Talk:Humanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016[edit]

175.101.19.114 (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016[edit]

Please add at te beginning of the article the modern definition: Humanism - philosophical current or outlook, based on rational thinking, which expresses concern about the need, happiness, dignity and the free development of man in his environments: social and natural. Humanism puts man in the role of the host (in the sense of exploitation but also protection) of the environment, aware that the man is also a part of the Earth's ecosystem. Specific human rights and responsibilities arise solely from the fact that he is the only creature on Earth that holds science and technology. Humanism excludes selfishness (individual, state, inter generational, etc) and calls for brotherhood and solidarity. 2A01:E35:8A70:DC80:119E:715:8BB3:B7AE (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017[edit]

The article references science, but it does not include the social sciences, which are also based on observable fact, hypothesis etc. The study of social systems, groups, and psychology, political science to name a few. I'd suggest adding the social sciences so that readers understand the full breadth of humanism and do not inadvertently attribute it solely to the hard sciences (mathematics, medicine, chemistry etc.). Coherence360 (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I hasten to add that your suggestion is perfectly welcome; it just doesn't need to be an official edit request. Also note that humanistic psychology does have its own section in the article. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Flaming POV[edit]

First sentence ends this way: "...improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality." This sounds like: "This is the right and best and only really sensible way to do things, far superior to those who in all their stupidity follow authority and tradition or who live like dogs." POV. At the very least "blindly" should be removed. Of course the "use of reason" begs the question of which authority or tradition that reason is incorporating into its calculus. Ideologues seem to have been calling the shots on this article. It would be better to say humanism claims a superiority to these other approaches. There are certainly traditions and authority that have incorporated reason and ingenuity too, far more broadly and deeply than is possible by any single individual. Come on, NPOV specialists, do your thing. Pernimius (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The change was made in this edit in November 2016, which was not contested at the time. I agree that it seems to be partial, and I have no way of knowing whether the revised sentence is, in fact, justified by the citation, which related to the previous version of the sentence. So, I'll revert to the earlier wording of that opening paragraph, and we can take the discussion from there if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)