Talk:Humanism

New addition, undue weight?

• Addition [1]
• revert [2]
• re-revert [3]

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

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

Hi @Cinadon36

I appreciate your comment but I genuinely feel it's an important, if minor, addition. Note, the Harper Etymology reference that is cited gives "the (mere) humanity of Christ" as one of the origins of the word. This hadn't been addressed under the Etymology section, but now it is. Manbooferie (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

With regard specifically to etymology, I would also add that The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (currently not cited in the article), gives the following origins:

"humanism. belief in the mere human nature of Christ XIX (Coleridge 1812); devotion to human interests or the humanities (c. 1830); after hu.man.ist one devoted to the humanities XVI...". As I recall, Coleridge's use of the term is actually another reference back to Priestley. Manbooferie (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Manbooferie I have noticed that no secondary source links the etymology of the world to Howes. Also, the second reference (Harper) does not back the claim of the sentence. Hopefully, other editors will jump in to give their input. Cinadon36 13:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Etymology

Hi @Manbooferie:, I feel that this edit too, [4] just adds trivial info to the article. Etymology does not mean "history of usage". You are citing a primary source, a book published more than three centuries ago. This looks to me as Original Research. Maybe I am wrong and suffering from "article ownership". I dont know. So, if you insist on the edit, I will request a comment from another editor[5] or add a note at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [6], whatever you wish. Maybe other editors can help us navigate this.Cinadon36 15:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cinadon36. Again, I disagree that it's trivial. As for citing a book published more than three centuries ago, what's the problem? The whole article is about tracing humanism back to the Greeks. As for OR, Johnson's book is cited by Davies (1997): "According to Johnson's dictionary, a humanist is a grammarian; a philologer'... " (p. 3), to which I added it was derived from the French word. Hardly deep research. As you say, maybe a bit of 'article ownership' behaviour here. I feel my edit is relevant, but consult another editor if you must. Manbooferie (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Johnson's dictionary is also mentioned by Copson in his "What is Humanism?" Handbook chapter (Note 2). Manbooferie (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I really don't think we need a full RfC for one single line. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alyo, Agree. Maybe WP:3O (third opinion) would be better. Cinadon36 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That would make more sense, I agree. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

So @Manbooferie, Johnson's Dictionary is used as a footnote in a long chapter of a long book. Here, at WP, we have to summarize all these chapters, not add bites from here and there. This is what I am trying to convey. Your addition is not a summary. Actually, Copson's book uses less words than WP's article to explain the same thing. Here is note2 pg 28, for those interested: [7] "In Samuel Johnson’s dictionary of 1755, for example, ‘humanist’ was defined narrowly as, ‘a philologer; a grammarian’. (Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language [London, 1755])" Cinadon36 16:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Because the article just achieved GA status, the standard for additions to it is higher than usual. That being said, entomology includes not just a word's origin but also how the word's meaning has changed over time. Citing dictionaries from various times is certainly a reasonable approach to documenting changes to a word's definition. While it would be fantastic to find a single source that discusses this topic, there is nothing wrong with using several sources. I do not consider this approach to be original research nor do I find these to be primary sources. I am by no means an expert on this topic and found the text discussing the word's change in usage over time to be helpful information and not trivial. However, there does seem to be some question about the connection of the content to the cited sources and, perhaps, a suggestion of an alternative source and content. This matter is somewhat beyond the scope of your third opinion request, but I will dig deeper if that would be helpful. A copy edit of the new content might also make it flow better with the rest of the article. Rublamb (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input @Rublamb, I really appreciate it. I know it is not an easy job. Just a few points, dictionaries are per definition tertiary sources, when used as a source of knowledge. But in this case, it was not used in such a manner. It was used as a historical fact. Anyways, I think there are 100s of dictionaries around the world, some of them being very old. Should we include them all? What is our criterion? Again, thanks for jumping in. Cinadon36 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Good questions. What kind of dictionariy to use depends on whether the topic is specialized or general, as well as whether you are reviewing the lexicon of a term used by the general public, scholars, or want a mixture of both..Another consideration is English dictionaries vs. those of other language--again the topic dictates what is most appropriate. Each editor has the authority to use their best judgement in selecting a source. As long as ithe selcted source meets Wikipedia standard for reliability, it is fine to use. When writing an historical overview, a dictionary or encyclopedia that was popular when it was published reflects contemporary viewpoint and/or helped shape a word's meaning in its era--thus, it is correct to say that a word was defined as xyz in the 19th century when using a 19th century source (although it is always best to mention the name of the dictionary in the text). Wikipedia has articles about the most common ad most popular dictionaries; many can easily be found through Category:English dictionaries. This is a great resource when determining whether or not a given dictionary is mainstream. How many sources to include really depends on the topic, specifically whether or not the term (such as humanism) has few changes vs. many changes in meaning. If someone adds three obscue dictionaries to support one meaning, it would probably fall under undue weight. If they add three different definitions that represent change over time, from three different sources that were popular in their era, it would be correct. Of course, another option is to find a reliable source that sumarizes an overview of this topic, meaning that dictionaries would not be needed. Rublamb (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rublamb " Of course, another option is to find a reliable source that sumarizes an overview of this topic, meaning that dictionaries would not be needed." That was the case before adding info based on dictionaries. Cinadon36 10:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023

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

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

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

Source fails WP:RS. Cinadon36 18:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The content you provided has a promotional tone which goes against a neutral-style policy and, as Cinadon36 said, the source you provided can't be considered reliable. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Lede

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

Hi @Ben Azura. This is a valid point you are raising. Humanism has held varying meanings throughout history, as evident in the History section. However, I found it challenging to elaborate on these differences in the lede, which I prefer to keep concise and brief. So, the new meaning can be deduct by this sentence: "Starting in the 20th century, humanist movements are typically non-religious and aligned with secularism. Most frequently, humanism refers to a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world". If you have a better suggestion, pls drop it! I acknowledge the issue you are pointing to! Cinadon36 09:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The lede is ok, but could be better. Currently, it doesn't adequately reflect the topics that are covered in the article below. With regard to the meaning of the term changing, I agree it could do with more explanation. Also, the opening sentence didn't sound right (and was unsourced) which I've now replaced.Manbooferie (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Manbooferie Thank you for your input. I have reviewed your edit ([8]), and I have a couple of comments. Firstly, it appears that this edit attributes the authority to define humanism primarily to humanists.international. While they certainly have influence in the field, it's important to note that humanism encompasses a broader range of perspectives and interpretations. Therefore, it might be more appropriate to provide a more inclusive definition in the lead section, avoiding potential bias and over-specification as outlined in MOS:LEADREL.

I'm aware that humanism has many definitions and precisely for that reason the IHEU's "minimum statement" seems an appropriate place to start. In fact, your words, "(It) encompasses a broader range of perspectives and interpretations" could be the next sentence. :-) Manbooferie (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Secondly, the lede should accurately reflect the content of the article without the need for references in the lede itself. If citations are necessary, they should be in sfn style within the main body of the article.

As it says in the MoS, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. In my view, given that humanism is indeed complex and controversial, a few references would seem necessary and should help overall. Manbooferie (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Collaborative efforts involving multiple editors can lead to further improvements, ensuring a balanced and comprehensive representation of the topic Cinadon36 13:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Manbooferie (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is godawful and it has been for years. That editor is not fluent in English and doesn't understand the topics he babbles about. Palm Puree (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)