas in schools and places of work"

Please note, among these news articles, that some of these stories and editorials use the word in praise of the concept, and some in opposition. But, love it or hate it, they seem to be fairly consistent in understanding WHAT the term means in the first place. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that references to "secular humanism" are indeed references to secular humanism and not very relevant in discussing the meaning of humanism by itself. The same goes for other qualifiers. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The following sources give definitions for "humanism" that are not mutually exclusive of "secular humanism," but can encompass "secular humanism" as a subset:

• This very Wikipedia article, which in its "religion" section clarifies the difference between religious and secular humanism without contradicting American Heritage Dictionary definition 1.
• American Heritage Dictionary definition 1
• Compact Oxford English Dictionary definition 1
• Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
• Collins Essential English Dictionary
• Webster's Concise Dictionary
• Collins Concise Dictionary
• All dictionaries, encyclopedias, and philosophy companions listed at http://humaniststudies.org/humphil.html
• Examples of use cited in my news article searches of July 2, July 4, and July 6 above

Since you cited no sources to show that "humanism" without an adjective and "secular humanism," in their most common usages, are mutually exclusive, I'll add a fact template to ensure no one mistakes your opinion as demonstrably true. In addition, the final sentence of your comment is contradicted by American Humanist Association executive director Frederick Edwords who, in his essay "What is Humanism?" gives several examples of adjectives placed before the noun that are synonymous, rather than mutually exclusive: "modern humanism," "naturalistic humanism," "scientific humanism," "ethical humanism," and "democratic humanism" among them. Since the AHA executive director disagrees that putting ANY adjective in front of the noun always changes what the noun refers to, I'll also put the fact template next to that statement so readers can avoid being confused by your opinion. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please don't tamper with others' comments. I never said that any adjective placed before huymanism refers to a distinct concept, but secular humanism like religious humanism is a well-known adjectival phrase that does. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "religious humanism, Johnbod, I think that the article should clarify that "religious humanism", as used in the various humanist manifestos and declaration, has a specific and more restrictive meaning s than is immediately apparent to the casual reader. The manifestos use it to identify divisions within their own community, not what ordinary people would necessarily think of when they hear the word "religious" combined with "humanism". More historical information about the development of the concept of humanism could help to make this clearer, since there have been ongoing changes even in the last 100 years in its use. As it is. the article relies far too much on the 1933 Manifesto -- written during a time of economic crisis and polarization of opinion. This manifesto is the very one that enemies of humanism like to cite as definitive, curiously enough. For example, it is not mentioned that 1973 Humanist Manifesto specifically repudiates the optimism it embraced in 1933; the more recent humanist declarations also repudiate the dogmatic rejection of religion, but the article does not give this impression. The article as it stands is unclear at best and at worst misleading.Mballen (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, though it is a mistake to give too much importance to these tiny self-appointed American groups. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What in the world can you possibly mean by saying, "the more recent humanist declarations also repudiate the dogmatic rejection of religion?" You yourself wrote above that the Humanist Manifesto I specifically named humanism as a RELIGION. That's not "a dogmatic rejection of religion;" that's embracing it. You also wrote that Humanist Manifesto II stepped away from using that term. That's not "repudiating dogmatic rejection;" that's repudiating ADHERENCE to religion. Your assertion not only contradicts what you wrote in a comment above, but contradicts what actually happened in history! Perhaps you find "the article as it stands [to be] unclear at best and at worst misleading" because you are misunderstanding the very primary sources used in its creation. I'd love to help you out, but since your own statements contradict each other, you'll have to let me know which you think are confusing. Then I'll be happy to point you to sources that can explain better. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What does "or their mere negation" mean to you?

Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What does "past religions" mean to you?

Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation."

Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Serpent, this is not the Humanist Manifesto I, this is II (already 37 years old), which very noticeably avoids calling humanism a religion and nowhere mentions the "religious humanism" so prominent in Manifesto I. This indicates to me that the Humanist Association has altered its definition of humanism in the last 80 years, and, indeed, they do mention (as I recall, I don't have it in front of me), that ideas can change and develop, and so presumably can the concept of humanism. They also say that they don't expect every signatory to agree with every particular in the declaration. Anyway, you haven't answered my question. I interpret the quoted statement as meaning: we should move beyond divisive criticism, dogmatic creeds and rituals of past religions and also move beyond the mere negation of such past creeds and their rituals, i.e., it is not enough to criticize past dogmatic creeds or merely to negate them. Do you have a different interpretation? And what about the repudiation of optimism? Do you agree with that? If you ask me, the Humanist Association appears to have sensibly decided that the wording and tone of its past Manifesto was overly dogmatic for today's times (or even yesterday' times). Indeed, the most recent declarations (the word Manifesto has also been abandoned) call humanism as they define it (more accurately, I also think) a life stance, rather than use the terms philosophy or religion.Mballen (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, and I'm sorry: on rereading, it looks to me like it's not the term "PAST religions" that you're having difficulty with. I know this is Humanist Manifesto II, so I thought you were trying to insinuate that humanism must "move above and beyond" the religious form of humanism explicated in Humanist Manifesto I. Instead, it looks like you don't know what the word "merely" means. American Heritage Dictionary says "mere" means "Being nothing more than what is specified." In other words, according to that quote, "humanism must move above and beyond BEING NOTHING MORE than the negation of past religions." Thus to say, "I do not share the faith of ancient Greek polytheists" may be NECESSARY to be a humanist, but is not SUFFICIENT to be a humanist. In the same way, you could say "a car must be more than merely four tires," which means four tires are NECESSARY to build a car, but are not SUFFICIENT to make up a car. If the distinction in logic between "necessity" and "sufficiency" is new to you, please see this Wikipedia article for a great overview: Necessary and sufficient condition. Again, I do apologize for misunderstanding your point: I know what both "past religions" AND "merely" mean, so I couldn't tell which point you DIDN'T understand. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Say, what? You mean you can't be a polytheist and be a humanist, too?Mballen (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking for my opinion, Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum. Please take this discussion to any of a number of philosophy forum websites. If you're asking what is VERIFIABLE, on the other hand, I have already documented the stance of Humanist Manifesto I, Humanist Manifesto II, and Humanist Manifesto III on this subject in my comment of 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC). In that same comment, I challenged you to quote the Amsterdam Declaration of 2002, tenet 2, sentence 3 to demonstrate that you are not attempting to hide, mask, or lie about the obvious commonality in most attempts to define and frame humanism. You haven't done so, but I remain convinced that you are an editor in good faith, with all intelligence and with full willingness to comply with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. To demonstrate that good faith, intelligence, and dedication to verifiability over opinion, won't you please make that requested quotation here? Again, that's Amsterdam Declaration of 2002, tenet 2, sentence 3. Thank you! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a criticism from within. The following statement was published in the magazine, The Humanist in July of 2003:

[from] Dick Reichart

I am impressed with the general comprehensiveness of Humanist Manifesto III, though its writing bears some of the marks of all such documents written "by committee."

However, it reminds me of a criticism of Humanist Manifesto II The second manifesto was written in 1973 by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, and was intended to update the previous one. It begins with a statement that the excesses of Nazism and world war had made the first seem "far too optimistic", and indicated a more hardheaded and realistic expressed by the late Ethical Culture Leader George Beauchamp, which I feel applies as well to Humanist Manifesto III. I once told a group with whom George was visiting at my home that he was the only person I knew who had never lost his temper. He responded that I was wrong--there was in fact one such occasion, when he had been so angered by the totally secular, even anti-religious, tone of Humanist Manifesto II that he tore up his American Humanist Association membership card and resigned. I won't do that, but I do feel the issue remains a shortcoming in Humanist Manifesto III. It is the failure to clearly acknowledge the validity of other worldviews which accept "right living in this world" as part of their responsibility to some being or force beyond themselves (or even of all humanity).

A large number--even the great bulk--of philosophical humanism's core concepts and values originated with people holding such "religious" views. In turn, the document fails to acknowledge the desirability of secular humanists working in harmony with people who hold those views today

--Dick Reichart, a semi-retired survey research professional, is a graduate of the Humanist Institute and has been an active member of the American Ethical Union for over twenty-five years and the Princeton Ethical Humanist Fellowship since its founding

Mballen (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could easily demonstrate your own good faith by citing the quotation yourself!

[Unindenting for legibility, but this is in reply to your Reichart quote.] This quote demonstrates exactly what American Humanist Association executive director Frederick Edwords was talking about when he wrote, in his essay "What is Humanism?" the following:

The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence. Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 and Humanist Manifesto II in 1973. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree.

So yes, we all already know that there are both RELIGIOUS and SECULAR forms of humanism, and we know that not all humanists agree on which label one should take. We also know, further, that the AHA has sought to solve this conflict by introducing the term "life stance" to describe humanism.

However, none of this has anything to do with the question you asked above, nor where I pointed you to the answer. I've quoted the Humanist Manifesto I, Humanist Manifesto II, and Humanist Manifesto III as a demonstration of MY good faith and devotion to verifiability in Wikipedia. Though I quote three primary sources and you refuse to quote even the ONE I've left for you, I remain convinced that you might actually still be an editor in good faith, mindful of verifiability, rather than a peddler of a slanted POV. I'm sure you MEAN to quote only verifiable sources, and so you probably MEAN to go ahead and quote the Amsterdam Declaration, tenet 2, sentence 3, just as I will once again quote all three Humanist Manifestos to answer your question above:

• Humanist Manifesto I, tenet 6: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
• Humanist Manifesto II, tenet 1, second paragraph: As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.
• Humanist Manifesto III, first sentence of introduction, ninth and tenth words: Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism...

Okay, there are three verifiable primary sources, pasted as a demonstration of my commitment to verifiability! I'm sure you MEAN to go ahead and cite the fourth at this time, right? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dick Reichert did not say anything about religious humanists vs. secular humanists. He spoke of the need to work with people with "other world views" who had contributed to humanism. I agree that Edwords' quote is a good one and thought when I read it some time ago that it could be incorporated into the article at some point. As far as your "challenge", when I make edits I supply the requisite citations to the best of my ability. I don't see why superfluous assurances of anyone's good faith should be required.Mballen (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as the editor of the Princeton Ethical Humanist Fellowship Newsletter, Dick Reichert did indeed write on more than one occasion about religious vs. secular humanists and religious vs. secular Ethical Union members. He doesn't appear to have picked a side, as he acknowledged that it's only a disagreement on the semantics of the word "religion," but he DID very explicitly identify both sides of the debate as non-theistic, by that very term, in his May 1998 essay for the Newsletter.

As for the challenge, of course I agree with you: SUPERFLUOUS assurances of good faith shouldn't be required. Only non-superfluous ones. I repeatedly ask for a simple demonstration (and I set the example by offering quotes myself from THREE different sources), and as you wonder why I repeatedly ask, you continue to refuse, over and over, prompting me to wonder why you won't quote the Amsterdam Declaration, tenet 2, sentence 3. Outside of Wikipedia, one might be prompted to suspect such a refusal indicates NOT acting in good faith, or NOT being honest, or NOT sticking to facts that can be objectively verified. Here on Wikipedia, though, I know that you are bound to act in good faith, with honesty, and with verifiability as the highest ideal just as I am bound to acknowledge your good faith and your holding of verifiability as the highest ideal. So your continued refusal to quote the Amsterdam Declaration, tenet 2, sentence 3 must surely be attributed to some other cause: perhaps we shall assume that your web browser is broken or buggy and cannot perform the "copy" and "paste" functions. Yyyyyyeah, that's what we shall assume. I'm sorry about whatever circumstances prevent you from demonstrating good faith with a simple quotation, but I am quite sure you are NOT trying to mask facts that are inconvenient to your POV, you are NOT attempting to hide anything, you are NOT deliberately misrepresenting any sources. I'm glad to know we can all be on the same team here, working toward the same goals, and only offering those facts that can be objectively verified! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How does something said in 1998 ( http://www.pehf.org/nl0582.html ), namely that it is hard for a religion like Ethical Culture to attract adherents when theistic religions profess the same humanistic goals (which they do) -- explain a statement made in 2003, which appears to say that all those with humanistic goals (not just non-theistic humanists) ought to work together? Perhaps we should ask him directly. (Also, see nontheism in wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh, now I understand why you think a minority POV of humanism is so relevant: you also hold a tiny-minority viewpoint of theistic religions! Let's just take Christianity, for example. You write that "theistic religions profess the same humanistic goals" as humanism, and perhaps they do IN YOUR OPINION, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for your opinion. It is based on what can be easily VERIFIED, with the most common view being given the greatest prominence. Therefore you must consider Christianity not according to YOUR opinion, but according to such founding creeds and modern descriptions as these:

• The Nicene Creed: http://www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.html
• The Apostles Creed: http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html
• The Sacraments of the Catholic Church (the most common form of Christianity worldwide): http://www.americancatholic.org/fEATURES/sACRAMENTS/default.asp
• National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith: http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.statement_of_faith
• World Evangelical Alliance Statement of Faith: http://www.worldevangelicals.org/aboutwea/statementoffaith.htm
• Also, your poor understanding of Christianity (as the world's most popular theistic religion) may be helped by reading its article right here on Wikipedia: Christianity. Even just the first paragraph is a good summary of the whole thing.

Now, we've talked about a number of sources that reflect what the most commonly-held beliefs of humanism are, among them the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III, and the Amsterdam Declaration of 2002 (and I must note here that you STILL refuse to quote the tenet that addresses theism), but we can also add to those the introductions to humanism from the AHA and the BHA, the IHEU minimum statement on humanism, and the definition given by the Council for Secular Humanism. If you compare the most common views of humanism with the most common views of Christianity, you will see that VERIFIABLE SOURCES show very little overlap between the two viewpoints, and in fact very much straightforward contradiction. If you look up at the top news article search results I've been pasting over the past months, you'll see that many uses of "humanism" in modern media are to CRITICIZE it FOR being contrary to theistic faith. Popular Christian author Tim LaHaye wrote a book called "The Battle for the Family" that painted humanism as a tool of Satan directly aimed at destroying the Christian faith. The same attitude can be found on websites like these: http://www.aboundingjoy.com/humanism_chart.htm and http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1977 ...this latter of which says outright, "It is important to understand that a Christian cannot be a humanist. There are those who claim to be "Christian humanists" or "religious humanists." But humanism and Christianity are not compatible... Humanism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed systems."

I acknowledge that YOU might think there's some overlap, and you might be able to find websites or wistful editorials that wish there could be greater reconciliation between the viewpoints. However, this website is not the appropriate forum for such editorializing: Wikipedia's purpose is for creating articles based on what IS ALREADY objectively verifiable, not a forum for persuasion. Please try to constrain yourself to what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You are representing something Dick Reichert said as something I said. Maybe Dick Reichert is "hoping for a reconciliation", more likely he is just worrying about increasing his congregation. As for me, I never said a word about the Christian religion. But I will say that Tim LaHaye is not a very credible source. Neither do the "abounding joy" and "apologetics press" websites constitute the "modern media". Mballen (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• In your 00:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC) comment, you wrote "Dick Reichert did not say anything about religious humanists vs. secular humanists."
• In my 04:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC) comment, I refuted this showing very specific examples of how he correctly identified both sides of the "religious" vs. "secular" humanism debate, while affirming the nontheism of both.
• In your 17:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC) comment, you wrote, "when theistic religions profess the same humanistic goals [as Ethical Culture] (which they do)."
• In my 21:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC) comment, I refuted this showing, with nine (9!) sources, that the most common descriptions of humanism and the most common theistic religion DO NOT overlap very much at all in their most commonly-stated goals.
• In your 05:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC) comment, you now try to pin that assertion on Dick Reichert, rather than take responsibility for your own obvious incorrectness.
• In his May 1998 essay, Dick Reichert very clearly DID NOT write that theistic religions share the same GOALS as "ethical culture;" what he says is that "even theistic religions JUSTIFY THEIR BELIEFS in humanistic terms." This is nowhere near the same as having the same goals, nor having the same beliefs, nor having any overlapping philosophy at all.

All told, that makes more than a dozen sources I've cited from both pro-humanist and anti-humanist sources, while to disagree with me you've tried twice to rely on the same source but you've been obviously mistaken in both attempts. In addition, you criticize Tim LaHaye's "credibility" (with only a mere statement of opinion), though his "credibility" is not as noteworthy for this purpose as his POPULARITY. LaHaye has a wider audience than Reichert, and very certainly has a wider audience and wider agreement than YOUR opinion!

But what the heck are we doing discussing YOUR OPINION again? Why do you keep sharing it, as if you think it should be relevant? Your opinion is not relevant; this is not a philosophy forum. This is Wikipedia, and here the aim is not to discuss the opinions of random people on the internet; it's to publish what can be verified objectively. Let's start with the contents of the Amsterdam Declaration of 2002, shall we? Its contents are now a fact of history, not subject to any imposition of slanted point of view. What, can you tell me, does the Amsterdam Declaration of 2002 say in its second tenet, third sentence? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Flawed intro

Humanism is a term used for:

• Humanist studies, since the 15th century, parted into:

• religious,
• agnostic,

• The anti-religious movement around International Humanist and Ethical Union.

Why does the article claim "the word dates from the nineteenth century"? We know that humanist thinking was around the time of the Protestant Reformation, since humanism was a major influence on some protestants. Deeming from the previous link spamming and edit wars, there is something about the emergence of Humanism that is either embarassing or otherwise inconvenient for the proponents of Humanism (life stance), which is expressed in a will to redefine (and thereby factually misrepresent) the historical heritage of the word. Cannot the definition referring to academical studies and the definition referring to the life stance coexist? (If not, then that life stance is somehow flawed, since it claims an absolutely free mind, while not practicing it). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It merely means that all the words ending in -ism first were used in the 19th century (when history and schools of thought first began to be divided up into periods and -isms). However, the concept of self-consciously using human reason and public discussion to air and solve problems goes back to the Greek polis, where a space was made for it in the agora, or public square. At first this custom was very restricted, but it gradually gained prestige and spread through other countries. And this type of thinking was revived in a big way in the Italian Renaissance in Southern Europle and then the Protestant Reformation in Northern Europe -- to simplify on a grand scale. If that's what you mean, you are correct. And you are also correct that the agnostic variety is a late development. I agree with you that the introduction is misleading, but it has repeatedly been reverted.Mballen (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean – and so the humanist studies can be traced further back than I believed... Now, let's see if we can await that feelings calm down, and see if, after all, we might actually get an agreement to part the article space between Humanism "academical studies" and Humanism "life stance", maybe relating the one to the other by comparison. (Theoretically it wouldn't be too hard, since the space available is potentially unlimited, or nearly so). It would actually do that life stance a service, since it might occur that it can be traced back to academical studies via the agnostic variant. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the current introduction is rather flawed. It seems not to accommodate the coexistence of multiple definitions of humanism you're talking about. I'd already criticized the overloading of historical details and confusion of what humanism is in my comment of July 2nd, which has not been addressed, so I'm guessing we have agreement and will be fixing up some of the unsourced, redundant, and ill-placed details to make the introduction more clear again.

I think we are all agreed that humanism has multiple distinct definitions, all of which deserve their fair treatment, so I created the disambiguation page at Humanism (disambiguation) to ensure we can find the one we're most interested in. If you're interested in Renaissance humanism, for example, full treatment of the topic is found at Renaissance humanism. If you're interested in modern study of humanities, make yourself at home in the Humanities article. I hope this helps! OldMan (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And if you're interested in Secular humanism or Humanism (life stance) you have those pages, so this endlessly disputed article should just redirect to the disam page. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You forgot Religious humanism also! I will agree to this if you can convince the editors of Christianity that their article should be turned into a disambiguation page that points to the various denominations of Christianity, and the editors of Islam that their article should be a disambiguation page that points to the variety of Sunni and Shiite beliefs. If, in those cases, it's deemed worthwhile instead to have an umbrella article that summarizes what the subsets have in common, then that strategy should be pursued here for consistency. OldMan (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm delighted you agree! Of course WP:OTHERSTUFF means what other subjects do is irrelevant, even if the variety of shades of belief in Islam & Christianity were comparable to those among the various things that all have "humanism" in their names, which is a hard case to argue. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't agree yet because you haven't accomplished this yet. The WP:OTHERSTUFF policy even says why not to base your argument on another article: because the other article might be wrong too. This is why I am not saying you are automatically wrong for disagreeing with me, but that successful change in a more closely monitored article will demonstrate the correct course of action here. If they are wrong on other articles, you should be able to convince them there. Then it will be unquestioningly clear that I have been wrong in my interpretation of the guidance on WP:DISAMBIG and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. OldMan (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not for you to impose conditions. Either it should just be a disam page or it should not. I doubt if it is the "interpretation of the guidance" that is different, though it might be, but the view of the factual question as to whether "there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer". The situation here is somewhat unusual, as this article is something of a reverse WP:POVFORK, which attempts to cover several topics that are actually sufficiently different to have their own articles, as of course they do, and not sufficiently similar for there ever to be agreement over a suitable lead section. This lack of agreement strongly suggests that there is no real single topic of "humanism", just several that claim the name. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a similar situation on the page for "Social Contract."Mballen (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OldMan has recently returned to the much discredited intro of long ago. More people have voiced opposition to this approach than have voiced assent. The consensus is for change. Let us rewrite. Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a version that lasted for some time not long ago, was there not? Alternatively, I set out a proposal below. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect this page to Humanism (disambiguation)

• As explained above, the long-term edit-warring on this page, and the apparent impossibility of agreeing a lead section (and the relative lack of trouble in the other sections of the article), suggests that this page is what I've called a "reverse WP:POVFORK" that artificially attemps to unite the several topics listed at the disam page, which reads:

"Humanism may refer to ethical philosophies such as

• Humanism (life stance)
• Secular humanism
• Religious humanism
• Christian humanism

Humanism may also refer to:

• Renaissance humanism, an educational and cultural movement
• New Humanism, an educational movement associated with Irving Babbitt and Paul Elmer More
• Humanities, a group of academic disciplines and the educational philosophy associated with them
• for Civic Humanism see Classical Republicanism"

There is no primary topic for Humanism, and the plain title should redirect to the disam page. Although this is not strictly a move proposal, I will ask User:Anthony Appleyard, who covers moves, to oversee and close the debate, as an uninvolved admin. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
2. I strongly support this proposal. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support as best of a bad job, from the encyclopedia's point of view. Really extensive discussion here has not succeeded, in my view, in finding a structure for an article on humanism, thought of broadly, for which the article as a whole can flourish. I'm not thinking just about the lede, here: the fact is that (quite typically for a protracted edit war) great attention has been given to rival versions of the lede, and the rest of the article (just as typically) has not received the sort of quality editing it needs. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per Charles Matthews' reasoning. I do think that continuing the discussion about how to define "humanism thought of broadly" would be profitable, even if the article should remain a disambiguation page, we could still provide a lead paragraph defining the term broadly, based on reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I realise only now that this proposal is to redirect this article to the disambiguation article. What I actually support is converting this article into a disambiguation article. Srnec (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Support, current article very confused, as it mixes up modern use in USA which is essentially a by-word for "liberal atheism". Best to simply have it going to a disambiguation. It is really not good to have the current insignificant definition usurping Renaissance Humanism which is one of the most influential and important to understand movements in Western history (influencing Protestantism, Counter-Reformation, Illuminsm, Absolutism, etc). - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This was voted on before, and voted down. Asking again strikes me as petulance, like a child stamping his foot because he really really really wants to get his own way. The argumentation isn't any better this time around; the "supporters" above still don't show any verifiable evidence of frequency of use whereas the book searches, news searches, and website searches over the past few months haven't changed. If I'm to adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, I don't really have a choice here. No supporters cite the Wikipedia policies they're following, and as Charles Matthews says, they're mostly just ignoring the other improvements that should be made to bring this article from a "B" grade to an "A" grade. They are numerous, and largely ignored by other editors in favor of making this article a discussion about unverifiable opinions. OldMan (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple comment: if you think issues here can be decided, once-and-for-all, in a way that excludes later reconsideration, then you have a certain amount to learn about the operations of Wikipedia. In short, a supposed consensus can be challenged. You would also do well to address the merits of the proposal rather than the merits of its supporters (I hardly need go into why). Charles Matthews (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Many articles link here, assuming an atheistic, anthropocentric meaning. Happy Humanist (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. See comments in "discussion." Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Since I've been working on WikiProject Religion, this article has always been a useful and popular summary within the scope of our project, consistent with the humanism template, and as described in Outline of humanism. 192.153.23.100 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

(Please keep comments brief)

Re Old Man: This is the link: 4 opposed & 2 supported a similar proposal (1 each of the votes already repeated here). Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Happy Humanist: All of those links would redirect to the disam page. In an ideal world they should all be given a more precise link in any case. Although many Renaissance Humanists have been linked more precisely, I see Pope Nicholas V still links here, & no doubt many Christian humanists etc too. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In the proposal, Johnbod writes, "There is no primary topic for Humanism." This statement is false. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says the following:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

Tools that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors, include:

• Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
• Wikipedia article traffic statistics
• Google web, news, scholar, or book searches

Yes, there IS "extended discussion" about whether this article is about the primary topic of humanism, but it's been a very one-sided discussion. One side shows google web, news, scholar, and book searches, and continues providing data for month after month that shows dominant usage within the news... and the other side shows... nothing. They do not provide any objective and verifiable sources, because all objective and verifiable sources show very clearly that the human-centered philosophy is the most prominent usage within books, magazines, news articles, and websites. So the "extended discussion" is not fruitful, it does not introduce any new facts; it is just endless repetition like that Monty Python skit: "that's not argument; it's just mindless contradiction!"

Try asking around to see if any of the "supporters" above will analyze the incoming wikilinks or Wikipedia article traffic statistics, as suggested by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. They will all decline, as the results are very inconvenient to their viewpoint. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Those tools may result in Recentism, which is the problem I have with an article about secular humanism that is titled simply "humanism". Srnec (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice that Serpent ignores completely the oft-repeated point about the typical usage of phrases like "humanistic studies" and "humanists and scientists," and also the frequently cited major reference works that point away from his position. He ignores the valid critiques that have been made of his approach. The fact is that the word humanism relates closely to humanist and humanistic as well as humanities. Truncating the semantic field is not a fair tactic, particularly when the page gets all the searches for humanistic directed to it. Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this was already refuted at Talk:Humanism#Humanism and Science and Talk:Humanism#Most_common_usage_of_.22Humanist_Studies.3F.22, this comment is a perfect example of that Monty Python skit I mentioned: "That's not argument; that's just mindless contradiction!" Thanks for stepping up to demonstrate. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not so, Serpent. Your "refutations" were shown invalid by the wrong choice of search terms. Wilson Delgado (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which I also addressed in the discussions above. Again, "that's not argument; that's just mindless contradiction!" I sure do think those Monty Python fellas are hilarious! Thanks for the reenactment! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no signs that Serpent adequately engaged the issue. Point out your response about the use of the phrases "humanistic studies" and "humanists and scientists," both of which tend to make humanism a matter of the humanities. Wilson Delgado (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The signs that I adequately engaged the issue were in my comment of 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC). Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that response was not in the least adequate. You did not address the current usages that I pointed out, ones that are easily available through Google-searches and that speak against your position. You simply squirmed away. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, your original assertion was not in the least adequate. You did not address the current usages that I pointed out, ones that are easily available through Google-searches and that speak against your position. You simply squirmed away. (Just like in the Monty Python skit! "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" No substance anywhere.) Serpent More Crafty (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, as we have seen, Serpent ignores qualiying terms, so a reference to "secular humanism" is used as data for an argument as to the primary use of Humanism, not of Secular Humanism. All (I think) regular commenters here have readily agreed that some form of non- or anti-religious humanism is the most common sense in modern news etc media, but not that, taken with other types of use, it passes the un-defined level needed to be "primary". But Serpent raises a good point: the incoming wikilinks are not useful because I & other have gone through many of them making the links more precise for Renaissance Humanists, for which there were many, & still are some. The same has not been done for other groups. But the wikitraffic has not been examined before. Here are the June 09 stats for the articles with "humanism" in their names, and for the ones on the disam page, their % of the total for the group of 52,927:

• Humanism 80,721
• Humanism (life stance) 5,698 10.8%
• Secular humanism 23,712 44.8%
• Religious humanism 2,530 4.8%
• Christian humanism 4,279 8.1%
• Renaissance humanism 14,624 27.6%
• New Humanism 373 0.7%
• Marxist Humanism 1,708 3.2% (now added to disam page)

These can be divided in groups as "secularist" (SH+H(ls)), "probably religious" (RH,RH,CH), and "other" (NH, MH) - Most Renaissance humanists were religious believers, and what distinguishes a "humanist" Marxist from the ordinary sort is nothing to do with religion. The groups then sub-total %s as:

• "secularist" 55.57%
• "probably religious" 40.50%
• "other" 3.90%

56% of the traffic falls well short of the level of dominance required for "primary" status ("there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer"). Note that this test is listed ahead of the Google stats in the guideline, and rightly so. It's funny Serpent never thought of trying this test, which is so much quicker and clearer than all those subjective Google figures.... Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Two uses of the term humanism that appear to have been left out are: a) "New Humanism" -- as used to refer to the 18th-Century German Enlightenment of Winckelmann, Lessing, and Goethe (not to be confused with the twentieth-century "new humanism" of Babbitt). And b) Medical humanism -- which a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine defines as "patient centered" as opposed to paternalistic medicine. (Neither of these necessarily presuppose secularism nor a "rejection" of religion, although religious tolerance was a big thing with Lessing). Also, the article in its present form may be said to exhibit not only Recentism but also Presentism! In this connection, the illustration of the Humanist Society logo on this page and list of prominent humanists would be better suited to the pages on Humanism as a life stance and secular humanism.Mballen (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means start articles for them. Johnbod (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your percentages show that you've discarded 60% of all visits. Don't forget that in June, the Humanism article described "a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity of humankind, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to rationality, while tending to reject the supernatural or the divine authority of religious texts." So those visits count toward your first category. Then, as Frederick Edwords wrote, "Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles... From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree." So Religious humanism also belongs to the same grouping as Humanism and Secular humanism, rather than a different one. So the correct percentages are as follows:

• Human-centered philosophy (H, HLS, SH, RH): 112661 visits, 84%
• Other uses (RenH, CH, NH, MH): 20984 visits, 16%

So yes, 84% does render other uses a fairly small minority. You might also be interested in doing a comparison between the visitation stats on the Humanism article vs. the ones on the Humanism (disambiguation) article. I'd started doing this soon after the disambiguation article was created, but haven't kept up on it because the results were so redundant and boring: fewer than 1% of visitors to the Humanism article clicked through to the disambiguation page in June. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(WARNING! The following comment contains incorrect statements that remain uncorrected in the original. -SMC) A truly bizarre argument! Obviously readers did not know what the article would say when they searched for or clicked on it, and we can safely assume that those who returned frequently to savour the prose & wisdom contained therein were a tiny handful largely restricted to those of us featuring on this page. The only realistic way to see what WP readers were interested in is to look at the traffic to the other articles with more indicative titles. We do not know where viewers came from or where they went to, including how many hit the links to the other articles in the text or the template. The disam page was only started on June 18th & currently only has 5 incoming links, though it did get 617 views in July - not too bad for so new a page. I am interested to see what Frederick Edwords (who he?) wrote, (WARNING! The following statement is false, yet remains uncorrected in the original! -SMC) flatly contradicting the position you have vigorously maintained throughout. Why do you refuse to accept a lead section reflecting this view? Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (UNEDITED ORIGINAL FOLLOWS) Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A truly bizarre argument! Obviously readers did not know what the article would say when they searched for or clicked on it, and we can safely assume that those who returned frequently to savour the prose & wisdom contained therein were a tiny handful largely restricted to those of us featuring on this page. The only realistic way to see what WP readers were interested in is to look at the traffic to the other articles with more indicative titles. We do not know where viewers came from or where they went to, including how many hit the links to the other articles in the text or the template. The disam page was only started on June 18th & currently only has 5 incoming links, though it did get 617 views in July - not too bad for so new a page. I am interested to see what Frederick Edwords (who he?) wrote, flatly contradicting the position you have vigorously maintained throughout. Why do you refuse to accept a lead section reflecting this view? Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On 26 June I wrote to Wilson Delgado the following: "It looks like you're still sowing confusion with your terms "secularistic" (in your comment about the pope above) and "that phrase can be used of religious humanisms too." It looks like, after all these years, you're still vague on the point that both secular and religious forms of humanism exist that fit the description in the first paragraph of the article." Then, on 29 July, I quoted Fred Edwords more completely and cited the source. The fact that you don't know what "religious humanism" is, is strictly your fault for not following the discussion here and reading the very article on the subject. Once you understand that "secular humanism," "religious humanism," and "life stance humanism" are VERY SIMILAR philosophies that only vary in implementation, then you can understand how an article called "humanism" can summarize all three, and that the visits to such a page fit the same category, just as visits to "Sunni Islam," "Shia Islam," and "Islam" all count as expressing interest in Islam. (Thanks to OldMan for bringing this example to my attention; it's a very good one.) So the only problem is that you don't really know what religious humanism IS, or how the various subsets of humanism relate to each other. Perhaps you should read those articles before you try to make contributions to an encyclopedic article on the subject? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, our articles on Religious Humanism ("Secular humanists and revealed religious humanists primarily differ in their definition of religion and their positions on supernatural beliefs") and Christian Humanism ("Christian Humanism is the belief that human freedom and individualism are intrinsic (natural) parts of, or are at least compatible with, Christian doctrine and practice") take very different views! I've never edited either btw. Awaiting a response on the point re traffic stats. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know what it means by "REVEALED religious humanists," you should read the Religious humanism article, which defines it very clearly: "Humanism as it was conceived in the early 20th century REJECTED revealed knowledge, theism-based morality and the supernatural." The lead of the article defines it also, so you don't have to confuse what they call "REVEALED religious humanists" with the subject of that article. (I haven't edited it either.) As for the traffic stats, we CAN tell how many people look for alternative meanings of "humanism" by comparing the total number of visitors to Humanism vs. those who specifically look for other definitions by visiting Humanism (disambiguation). Or by comparing Humanism stats against those of other meanings, like Renaissance humanism. So that works out to be an 84% advantage for the human-centered philosophy in the latter case, and approximately 99% advantage for the human-centered philosophy in the former case. Either one makes a very clear case for a primary topic. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that "other meanings, like Renaissance humanism" are not covered by "Humanism", then why do they have long sections in the article? This is exactly the point of the proposal we are discussing. The "Religious Humanism" article, which is clearly something of a mess, covers both "Secular Humanism as a religion" and "Revealed Religion Humanism" without adequately distinguishing between the two. A similar position to Humanism itself. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually okay with the discussion of "renaissance humanism" as part of the history of humanism because many major history scholars and reference works draw a connection between renaissance humanism and the enlightenment philosophy which gave rise to humanism. This is contrary to the opinions that mballen tries to insert, but if the "history" section of this article becomes nothing more than a forum for his opinions, then I would indeed be okay with removing the "renaissance humanism" section from this article entirely. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Refresh my memory about the sorts of "opinions" I have tried to insert.Mballen (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to sentences like this one: "Contrary to popular misconception, however, Renaissance humanism was not a philosophical movement, neither was it anti-religious." Not only is it a universal declaration, and therefore likely to have counterexamples, but in fact we actually GIVE such counterexamples only a few paragraphs later! In general, when you use phrases like "contrary to popular misconception," you run the risk of breaking Wikipedia policies like WP:GREATWRONGS. "We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability." If many reference works and historians DO point out how Renaissance humanism contributed to enlightenment philosophy, then that bears noting, whatever your personal opinions may be. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the names of the "many history scholars" to whom you refer? Inquiring minds would like to know.Mballen (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a general introduction -- not one limited to the humanism of the 1933 Manifesto, like the present one -- that encompasses all the meanings of the term followed by a brief list of paragraphs in chronological order about philosophies of (or outlooks about) man -- giving a general trajectory of how the concept widened from a relatively restricted one (in Ancient Greece) to a more cosmopolitan one (in Hellenistic Greece and Republican Rome), became Christianized (in the Church fathers), and then partially, through the Arabs and Scholastics, and then more and more, secularized, culminating with with 19th century rationalism and then 20th century ot "humanism as a lifestance" last. It is an important topic insofaras the various humanisms have left their traces on our legal and educational systems, for better or for worse.173.56.199.13 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrator's statement

• Philosophy is a complicated subject, and (unlike biology and nuclear physics etc) there is unlikely to be one answer to many of its component topics. The plain-name page Humanism is needed; redirecting it to Humanism (disambiguation) would face readers with a list of names with nothing to say what they mean; many readers have no knowledge of philosophy. However, page Humanism should restrict each of its sections to enough to say briefly what each sort of humanism is, not to discuss it in depth and thus cause content forking with (that sort of humanism)'s own page; I remember this sort of situation a while ago when I text-merged Berlin#History to History of Berlin.

  The second hatlink could be changed to:

  This article is about human-centered philosophy. For a short list of types of this philosophy, and other uses, see Humanism (disambiguation)

  Page Humanism's lede (= header section) seems satiafactory to me.

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you may be suggesting that other types of humanism should be given some short introductory space in the lead. My problem with the current approach on the page is that readers will see "Humanism stands aloof from religion / scripture / revleation." or some such formulation, and before they come to distinguish the literary / cultural / educational type of humanism they will already be judging it to be negative about religion. This is simply not true for many, many humanists. It would be better to separate out the sub-types of humanism from the core idea of humanism, which is simply an attitude, approach, or philosophy that gives special importance to humanity, human concerns and values (-- and this should be said without reference to religious stances). Wilson Delgado (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The "current" version (see section above) is an old one that has just been reverted to. That version, and other attempts at a lead, have led to as lengthy and acrimonious a discussion as any any I can remember on WP, going back some 2 years as I recall - see above and the archives. Not all humanisms are philosophies; the disam page describes 4/8 of the meanings as such, and a philosopher might object to any being so called - I imagine one can complete a degree in philosophy very easily without studying it. Renaissance humanism is not a philosophy, although many philosophers of violently contrasting views belonged to the movement. Humanism in the Humanities sense is not a philosophy, and so on. One issue, but not the only one is "humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith or the supernatural, as well the notion that religious texts have divine origin" , which is plainly not true for a large number of those covered by the movements or beliefs the article then goes on to describe. The current lead is in fact a description of secular humanism, and versions of this type have been agressively maintained by two editors against the less persistent protests of many other editors over the years - see above and archives. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy

The phrase "humanism rejects supernatural belief" is repeated five times in various sections in body of the article and numerous time in the notes. Is there any reason the article has to be so repetitious? If this is the main thing about humanism why say it so many times. Why not have just one section about this?Mballen (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a problem with the way the article is edited, and normal ways of addressing it have failed. In a word, POV pushing has been seen here. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A Parallel discussion

Modern secular "humanists" tend to look at history for antecedents in an oversimplified way. Below is an example of someone taking issue with this from the wiki talk page about Averroes, pointing to the historically restricted nature of "secularism", i.e., advocacy of the use of human reason in determining truth:

Secularism? The article says, twice, that "Averroes is considered by some the father of modern secularism".

That could be highly misleading. The article linked to argues that Averroes allows a certain separation of religion and science on a high intellectual level, allowing philosophers and scientists to pursue truth rationally and with a certain independence from religious authority. That could be argued; but at the same time Averroes is careful to specify that this activity must be carried on in private and not divulged to the masses, who would be misled into rejecting their naive version of Islam without having the intellectual equipment to put the philosophical version in its place.

That is entirely different from "secularism" in the modern sense, which is political not philosophical, and means the independence of government from religion and the freedom of everyone (not just philosophers) to make their own religious or anti-religious choices and pursue truth in their own way. That is about as far from Averroes' position as it is possible to get. He believed that, once the freedom of the fully-trained philosophers is carefully ensured on a "consenting adults in private" basis, it is the right and duty of each religious community to enforce conformity on the masses (of course, as the Almohad court philosopher he had to say that). So yes, it may be one step more enlightened than Ibn Taymiyya and the Ash'arites, but it is hardly "secularism". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling him the father of modern western secularism is so broad as to be meaningless. —82.23.61.208 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

173.56.199.13 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)