Talk:Humanism
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Humanism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 6 months ![]() |
![]() | Humanism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 23, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add the below text to the "Varieties of Humanism" section:
Secular Humanistic Judaism prioritizes human values, ethics, and cultural identity over religious dogma. It embraces a secular perspective, encouraging personal autonomy, inclusivity, while celebrating life's milestones with Jewish ritual. Aligned with social justice, it reflects a commitment to reason and individual responsibility, and defines Jewish identity as a rich cultural heritage rather than solely a religious affiliation.
Source: [1] 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)
Lede
[edit]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 ([1]), 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)
- @Manbooferie Thank you for your input. I have reviewed your edit ([1]), 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.
- 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)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- GA-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- GA-Class Atheism articles
- Mid-importance Atheism articles
- GA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- GA-Class epistemology articles
- Mid-importance epistemology articles
- Epistemology task force articles