Talk:Humanism/Archive 3

About That POV Template
[attack thread deleted - threads making an editor, not content, the main topic, are just unacceptable]

Failure of Attempt to Find Consensus and One More Try
If you read Talk on the Integration of Humanism and Faith and the following two sections (Overall Description of Humanism and OED on Humanism), you will see the history of an intensive bona fide effort to find consensus that ended in a compromise which itself has been reversed in the course of events. The argumentation for the rationalistic side I did not find convincing. I remain open to hearing why my presentation was not valid. In the absence of any real road to consensus on the content, I propose that we therefore call this article "Humanism (Philosophical)," as the article itself clearly states is its real subject (see the first footnote). I would accept this solution. Others would then be free to start up an article called "Humanism," with reference to this article, Renaissance Humanism, etc. If there is no objection, then let us assume consensus on this. Especially since the article explicitly says that this piece is about a systematic philosophical kind of humanism, there is really no good reason that I can see for rejecting this approach. What do you say? Why not generously allow this as a consensus position, or at least give sufficient argumentation for the contrary? If not, the way to arbitration has been well and long-prepared. With peace and goodwill towards all, Wilson Delgado (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why on earth do you not call an RfD??? This squabbling is certainly not the way to go!  86.154.177.145 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why RfD is better than arbitration, or why what we have been doing is squabbling rather than serious presentation of different points of view on a major topic. Please explain. Wilson Delgado (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From reading this talk page, it looks like you've been trying for well over a year to downplay the usage of the term that's most common in English today. Do you have an ax to grind with the IHEU or its member organizations or the many humanist groups that keep the term alive in a different sense than the Renaissance variety? Did a hUUmanist run over your puppy or something?


 * I don't see a "consensus" here; I see a tired attempt at declaring a "consensus" by fiat as an alternative to citing better sources to defend your viewpoint. Keep in mind that Wikipedia has far surpassed Encyclopedia Britannica in scope and currency. If it's the best source you've got, you should probably take that as a cue to reexamine your own motivations. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to make only constructive comments. Wilson obviously is operating in good faith and has a good point as well, although I think this particular page has few problems anymore (see my comments below). It may be worth trying to estimate how many pages linking to this page are about Renaissance humanism or modern humanism. My guess is that the first wins. Your argument that wikipedia now determines what things are is silly and for you even absurd since you don't seem to believe that editors may debate the content of the pages. Afasmit (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect on two points: 1. It isn't wikipedia that determines what a thing is; it's current usage. This is not to say that the historical usage of a term is without value; just that it belongs in a "historical" section. What I said (I hate having to repeat myself, by the way) is that Wikipedia is MORE CURRENT than Britannica. I don't know how you then inferred that I thought it was authoritative; I mean only to say that Britannica isn't authoritative, either. It's several decades (or centuries, depending on your basis of measurement) out of date on this topic. 2. Of course I believe that editors may debate the content of the pages; in fact they MUST. This is exactly what Wilson Delgado fails: he doesn't cite a single source (other than the aforementioned out-of-date Britannica) that considers the "study of classic literature" definition of humanism the CURRENT usage of the term. It is always used to refer to people who took this view several centuries in the past. I won't be willing to concede otherwise until MODERN and CURRENT sources are cited. It's that easy; that's all he has to do to uphold his end of the debate. But he won't do so now any more than he has over his past year of whinging on this talk page.


 * Here's a little history lesson for you: when "New Humanist" magazine was first published early in the twentieth century, its publisher chose that name because they wanted it to be an analogy, of sorts. Just as Western civilization emerging from a millennium of theocracy and superstition had to "reset" the status quo of their basis of knowledge, they turned to literature that predated the dark ages to guide them. In the same way, the publisher of "New Humanist" wanted to recognize the "resetting" of the status quo of their basis of knowledge as they turned, once again, AWAY from theology and, rather than the classics of literature, to science instead. After a few decades and the publication of the Humanist Manifesto and the popularization of Marx's idea of "Humanism" and such, the publisher decided that the term no longer had to bear the word "New" in order to convey its meaning. Thus, "New Humanist" magazine simply became "Humanist" magazine, and another publication picked up the term "New Humanist" instead, both of which survive to this day.


 * Homework assignment for you, Mr. Delgado, and anyone else who thinks the current usage of the term is still in question: what year did this re-titling of the magazine take place? When SHOULD we have had this debate? Who would have been the appropriate parties with whom to take up your reticence at reusing this old term? Here are two hints: 1. This all happened before I (and very likely most of you) were born, and 2. the answer is right here in Wikipedia.


 * Have fun! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This fellow 151.190.254.108 should re-read what I said in January 2007: "How can I be alone when other major reference sources support me? That is, OED, Encyc Brit, Cath Encyc, and I'll add now the Free Dictionary at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism . NONE of these articles or definitions implies that the *essential* meaning is the religion-resistant version of secular, philosophical humanism that the article now proposes as the essential meaning. None of them proves that the *most common* meaning today is what you want to make the most common meaning."


 * Note also meaning 4 of the OED, which remains, like the Encyclopedia Britannica, an up-to-date resource more than the opposition will concede: Humanism is "Devotion to those studies which promote human culture; literary culture; esp. the system of the Humanists, the study of the Roman and Greek classics which came into vogue at the Renascence. "  So it is not really simply limited to the historical Renaissance version, even when it especially evokes that manifestation.  Devotion to those studies is happening all the time, in more places than the more limited philosophical humanism appears.  Wherever the humanities are cultivated, this type of humanism is manifesting itself. That is a great range of occurences indeed.


 * From this hard-nosed demander of proof, we can demand proof for the most common usage that he/she wants to propose. Citing a special interest group (or collection of groups) that wants to propagate itself does not qualify as adequate. The widespread understanding and usage does not suddenly disappear because someone decides to publish a magazine using the word in a different way. Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you ARE aware of how the term "humanities" has filled the role that used to be filled by the term "humanism." That tells me you are already aware of where you ought to ply your editorial interests, since you pretend to be interested in modern pursuit thereof. Unfortunately, you seem to be far more interested in playing games with semantics than sharing knowledge of the humanities, as you leave our unfortunate "citation needed" tags untouched under the subject of Renaissance humanism in this very article. Sad, really: one would think we could harness your interest to improve wikipedia. I guess one would be mistaken.
 * I welcome with widespread arms your demand of proof, and understand that you do not accept just "A" magazine as proof of the change in semantics that has taken place over the last century, while the editors of Britannica slept. I offer, therefore, not one but FIVE magazines that use the term "humanist" in the 20th-century, rather than the 17th-century, sense:
 * The aforementioned "Humanist" magazine, published by the AHA.
 * "New Humanist," published by the Rationalist Press Association.
 * "International Humanist News," published by the IHEU.
 * "Humanist News," published by the British Humanist Association.
 * "Humanist Perspectives," published by Canadian Humanist Publications.
 * In doing a simple websearch for such examples, I uncovered a lot more humanist organizations than I had previously been aware of, ALL of whom used OED definition 1 rather than definition 4 to define their roles. Thank you for motivating me to learn and discover so much stronger justification for my point!
 * Now then, fairness being what it is: would you mind identifying for me, please, no more than TWO periodicals currently in publication that use the term "humanist" or "humanism" in their titles, that devote themselves to the research of the classics? Yes, just two: I ask you for less than HALF of the demonstration that I have readily provided to you.
 * Just two. Is that a reasonable request? I hope so! Thank you very much sir! I look forward to learning more new things today, at your guidance! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You have proven that secular humanist magazines use the term humanism to refer to secular philosophical humanism, not that the term humanism is generally taken that way. I've never argued against the idea that secular humanist groups use the term primarily in the way their own particular sub-tradition has defined it.

Here is the answer to your challenge:


 * B770 .H8. Humanistica Lovaniensia. SUBJECTS = Humanism. Latin philology, Medieval and modern.
 * B778 .R56. RHR. Reforme, humanisme, renaissance. SUBJECTS = Reformation -- Periodicals. Humanism -- Periodicals. Renaissance -- Periodicals.
 * D111 .M49. Medievalia et humanistica. SUBJECTS = Middle Ages -- History -- Periodicals. Civilization, Medieval -- Periodicals. Renaissance -- Periodicals.
 * PN733 .T7. Travaux d'humanisme et renaissance. SUBJECTS = Reformation -- Switzerland -- Geneva -- Sources. Liturgics -- History -- 16th century. Charities -- History -- 16th century.
 * PQ1692 PN2587 .M43. Medieval English theatre. .A62. Bibliotheque d'humanisme et Renaissance. Travaux et documents. SUBJECTS = Renaissance -- Periodicals. Humanism -- Periodicals.

Note: this next one, like many others, is put under the category of "Humanism." That means official library classification systems are using the term humanism NOT in the secular, rationalistic meaning, but in the larger sense for which I am arguing.


 * DG533.A1 R5. Rinascimento. SUBJECTS= Renaissance -- Periodicals. Humanism -- Periodicals.

And thank you! You have allowed me to uncover another major illustration of the more widespread use of the term. Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, you actually did identify ONE that associated Humanism with "Latin philology, Medieval AND MODERN," this latter being our issue of contention. The rest all support the widely-agreed-upon assertions that such a usage is of historical value only. Well, I asked for two, and I only got one: no matter; I am a better-informed person today because of your input. Thanks! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you did ask for humanism /humanist in the title of a periodical that studied the classics. Humanism is going to evoke the historical period of the Renaissance even though its full semantic range exceeds that.  Here's another example that is not concerned with the Renaissance:


 * Anthropology and Humanism: Published by American Anthropological Association on behalf of the Society for Humanistic Anthropology.  The Society for Humanistic Anthropology (SHA) was founded in 1974 to open a dialogue on the means by which anthropologists might evoke, represent, or give account of the human subject both visually and in writing. Humanistic anthropology involves the recognition that professional inquiry takes place in a context of human value. The humanistic orientation is particularly concerned with the personal, ethical, and political choices facing humans. Members of the Society receive Anthropology and Humanism, which publishes essays, narratives, dramas, poems, translations, drawings, and photographs twice a year. http://www.wiley.com/bw/society.asp?ref=1559-9167


 * Here's an article that illustrates the non-philosophical, non-Renaissance-focused use of the term humanism:


 * Psychoanalysis and Humanism: The Permutations of Method by Walter James Lowe. Walter James Lowe (Ph.D., Yale University) is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at the Candler School of Theology, Emory University. He is author of Mystery and the Unconscious A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur in the American Theological Library Association Monograph Series (Metuchen, N J.: Scarecrow Press, 1977), and has published articles in Soundings and Religious Studies Review. http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/XLVII/1/134


 * No doubt more research could turn up more support. Titles of books like Socratic Humanism (Versenyi), The Humanism of Cicero (Hunt), and The Humanist Christology of Paul (Segundo) also prove a wider non-Renaissance-anchored, non-rationalistic usage.  There are also articles like "The Prophetic Humanism of John Paul II," by Avery Cardinal Dulles, in America, October 23, 1993, pp. 6-11. Obviously such an article, in a national publication, assumes that the public will understand humanism as something that is open to more than a purely secularistic iheu/bha type of humanism will allow. Wilson Delgado (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The following list indicates something of how wide the range of English-language uses of humanism is and strongly suggests that the primary article on humanism (without qualifiers) in Wikipedia should not be restricted to or even just strongly highlight systematic, rationalistic, atheistic or areligious humanism.


 * Google hits on 1/28-29/2009 for English uses of humanism and related terms on the WWW:


 * 6,630,000 for "humanism" // 1,690,000 for "humanists" // 665,000 for "humanism" "humanities" // 513,000 for "secular humanism" // 444,000 for "humanism" "curriculum" // 269,000 for "humanistic psychology" // 172,000 for "humanistic education" // 160,000 for "Renaissance humanism" // 149,000 for "liberal arts" "humanism" // 143,000 for "humanism" "Karl Marx" // 131,000 for "humanism" "Goethe"" // 126,000 for "humanism" "C.S. Lewis" // 102,000 for "Christian humanism" // 90,300 for "humanism" "Michelangelo" // 69,900 for "religious humanism" // 38,600 for "humanistic learning" // 30,200 for "Italian humanism" // 23,800 for "humanism" "Matthew Arnold" // 21,200 for "socialist humanism" // 20,000 for "classical humanism" // 15,600 for "humanism" "bha" // 13,300 for "humanism" "iheu" // 8,960 for "democratic humanism" // 8,800 for "atheistic humanism" // 7,450 for "islamic humanism" // 6,430 for "confucian humanism" // 5,050 for "literary humanism" // 4,690 for "Greek humanism" // 4,590 for "philosophical humanism" // 3,490 for "cultural humanism" // 3,310 for "jewish humanism" // 3,020 for "buddhist humanism" // 2,970 for "catholic humanism" // 2,070 for "theological humanism" // 1,500 for "rationalistic humanism" // 1,400 for "historical humanism" // 1,280 for "third humanism" // 1,200 for "protestant humanism" // 1,020 for "academic humanism" // 810 for "educational humanism" // 692 for "communist humanism"


 * Wilson Delgado (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it looks like a few of your sources cited above probably are talking specifically about human-centric ethical philosophies, rather than the study of Greek and Roman classics: "Anthropology and Humanism" specifically refers to human value, rather than liberal arts and the humanities. "The Humanist Christology of Paul" is almost certainly not a reference to the study of humanities either, since Paul's messiah is often lauded for his teaching of the ethic of reciprocity (among other things) to a Judean audience. To me, it looks like your attempts to bolster your case are torpedoing it instead.
 * Didn't we establish a consensus some time ago that we could all live with? I don't see any discussion on this page that has taken place since, by which the compromise should be terminated. Why don't you just add the redirect to the top of the article, as it was removed, and call it a day? All discussion since then just looks like more unproductive infighting. If you haven't added our agreed-upon link to the article on renaissance humanism within a few days, I'll do it myself, as I thought it was a sound compromise at the time, and don't see any reason it shouldn't still be considered one now. OldMan (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, OldMan. Good to see you back.  My  point is that the term humanism casts a wide net, much wider than the type of humanism that wants to prescind from religious reality and take a secularistic systematic philosophical viewpoint (--and this is the leading image of humanism presented in the article as it stands).  "Anthropology and Humanism" shows that the word humanism can refer to the realm of creative human flourishing through literary and cultural and aesthetic and scientific means without any particular pre-determined stance on divine reality (in contradistinction to the image of humanism that now comes through the article).  The net of humanism includes the study of Greek and Roman classics, but I think that it should be even wider than that.  Humanism as I understand it often evokes the development of the human subject through cultural, particularly literary means.  So reading Augustine instead of Livy counts, even though Augustine is not the same kind of classic as Livy.  In a way he can even be better (just ask Petrarch).  Now this approach was not just taken in the Renaissance, but it was taken before and after the Renaissance, so I can't be all that satisfied with shunting it all to the article called Renaissance Humanism.  There was the 12th-century Renaissance, the Carolingian Renaissance, the Third Humanism (20th century), and so on.  This type of humanism exists today in countless places through the ideologies of liberal arts programs (promoting human flourishing through studies).  That is a much more widespread reality of humanism even if we refrain from so naming it.  It is embedded in the very long history of humanism that is much vaster than the BHA-type of association. I've decided that the old compromise won't really work well.  The article is still too biassed toward one very narrow religion-resistant strand.  It needs its own page, not the general page on the concept as a whole.  I have always been open to arbitration by truly indifferent and informed arbiters, and we may be headed there.  That will put an end to my attempts to bring the English Wikipedia more in line with what I think would be a more valid and sensible treatment.  I don't understand the opposition to renaming the article Humanism (Philosophical).  Would that specification (one that the article already affirms!) be such a death-blow to the secular rationalist humanists?  What is the problem?? Anyway, thanks for your attempts to make peace.  Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with related pages and categories are worse.
My view of life probably matches that of a modern, secular humanist, but I completely agree with Wilson Delgado's opinion on the use of the word humanism and that it should not be hijacked by the modern philosophy. The first people that come to my mind when I hear the word humanist are Petrarch, Thomas More and the like, and I have a hard time believing that Wilson and I are alone.

However, this page itself is quite reasonable (the heading "Aspect" should probably be changed to "Aspects of modern humanism", I'll just go ahead with that ) but there are serious problems with some linked-to articles and related categories.

For example it should strike a lot of people as odd that the List of humanists does not include the Prince of the Humanists himself, nor any of his buddies. The heading said "This is a partial list of famous humanists, including both secular and religious humanists.", without mentioning the List of Renaissance humanists nor linking to it (not even under the "see also" heading). I just fixed that (for how long I don't know), but it would be better of course to change the title to "List of modern humanists" and redirect "List of humanists" to "Lists of humanists" which can include the classic, non-western, Renaissance and modern individuals.

Also, the category "Renaissance humanists" is not a subcategory of (any subcategory of) the category "Humanists". This seems wacky, but is not an accident, as the "humanist" category has the header "This list is for humanists. It is not is for Renaissance humanists (See Category:Renaissance humanists) or humanitarians. These individuals are generally identified as being humanist or have self-identified as such." The funny (and deliciousy irrational) thing is that "humanists" links to this article, where, sanely, historical humanists are considered humanists too. What's up with all that? Are modern day humanists embarrassed to share a name with these generally admired old folks? Afasmit (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether or not you agree with using "humanist" to describe a modern philosophy, it is used thus and has been for decades; witness the Humanist Manifesto I, written in 1939. To people who are not educated in the classics (which, sadly, includes the vast majority of Americans), the word refers to the modern philosophy.
 * I think the weakness of this article is that it tries to cover all the bases. I would rather see this page reset to be a disambiguation page, with separate articles for Humanism (Renaissance), Humanism (Modern Philosophy), etc. Humanism would not redirect to any article except this disambiguation page. TechBear (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with it describing the modern philosophy, but there seems to be an effort (notably in the way categories are set up and the presentation of a "list of humanists") to deny that humanism, unadorned with adjectives, can also refer to historical philosophies.


 * That could be an appropriate solution, similar to my suggestion to make the "List of humanist" a list of lists, but I think there is enough general material for an article "humanism" itself. For example, the "history of humanism" section wouldn't fit in any subgroup. And an introduction is necessary to describe what (if any) the different types of humanism have in common. The "manifesto" and "organizations" sections in the current article probably should be moved to the modern philosophy page, but, again, my issue is mostly with the associated pages and the central article looked like the best place to get attention. Afasmit (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Another bad, related article, for a different reason
The twice linked-to Humanism in Germany article may be the worst article in wikipedia. I've deleted one of the links now. It is a carbon copy of an article written by a misguided homesick German theologian in 1882 in a book called History of the Christian Church with delicious passages like "Had Italy been careful to take lessons from the pedagogy of the North, it is probable her people would to-day be advanced far beyond what they are in intelligence and letters." Somebody took offence as well and deleted that one sentence from the wikipedia text, but I would suggest to delete the whole thing if "Renaissance humanism in Northern Europe" were not such a worthy encyclopedic topic. Afasmit (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Intro for purposes of disambiguation
The opening of this article is intensely ambiguous, and seems to conflate the stances held by various historical groups termed 'humanist'. The first few sentences do not follow on from the (althogether reasonable) footnoted definitions. Renaissance humanists did not 'reject transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin'; they did what the footnote says, and focussed on issues of human worth and self-improvement, resurrecting these and other values which they saw as rooted in a classical past. In fact, historians of Science broadly concur that they moved *away* from empirical reasoning - James Franlin's quite good on this. Either way, the introduction does *not* sum up humanism. It needs to make it clear that this is a word with meaning that has evolved over time

CharlieRCD (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
No move. The proposal was to move Humanism to Humanism (Philosophy), or Humanism (philosophy). 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The first footnote says
 * Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2007. "humanism n. 1 a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. 2 a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholastic-ism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought."This article handles sense 1. See history section and main article Renaissance Humanism for sense 2.

Therefore this page should be renamed accordingly. The philosophical version of humanism should not pre-empt the core article on humanism as such, as the term humanism has a long history and is still used today in many senses, often including those that are more positive to religious belief than systematic philosophical humanism is. A page for humanism (without modifiers) can then be started. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose "Sense 1" is clearly the primary topic for Humanism today, and "sense 2" is already covered at Renaissance humanism. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose We already had a disambiguation link at the top of this story some time ago, Wilson agreed to it, and there wasn't much else to discuss... I didn't think. There is no discussion here about removing it, so I think that compromise is still a sound one. Perhaps its removal was simple vandalism? OldMan (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move to Humanism (philosophy), to make way for a dab page. I was going to oppose, until I found New Humanism (disambiguation).  If "New Humanism" needs a dab page, so does "Humanism".  Move New Humanism (disambiguation) to Humanism and tag the redirect with R from incomplete disambiguation.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Mr. Delgado cites several sources that actually seem to indicate that modern study of the humanities and renaissance humanism are in fact linked to modern humanism, which would indicate that this article is doing its job quite well as an umbrella over all of them already. I'd like to see him fix up some of the questionable parts of the "Renaissance Humanism" paragraph in this article, then turn his attention to the "Renaissance Humanism" and "Humanities" articles to improve them, rather than quibble over a false dichotomy in the semantic nuances. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. what an incredibly stupid idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ct7 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
No, Sense 1 is NOT clearly the primary meaning. See the discussion above, especially under "Failure of Attempt to Find Consensus and One More Try." Many sources for different contemporary uses have been given, relating to the cultural and literary and religious spheres. Sense 1 may be the primary sense in philosophical circles or in secular humanistic societies, but not at large. No proof has been given for the general pre-eminence of such a usage. (Indicate such proof if it has already been given.) The Google statistics have also been adduced to indicate the wide range of uses, as have particular books and essays. You do not address the fact that the article itself defines itself as prescinding from Sense 2. The helpful, encyclopedic thing to do is give this indication in the heading of the article. Several others have indicated the need for a clarification. Furthermore, Renaissance Humanism also does not cover the more generalized literary or cultural references (e.g. the humanism of Cicero, Socrates, Homer, Matthew Arnold, C.S.Lewis, etc., all non-Renaissance figures). Wilson Delgado (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Prior to voting above, I had read only the proposal (here and at WP:RM), and skimmed the article. I had assumed the proposer was simply unaware of the existence of the article at Renaissance humanism.  Since then I've read the rest of this talk page and see no argument that substantiates this move proposal.  There is also Secular humanism, Marxist humanism, etc.  This article apparently covers the umbrella topic of "humanism", and surely efforts could be made to improve it accordingly.  I suggest putting energy into that rather than on attempts to rename it and to start yet another article on humanism (by the way, your argument might be somewhat compelling if you had already written or at least started the article that you believe should be at Humanism - if nothing else as a draft subpage of this talk page - instead of spending a year or more whining and complaining here).  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The umbrella topic of "humanism" is severely delimited by the first footnote, so it cannot be an adequate umbrella (including the literary, cultural types of humanism). My attempts to improve the article and make it a better "umbrella" were all thwarted by a group that wants to stay close to the BHA / IHEU type of secularistic, philosophical humanism.  (That is, all my editorial changes were reverted before I could blink twice.  I had to give up that approach.  It was going nowhere.) I am not whining, but trying to get an adequate hearing.  I have given rational argumentation and sources that were all discounted.  Others have had problems similar to mine, but they too have been blocked.  Just read the talk pages well and you will see. There is also the question of truth and adequacy.  Why should Wikipedia be happy about being out of tune with other major reference works and foreign-language articles on the same topic?  We can do better, much better, but the people writing have to be informed. Wilson Delgado (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION: Moving this article to Humanism (philosophy) to make room for a new Humanism article implies that the new humanism is outside the realm of philosophy. Is that the intent? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a larger core meaning of humanism that stands behind the philosophical and historical versions. The core article on humanism without qualifiers should not be too closely allied with any sub-meaning, as it is obviously here, and expressly stated to be so in the first footnote. Wilson Delgado (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilson, are you saying that the sub-meaning not currently closely allied with the content of this article (the sub-meaning covered in Renaissance humanism, I presume), but that you believe should also be allied with an article named Humanism, is not a philosophy topic? If so, I'm curious about that, since the Renaissance humanism article appears to fall under philosophy as well.  So I would presume an article named Humanism (philosophy) would have just as much of a mandate to cover Renaissance humanism as does an article named Humanism.  Am I missing something?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this question. Here is a first stab at presenting my understanding (which I think is more than just my own):


 * Humanism: Two large-scale uses, both characterized primarily by a central focus on the human person and/or society. This defining focus should be foregrounded in the first paragraph.


 * 1. in Philosophy


 * philosophy prescinds from religious authorities, so philosophical humanism tends to be  secular and rationalistic, and it reaches one particularly clear manifestation in philosophically-grounded humanist societies (BHA, IHEU).


 * but philosophy can be theistic (e.g., Aristotle, Plato, Stoicism), so this secularism is not an absolute in philosophical humanism.


 * 2. in Culture (ptc. education)


 * Humanism refers to the development of the individual through studies (paideia / liberal arts / the humanities, which are heavily literary and usually language-oriented, but they also include other pursuits like studio arts, music, mathematics, geometry, etc., and now also philosophy or theology as well, since these have now usually been lumped with the humanities)


 * Renaissance humanism is merely one particularly striking version of this kind of humanism. The core reality (forming the human spirit through cultural studies) can appear anywhere in history and does so today. There is Confucian humanism, Greek humanism, Romantic humanism, post-modernist-humanism, Carolingian humanism, Christian humanism, etc.


 * This literary / cultural / educational type of humanism may have a whole range of different stances towards religious reality. It usually doesn't reject it outright, since many of the canonized humanistic texts evoke the religious dimension of existence, but some do not (e.g., Nietzsche on Christianity, though he does slip the god Dionysus in as a powerful symbol for reality).


 * This is merely a first try at laying out the larger picture. Perhaps I have not answered your question directly, but do you find one in what I have said?  Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Renaissance humanism is not a philosophical position the same way philosophical humanism is. The Renaissance humanists generally were not philosophers, but philological / literary / cultural / educational thinkers and above all practictioners.  Renaissance philosophers were not necessarily humanists, even if influenced by Renaissance humanism.  Can Renaissance humanism be a philosophical topic?  Yes, but in the sense that philosophy includes philosophy of education, and Renaissance humanism presents a body of educational thinking.


 * The problem is especially with the first paragraph and immediately following sections. It makes the readers think that humanism is a philosophical position.  But most of the people that are called humanists (outside of philosophy and special humanist associations) tend to be more like "liberal arts supporters" than they are like adherents to a systematic philosophy.  You can support the liberal arts ideals and be a Stoic or a Christian or an atheist.  You can believe in the tremendous value of Scripture and religious belief or not.  This article claims to be about the systematic philosophical kind of humanism (v. footnote 1) and therein lies the rub. I think that revision has to be made here first of all.  I am not opposed to making the article on humanism a disambiguation page after the rename and move, perhaps with an explanation of the terrain as I've just outlined above. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Una - have you read this article? It appears to cover the term Humanism in general, and probably should have very few if any incoming links (I haven't checked). That is, I would expect most references to humanism to link to one of the articles that covers a specific form of humanism, like Renaissance humanism, depending on the context of the reference, rather than to this very general page. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that the nominator proposes to put another (new) article in place of the one to be moved, so in effect this is a debate about which of two or more topics (one not yet written) is the primary topic. This looks like a case of "when in doubt, disambiguate".  --Una Smith (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a no. Anyway, not even the nominator, so far as I can tell, is proposing that Humanism be a dab page.  But that might be worth considering, for those of who read the article ;-).  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The rude fellow 2ct7 who left an unsigned vote with commentary did not help us with any rationale for why he thinks the proposal faulty. In fact, the reasoned opposition to the proposal has been very thin. Why should the article not adequately advertise in its heading what it claims to be in its first footnote? Is there any doubt that the philosophical use of the term humanism is clearly not the only current and widespread one? Or that the term Renaissance humanism does not itself cover the broader range of the literary and cultural use of the term? All those rationalists out there could try to give us a good display of valid reasoning, refuting rebuttals where they can. Wilson Delgado (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Current usage
For those open-minded folks who still want more evidence for the broader usage, I offer these current examples of the word humanist (which suggests the noun humanism):


 * "A Humanist's Sojourn Among Scientists" by Leonard Cassuto. "Recently...I left my humanities neighborhood for an unlikely destination: A foray into journalism took me to the community of condensed-matter physics." [The Chronicle Review (The Chronicle of Higher Education) From the issue dated May 2, 2003: OBSERVER:]  http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i34/34b00501.htm


 * "Scientists And Humanists Try Some Conversation," Education, New York Times: February 17, 1981. "In contrast to that of music, art or literature, the esthetic value of science tends to be elusive to the uninitiated." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7D71639F934A25751C0A967948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2


 * The New Humanists: Science at the Edge John Brockman [2003]. "The arts and the sciences are again joining together as one culture, the third culture. Those involved in this effort—on either side of C.P. Snow's old divide—are at the center of today's intellectual action. They are the new humanists." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/brockman/brockman_print.html.

Note: these uses do not immediately evoke the historical Renaissance or specifically systematic philosophical humanism, but the idea of the humanist as a "practitioner of the humanities, or one dedicated to literary and cultural pursuits." Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your second example seems to refer straightforwardly to "humanists" as defined in this article, and your third example refers very directly and explicitly to New Humanism. These examples continue to illustrate that YOU are the one trying to subvert this article to mean something other than its common usage. Could you please stop? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to have an interpretation problem. The second example talks about music, art, literature, i.e., the humanities, which is a reference I want to preserve in the opening exposition of the meaning of the term (vs. the systematic philosophical secularistic one that is there now).  The third example refers to the arts and sciences, so it also evokes the humanities as something that is practiced by present-day humanists, who are exemplifying a widespread type of humanism.  I wish you would stop your blinkered opposition. Wilson Delgado (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is yet another example of how the term humanism can be used today. Here it is in reference to the humanities as something that involves the study of literature rather than a secularistic rationalist philosophical position:


 * Literacy and the Survival of Humanism by Richard Lanham (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1983): discusses the place of the humanities in the university curriculum. (See http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/bb/curr4.html .)

There is also


 * The Great Tradition: Classic Readings on What It Means to Be an Educated Human Being, ed. Richard M. Gamble (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2007), page xvii: "Indeed, what the Great Tradition has meant by the words "humanism," "liberal," and "education" will emerge from the full context--spanning a breathtaking twenty-four centuries--of the remarkably intelligible, unified, and coherent conversation that unfolds in these pages." (Notice that the tradition preceded the Renaissance and continued on after it into our own days.)


 * "Culture Promotes Authentic Humanism" by Pope John Paul II Address to the members of the International Union of the Institutes of Archaeology, History and Art History in Rome . (Emphasis added)


 * The mission assigned to your international union by its founders is to serve history and art by highlighting the numerous examples that Rome possesses of Western civilization, Christian culture and Church life. It is a precious heritage that has grown over the centuries. Careful to preserve, study and transmit this inheritance left by many peoples, you are the custodians as it were of a priceless treasure from which, like the scribe in the Gospel, you must draw unceasingly from both the old and the new through laborious and hidden work. You have not hesitated to make available to researchers and students a bibliographical data bank set up under the auspices of the Roman Union of Scientific Libraries, together with the Vatican Apostolic Library...The Church recognizes the irreplaceable role of cultural assets for the promotion of an authentic humanism and lasting peace among nations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson Delgado (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on humanism also gets the redirected queries for "humanistic," but phrases like "humanistic studies" often do not refer directly to the Renaissance or to the secularistic philosophical position. For example:


 * International Journal of Humanistic Studies: an "annual peer-reviewed journal, focusing on every aspect of Humanistic Studies with a strong interdisciplinary thrust." Contributions come from the fields of Philosophy, English Language, Literature, History, Theatre Arts, Music, Communication Arts, Anthropology, Library Studies, Information Science, Cultural Studies, Sociology and other relevant disciplines. http://www.ajol.info/journal_index.php?ab=ijhs


 * Humanistic Studies [a program at McGill University] "is intended to provide a broad liberal arts education while developing the analytical, critical, and contextual thinking skills that are vital for the creation, expression and transmission of ideas." http://www.mcgill.ca/humanistic/

So once again: the broader meanings of humanism should not be excluded from the introduction to the article on humanism. Have I not sufficiently proven my case? Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please take these citations to the discussion page of the humanistic studies article, where they will be no doubt be on topic. Here, they are off topic and representative only of your Confirmation bias. If they were common, frequently-used examples of the term "humanism," they would appear in best-selling book lists, top responses to searches according to Google's pagerank algorithm, or on top-ranked Alexa websites. They do not, therefore, they represent only a minority opinion here... and every time you cite this section proves only your Confirmation bias and irrelevance to the term "humanism." 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've mentioned several times already, searches for "humanistic" in Wikipedia are redirected to this page. The relevance is established by this very page, as well as by the history of usage and the semantic field. Wilson Delgado (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I have a side bet with a third party about how long it will take you to figure out the right way to address the term "humanistic" being redirected poorly. It's only a bet for a quarter, but for each week that passes and you try to push your POV agenda on THIS talk page, which is very obviously not the right place, you're buying me another handful of Chiclets from the gum machine. Thank you! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries to Cite
OldMan, you tried to use a student dictionary to justify the truncation of the meaning of humanism. Renaissance Humanism does not capture all the contemporary non-philosophical current usage, as has been proven in the Current Usage section. You made an unfair move there. Wilson Delgado (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A clarification of the core issue
What should be in the introduction to humanism?

The page has made the secularistic rationalistic philosophical meaning the core meaning. But an encyclopedia article should talk about the whole relevant semantic range of the word, and talk about submeanings in greater detail later or elsewhere. It can give a ranking according to prevalence of usage, but this is very difficult to ascertain. Webpage studies can take us only so far. Even if one usage dominates, it does not relieve the encyclopedia of responsibility to cover the semantic range fairly. That should be done at the outset of the explication of a general, complex term like humanism.

Many people relate the words humanism, humanistic, and humanities, but all these terms are not always explicitly used, particularly when the context clarifies the meaning. So the BHA in its documents does not always have to say "secularist rationalist philosophical humanism" when it uses the term. A historical study of Erasmus does not always have to mention *Renaissance* humanism when it refers to him. (In fact there are also other meanings of humanisms implicit when talking even about Renaissance humanism, e.g., the belief that people can be formed through literary studies. This belief was present before, during, and after Erasmus's time.  So though he was a Renaissance humanist, he was also a humanist in broader senses as well. This is not always explicitly stated or realized, but it is part of the larger meaning of the historical reality.)

This article has a helpful "See also" line at the top of the page. This points people to Renaissance humanism and the humanities, and ALSO to two secularizing types of humanism: Humanism (life stance) and Secular humanism. Why then should the core of the introduction to the article only relate to the latter? The other pages can take care of most of that. The introduction on this page should try to do justice to the major contexts in which the word is used: 1. focus on human values 2. educational and literary meanings 3. historical meanings 4. secular rationalistic philosophical meanings. It does not matter that some of these are treated elsewhere on the page or on other pages.

The argument is about what an encyclopedia should put as its general introduction to this whole semantic field whose center for convenience is put under the noun-form humanism. The introduction as it exists now skews the article to one sub-meaning.

Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories
We should continue to keep the categories for Renaissance Humanists distinct from (ie not sub-cats of) those for modern humanists; the main cats have linking notes in both directions, which is enough. Otherwise people are bound to be confused when they find several martyrs for their religious beliefs, and not a few bigots, among the Ren. humanist articles etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since my earlier attempt to get attention to this odd situation didn't draw any response, I already started a discussion at the Category talk:Renaissance humanists in response to your reversions. Afasmit (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will add something to this discussion relevant to the events of the discussion of the humanism article. Thanks for the opportunity. Wilson Delgado (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring: Cut it out.
Editors engaging in edit wars (you know who you are): the appropriate way to improve this article when you know the edits are contentious and likely to be reverted is to discuss them here and achieve consensus first. Since the first paragraph seems to be the object of the most contention, here is a copy of it, so you can edit and improve here and get buy-in by all involved parties before moving it to the main page:

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. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems. Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation and 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 belief without reason, 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.

Before making any further edits to the main article, please read the following Wikipedia policies so you can all be sure of the standard by which your behavior will be judged, and how your good faith will be measured:


 * Edit War
 * Disruptive editing
 * Tendentious editing

Also, may I suggest that if the strategy of citing sources that disagree with your position doesn't seem to be achieving consensus, try citing other sources that do agree with your position instead. Repeating the same thing over and over after it's already been refuted fits several of the examples of "disruptive editing" and "tendentious editing" listed in their respective articles as linked above.

Let's try to keep it mature and productive, okay? OldMan (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm rather new to this discussion, and don't particularly want to get involved with the insanely large thread on the subject, but avoiding edit wars is paramount. Instead of editors going off and spewing random sources, could those in favor of changing this introduction give a brief, single paragraph describing what they think is wrong with the current introduction, or what they would like changed. This could then be followed up by a rewritten proposal version of the introduction that they would support. Ideally we shouldn't even be mentioning or listing sources until everyone is on the same page as to which word or sentence is in question, and what the proposed alternatives are. We should be trying to take baby steps towards consensus, identifying and isolating the points of contention. ← George [ talk  ] 07:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to work towards a reasonable consensus for some time. Not enough voices are participating to make it a balanced discussion.  I have cited many reasons and many sources for an INCLUSIVE opening paragraph that lays out the terrain of this complex and historically levelled concept.  Everything in my last major edit to the article could be verified, I believe. The article will remain misleading if it keeps its present parochial introduction, focusing what is indeed a majority meaning WITHIN a particular circle.  I have laid out my position in "A clarification of the core issue" above.  Wikipedia already has articles on Secular humanism and on humanism (life stance).  These stress the non-religious, rationalistic types of humanism.  Why repeat the secular usage here as the core meaning of the whole concept???  Why not take the lead of other renowned reference works to give the broader and more complex picture?  If we do not do this, the Wikipedia article deserves a D rating -- for misleading people.  (To take one obvious case: most of those searching for "humanistic" are not likely to find what they are looking for in the current introduction.) Yes, thank you George.  I would love to have more people discussing. How do we get back all the people who objected to the current approach and then left in frustration or disgust (see "About that POV warning" where I list them)?  If only we could! Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken: this article does not "repeat the secular usage here;" it repeats the most common usage here (and not "within a particular circle," but within all bestselling books, major news agencies, magazine subscriptions, and top-ranked websites and top Google search results... not limited to one context, but within all contexts). The most common usage DOES NOT have to be "secular humanism;" it could also refer to Religious humanism or Humanistic Buddhism or Humanistic Judaism also, all of which are religious forms of humanism, but also fit under the umbrella description in this first paragraph.


 * You have been asked multiple times to read those articles and understand the differences between secular humanism and the many forms of religious humanism. I ask you simply and straightforwardly: have you read those articles? Do you now understand the difference between secular humanism and religious humanism? Can you now discuss the issue of contention without confusing them? Please indicate so in response to this comment. Thank you! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a very odd remark, since the version of the lead you are defending only comes out of wooliness to make it clear that opposition to religion and the supernatural is the distinguishing characteristic of humanism, as defined here. Personally I think you should all try to work towartds a lead that sets out different meanings of the term, rather than trying to impose a single one.  Otherwise the option of turning Humanism into a disam page is perhaps the way to go.  As it is this article is verging on being a fork of secular humanism Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Supernatural, yes, but I disagree on the "opposition to religion." Can you please quote which words in this intro specify that humanism is "opposed to religion?" Thanks! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, please! "... without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts" and "humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin." Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know quite a few Buddhists who do not resort to supernatural or divine authority from religious texts who would be quite chagrined to think that you consider their religion "opposed to religion," too. As for the religious texts, I've suggested a slight rewording below to indicate that it's not the texts themselves, but the allegedly divine origin of them, that is opposed. What do you think? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The major forms of Buddhism all rely heavily on the "supernatural", & although the language becomes somewhat opaque, I very much doubt if you can be a Buddhist in any meaningful sense without recourse to supernatural concepts like reincarnation, karma and dharma. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, sorry for editing over your comment! Secondly, yes, you're probably right... I don't know too many people in Eastern Asia, so the folks I know--American practitioners of meditation and such--are more likely "humanistic buddhists." But I still don't think they'd much appreciate having their religion denigrated simply because they're not strongly involved in the supernatural. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd better exercise tact and restraint in what you say to them, then, which would also be a good idea for you here. Obviously nothing I have said could possibly interpreted as "denigrating" Buddhism. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilson, what is it called when you "have been trying to work towards a reasonable consensus for some time" (please note, again, that your definition of "reasonable" is "agrees with your subjective opinion," rather than "objectively verifiable"), and you fail to achieve such a consensus over and over again, over the course of years, and you keep trying, always without success, and people keep rejecting your sources because they don't agree with your conclusions, and you have to resort to edit warring to keep making your point? What name do you give to that kind of behavior? Here's a hint: that behavior is described, to a T, in one of the three articles OldMan listed above. Can you read them and tell us which one of those articles applies to you at this time? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We've gone through this, and what I'm saying is pretty obvious and well-substantiated. For example: the current definition says that humanism rejects "texts of allegedly divine origin." So how is it that a Christian or Jewish humanist who seeks wisdom in the Bible for clues to human fulfillment can be included? Beyond this, there is the whole ambiguity of humanist as a promoter of humanistic studies that is not being clarified here.  Drop the personal attacks and focus on the issues. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it isn't ambiguous at all, about the humanist as a promoter of humanistic studies. Encyclopedia Britannica says such use is "to compound vagueness with vagueness," and says that humanism as anthropocentricity "has a greater claim to correctness." The unabridged OED "shunts" the "modern study of humanities" off, linking the literary usage with the historical period (as if it is gone, linked to the bygone days of the Renaissance). The abridged OED omits that definition entirely. Based on the EB and OED, then, it's fair to say that such use is a tiny minority usage and does not warrant prominent placement within this article. As for the use of texts of allegedly divine origin, do you think it would be more technically correct to say, "humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or the allegedly divine origin of religious texts?" 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be more correct to say that humanism in its core meaning refers to a human-centeredness without prejudice to religious stance. I do not read the OED and EB evidence the way you do, and I will not repeat my response here.  It is already available on this page.  Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you don't accept the OED and EB, do you have any other sources you'd like to cite that are objective and verifiable, by which we might ascertain that the modern study of humanities is not a tiny-minority opinion? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do very much accept and argue on the basis of the OED and EB, but you have taken a different approach to interpreting these. My interpretation is available on this page, and I stick to it as a better reading of these sources. Wilson Delgado (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be absolutely, 100% crystal clear: when the EB says that use of the term "humanism" to describe modern scholarship of the humanities is "to compound vagueness with vagueness" and that anthropocentricity "has a greater claim to correctness," you believe that that interpretation, to describe modern scholarship of the humanities, is a better reading of the EB? That is, for sure, 100% what you mean?


 * Again, just to be absolutely, 100% crystal clear: when the EB doesn't even give modern scholarship of the humanities its own definition, but groups it in with Renaissance humanism, and omits that definition entirely from its abridged version, you believe that that interpretation, to describe modern scholarship of the humanities, is a better reading of the OED? That is, for sure, 100% what you mean?


 * I'm just trying to be absolutely, 100% crystal clear on what you consider a better reading of these two sources. Your confirmation here is appreciated! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See below and elsewhere on the page for my take on these questions. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I think that this discussion is already veering into too much of the 'my versions versus your version', nitpicking at details without working towards compromise. One thing I did notice, however, is that the points of contention seems fairly limited to particular statements. How would editors feel about changing the existing "without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts" to "without relying on the supernatural or divine authority", and changing "humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin" to "humanism does not rely on transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or religious texts". So the basic changes I made to both of these is replacing "rejects" with "doesn't rely on", which is less forceful and possibly more accurate in a broader sense of the word 'humanism', and removing the "alleged divinity" from the mentioning of "religious texts" - the term "alleged" sounds like a weasel word in some ways. These changes would leave us with the follow as an introduction:


 * 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 relying on the supernatural or divine authority. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems. Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation and as such views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism does not rely on transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or religious texts. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.


 * Thoughts on this proposal? I do tend to think the second sentence I modified is very much a repetition of the first, but let's get some of your feedback. ← George [ talk  ] 17:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That actually looks quite good to me, but to be honest, Wilson has me sold on the idea about the religious texts. A Christian humanist might very well want to espouse Jesus's humanistic teachings without attributing divinity to either him or the book, so where religious texts are mentioned, I suggest specifying the allegedly-divine origins of the religious text. Like so:


 * "In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism does not rely on transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or the allegedly divine origins of religious texts."


 * Does that seem fair to you? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My issue isn't with the "divinity or divine origins" statement, it's purely with the word alleged, which is on Wikipedia's list of words to avoid. However, if other editors will agree to its usage, then I'm fine with it also. ← George [ talk  ] 18:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no strong attachment to that either, so by all means, make the suggested revision without it. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I very much think that the EB understanding is a model:


 * HUMANISM - term freely applied to a variety of beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm. Most frequently, however, the term is used with reference to a system of education and mode of inquiry that developed in northern Italy during the 14th century and later spread through Europe and England. Alternately known as “Renaissance humanism,” this program was so broadly and profoundly influential that it is one of the chief reasons why the Renaissance is viewed as a distinct historical period. Indeed, though the word Renaissance is of more recent coinage, the fundamental idea of that period as one of renewal and reawakening is humanistic in origin. But humanism sought its own philosophical bases in far earlier times and, moreover, continued to exert some of its power long after the end of the Renaissance.


 * The philosophical usage is therefore contextualized and also explained historically; philosophy is not the only or even the primary horizon. I would not recommend that we keep the meaning focused on this philosophical dimension (-- not without labeling the article as Humanism (Philosophy), anyway.  Literary / educational traditions are included in the EB presentation and they are not limited to the historical period of the Renaissance.


 * The EB also says "It is small wonder that a term as broadly allusive as humanism should be subject to a wide variety of applications. Of these (excepting the historical movement described above) there are three basic types: humanism as classicism, humanism as referring to the modern concept of the humanities, and humanism as human-centredness." As I've said before, EB may recommend a different usage but it recognizes the complexity and many-layered meaning of the term.  Wikipedia's article should do no less, particularly in the introduction.


 * Then there's the OED:


 * 1. Belief in the mere humanity of Christ: cf. HUMANITARIAN n. 1a. [Obsolete] 2. The character or quality of being human; devotion to human interests. 3. Any system of thought or action which is concerned with merely human interests (as distinguished from divine), or with those of the human race in general (as distinguished from individual); the ‘Religion of Humanity’. 4. Devotion to those studies which promote human culture; literary culture; esp. the system of the Humanists, the study of the Roman and Greek classics which came into vogue at the Renascence. 5. Philos. A pragmatic system of thought introduced by F. C. S. Schiller and William James which emphasizes that man can only comprehend and investigate what is with the resources of the human mind, and discounts abstract theorizing; so, more generally, implying that technological advance must be guided by awareness of widely understood human needs.


 * "Devotion to those studies" -- this refers to literary / educational humanists, people supporting humanistic studies today. These are current and recurring, widespread usages, not at all tiny to anyone who can consider representative examples (as given in the Current Usage section) and make a reasonable estimation.  It matters not that the noun form humanism does not refer to the liberal arts as much as do the abundantly recurring terms humanist and humanistic. These words are all connected by usage and by this Wikipedia page itself, which gets all the redirections of the term humanistic.  Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Above, I asked you very clearly and straightforwardly, "when the EB says that use of the term 'humanism' to describe modern scholarship of the humanities is 'to compound vagueness with vagueness' and that anthropocentricity 'has a greater claim to correctness,' you believe that that interpretation, to describe modern scholarship of the humanities, is a better reading of the EB? That is, for sure, 100% what you mean?" Up there, you said you'd answer that question down here. However, all you've done is quote the EB again and then say the tiny-minority use is "current and recurring, widespread," and "reasonable" without providing any additional sources. So this is just tacking your opinion onto the end of a source that, once again, does not agree with you. So I ask again: when the EB says that use of the term "humanism" to describe modern scholarship of the humanities is "to compound vagueness with vagueness" and that anthropocentricity "has a greater claim to correctness," you believe that that interpretation, to describe modern scholarship of the humanities, is a better reading of the EB? That is, for sure, 100% what you mean?


 * Above, I asked you very clearly and straightforwardly, "when the EB doesn't even give modern scholarship of the humanities its own definition, but groups it in with Renaissance humanism, and omits that definition entirely from its abridged version, you believe that that interpretation, to describe modern scholarship of the humanities, is a better reading of the OED? That is, for sure, 100% what you mean?" Up there, you said you'd answer that question down here. However, all you've done is quote the OED again and then say the tiny-minority use us "current and recurring, widespread," and "reasonable" without providing any additional sources. So this is just tacking your opinion onto the end of a source that, once again, does not agree with you. So I ask again: when the EB doesn't even give modern scholarship of the humanities its own definition, but groups it in with Renaissance humanism, and omits that definition entirely from its abridged version, you believe that that interpretation, to describe modern scholarship of the humanities, is a better reading of the OED? That is, for sure, 100% what you mean?


 * I'm just trying to be absolutely, 100% crystal clear on what you consider a better reading of these two sources. Please do not avoid the question by saying you'll answer it "elsewhere" or "below;" please either confirm or deny, right here, so it can be absolutely clear! Thank you! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I answer it by indicating that the EB's RECOMMENDATION of usage is not to be taken to be as important as its DESCRIPTION of the ACTUAL usage. Also, I am not dealing with the watered down versions of dictionaries, but with the best, fullest, most comprehensive ones, so I disregard what the truncated definitions give. My approach amounts to what I think is a better reading. Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Which words are you now interpreting to mean that the EB is making recommendations for the future? I didn't see any such verbiage; I only saw verbiage that indicated it was being descriptive of past-tense usage. Also, I still don't seem to have an answer for the question I posed above: "By the way, what exactly is wrong with the compact edition of the OED? Is its editorship somehow different? Is its source material somehow more questionable? Please give an objective reason why we shouldn't put our full faith and trust in it, OTHER than the fact that it simply disagrees with your strongly-held opinion." 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Words like the following give the author's suggestion for an improvement on existing usage: "Not only is such a large assortment of definitions confusing, but the definitions themselves are often redundant or impertinent. There is no reason to call all classical revivals humanistic when the word classical suffices." If this is not happening why bring it up? 2. Encyclopedias are expected to give well-rounded explanations, not the most abbreviated and concise truncation of a word's meaning that they can find. That is why I do not use the compact OED.  Wilson Delgado (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re your no. 1, it looks to me like you are taking the EB's admonition NOT to do something to mean that it is OTHER THAN A TINY MINORITY usage, and thereby warrants a place of prominence in Wikipedia's article on humanism, and that is the ONLY verbiage you interpret to mean this in the EB. Please be reasonable and show some common sense. Re no. 2, please try to stay on topic: we are discussing giving a minority definition prominence within this article, not omitting it from this article entirely. Please answer the question again, this time trying to keep in mind the issue of contention. Be reasonable! Exercise some common sense! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You make no sense. I have answered your questions. You have not proven "tiny use." Work on the revision of the intro not sophistry.  Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I've helped prove "tiny minority" status. Just because the conclusion is inconvenient to you doesn't mean there's no evidence. Please stop resorting to sophistry, lack of common sense, and unreasonableness to pursue a campaign of tendentious editing. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems we've gotten off track yet again. Let me reiterate – at this point in time, sources and definitions are fairly irrelevant. Don't tell us why you want things changed until and unless you have an alternative showing what exactly you want changed. If you try to prove a point before identifying what that point is, we're not going to get anywhere. Wilson – please come up with your own version of a compromise wording for the introduction and post that. ← George [ talk  ] 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, George. Here's my proposal for the start of the article:


 * Humanism essentially refers to a kind of human-centeredness. Originally the term described the Renaissance curriculum of the classical Greek and Latin authors as contrasted with a professional philosophical and theological training ("scholasticism"), but its meaning has broadened to refer to a devotion to the humanities, that is, to an approach to education that relies on the cultivation of the person through literary and cultural means. It is often linked semantically with the study of the liberal arts, or humanistic studies. The designation humanist today can simply refer to those who profess the humanities. The core ideas of human-centeredness and cultural formation of individuals are quite compatible with religious belief (hence the use of phrases like "Christian humanism") but in its secular philosophical usage, humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, [then follows with current opening]


 * Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! Now we have something to start with. Some quick thoughts about your version:
 * I like the way you frame the term in its historical perspective, then continue on to more modern usages.
 * I'm concerned that you follow the historical meaning with three sentences on the alternative modern definition – the definition dealing with a devotion to, or study of, the humanities. That seems a bit overweight, but, after some trimming, I do think it's something we can work with. Keep in mind that there is a full articles on the Humanities as well, so we need not go into any great detail on that here.
 * Interestingly, the current article discusses the "rejection" of the supernatural, while your revision discusses its "compatibility" with religious belief. There are obviously opposite perspectives, but they can be reconciled with a vaguer terms or explicitly stating the distinction. That was my goal with the more middle-of-the-road terminology like "without relying on".
 * Here is a new proposal, based in part on your version, as well as the existing introduction:
 * "Humanism has been used to describe a number of different human-centered philosophies and schools of thought, some of which rejected religious belief, and others of which were compatible with religious belief. Originally, the term described the intellectual movement that rediscovered the classical Greek and Latin texts during the Renaissance. In modern times, the term has taken on a dual meaning, used to refer to either a devotion to the humanities and study of the liberal arts, or a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people. (then continue with some slightly modified version of my earlier proposal maybe...)"
 * Thoughts? ← George [ talk  ] 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * George, the problem is that such a paragraph is almost entirely incorrect. You must emphasize the WP:VERIFY policy in every step of this process, or you will end up writing things into Wikipedia that are actually provably false. How do you intend to verify the text that you've suggested here? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have very little intention to verify these things, as I have no plans to make the final edit to the article myself – I'm only hoping to end the edit warring. I know far less on this topic than other editors, so I leave it to them (you) to point out what's incorrect. It sounds like Wilson is mulling over this version, so I consider that progress. We won't hit a final version on the first try, or even the tenth probably, but we can take an iterative approach to try to get closer and closer to a consensus. Consensus building involves compromise, so nobody is going to get everything they want. What specifically would you point to as incorrect statements? Let's try to go sentence-by-sentence if it helps. Once we've identified those points, if other editors disagree then editors can start presenting sources to support their case. ← George [ talk  ] 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, I think you should remove the word "religion" everywhere in this paragraph, because it's very misleading. We can't even seem to come to an understanding that the current introductory paragraph is NOT anti-religion, because there are so many editors here who don't seem to understand that not all religions are based on supernaturality. With this confusion, it's best simply not to make any claims about religion at all, as no modern use of the term "humanism" makes a claim about religion at all.


 * Of primary importance, though, is that if you "have very little intention to verify these things," I hope that you will MAKE it your intention to verify EVERYTHING, because verifiability is at the heart of contention in this debate. Look at every modification you propose, and make sure it can be clearly and unquestionably tied back to reliable sources. This introductory paragraph has been in place for years, and subject to much debate and consensus already, and graded by various wiki projects already, so at this point, there had better be a very, very good reason to make any change at all, backed incontrovertibly by a wide variety of sources. Please read the following Wikipedia policy pages: WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE and make adherence to them become your priority in this discussion. Thank you! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It verges on the comical that someone so ready to cite WP:UNDUE at every point should claim that "not all religions are based on supernaturality". I suppose that might be true, but adherants to such religions must constitute a tiny fraction of 1% of all believers on the planet. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Believers?" What's a "believer?" The topic of this discussion is humanists. What percentage of humanists base their religion on the supernatural? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh humanism is a religion now? It might be worth mentioning this in the article, which currently (and surely rightly) says it is not. Otherwise your point is irrelevant. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhhh... some forms of humanism have been religions for many years. Have you even read the article on Religious humanism yet? The "humanism" article DOES NOT say it isn't a religion; in fact, it links to the article on Religious humanism as a subcategory right there in the humanism template in the upper right hand corner of the page, with examples of religious forms of humanism right underneath. How did you miss it? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those articles, except possibly the Buddhist one, describe "Foo humanism" as a religion. All are unreferenced & often very questionable, and apart from the Christian one, which specifically does not exclude the supernatural at all, all describe tiny tiny groups, that are certainly too small under WP:UNDUE to influence the lead para here. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So far we've been discussing whether this article DOES say humanism is non-religious, which it does not. If you are, through this roundabout way, suggesting that that's what you would LIKE to see in this intro, go ahead and cite your sources and let's discuss 'em! I'm open to the suggestion. My preference thus far is not to mention "religion" or lack thereof by name, just because it's not very clear, as the length of our discussion to get to THIS point demonstrates. However, let's see how you'd verify such a statement, and if it's strong enough, perhaps such changes can trickle into those other articles, too! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am more & more coming to the view it should be a disam page. Or it should more clearly set out the range of meanings of the word, in a sort of expanded disam page as article, which is similar to what Wilson wants, although I don't neccessarily agree with his wordings, or his particular angle. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Humanism essentially refers to a kind of..."


 * Aside from being horrible English writing, this is perhaps the longest chain of weasel words proposed for Wikipedia.


 * "...human-centeredness. Originally the term described the Renaissance curriculum of the classical Greek and Latin authors..."


 * This is not correct; the term was actually first used to mean the mere humanity, rather than the divinity, of Christ. See the Oxford English Dictionary, definition 1, already noted as note 12 in the current article.


 * "...as contrasted with a professional philosophical and theological training ('scholasticism')..."


 * Not only the training, but also the philosophy itself, which indicated already that humanism did not rely on faith in the church and its parochialism. So this supports the current introductory paragraph.


 * "but its meaning has broadened to refer to a devotion to the humanities, that is, to an approach to education that relies on the cultivation of the person through literary and cultural means."


 * This is not correct; it is very rarely used to mean that. After having helped enumerate books, news articles, web pages, and other current uses of the term, I concur with 151.190.254.108: this is a tiny minority use of the term at best, almost never encountered in any media today.


 * "It is often linked semantically with the study of liberal arts, or humanistic studies."


 * This is also horrible English writing because it is redundant to the preceding sentence... and is still simply not correct. The term is very rarely, if at all, used this way in books, news, websites, or other media.


 * "The designation humanist today can simply refer to those who profess the humanities."


 * Again redundant, again used rarely if at all.


 * "The core ideas of human-centeredness and cultural formation of individuals are quite compatible with religious belief (hence the use of phrases like 'Christian humanism')..."


 * That depends on whether the religion is supernatural-based, or not, actually: many Christians disagree; in fact it is common to see evangelical Christians in the United States who are full of hatred for humanism and in fact declare "spiritual warfare" on modern humanism. So the current introductory paragraph does a good job of making this differentiation, whereas this suggestion does not.


 * "but in its secular philosophical usage..."


 * There are also religious philosophical uses that also fit the following description, so I think the term "secular" is misleading here.


 * In short, every sentence of this suggested introduction is poorly worded, imprecise, or actually wrong. It looks like the part we do agree on is the paragraph that already exists, which you endorse by writing, "[then follows with current opening]." Since we're agreed on that part, we should keep at least that, then? OldMan (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * George, I think your version is excellent, but I'd like to think more about it. To OldMan I'd say, yes, clearly there needs to be some cleanup editorially, but excising reality is not a solution. Historical background, the breadth and complexity of meaning have to be preserved somehow. Can you offer assistance with that?  Humanism was indeed originally used in German ("Humanismus") in the early 1800's to refer to the Renaissance curriculum (Niethammer).   That should be preserved somehow in an introduction to the concept. It conditioned the usage in other countries.  The word humanist goes back to the Renaissance to distinguish the liberal arts promoters from the theologians and philosophers on a professional track.  "Weasel words" are not weasly if they represent reality; e.g., if a meaning broadens, then it broadens -- we just have to face reality. (I do not favor dogmatic censorship of vocabulary, though I accept it as a general guideline.) The fact that some people outside the secular humanist circle can use the term the way those humanists do is no argument here.  If I were talking with secular humanists about their beliefs, I'd use that term too.  But I would never say that was the sum and substance of the meaning of the term. I'd never give only that meaning if called on to do so.  If I were in a Renaissance studies meeting, I would be using it in another sense.  If I were talking about the humanism of Richard Lanham's title *Literacy and the Survival of Humanism*, I'd be using it in another sense.  Human-centeredness is a core notion that can be discovered in many uses of the word, so I don't see complaining about pointing this out.  It is called for, in fact.  Excise "a kind of" from the phrase, if you wish, but it is a helpful way of getting to the stable feature present in all types of humanism. The EB does this by saying that humanism is "term freely applied to a variety of beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm". OED says devotion to human interests. Furthermore, humanist is indeed used to describe those who study the humanities as given in the Current Usage section.  More examples could easily be adduced.  More frequently humanistic refers to the liberal arts, but we still in the same ball park and the same game as well. I think the connections of the words humanism, humanist, humanities, humanistic should be sketched.  This is the place to do it!  Wilson Delgado (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is easy to find this usage of humanist connecting with the humanities. In a few seconds I came up with


 * Today, we live in a nation where there are 762 accredited cybercolleges; where most of the indices of support for the humanities have pointed decisively downward over the last few decades; where the salary differentials between humanists and our colleagues in the social and physical and life sciences, much less the professional schools, have become enormous;


 * Humanist is an international online seminar on humanities computing and the digital humanities. Its primary aim is to provide a forum for discussion of intellectual, scholarly, pedagogical, and social issues and for exchange of information among participants. Humanist is a publication of the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO) and the Office for Humanities Communication (OHC) and an affiliated publication of the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS). For more information on the activities of the world-wide digital humanities community and for ways to get involved see the ADHO website. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact a Google gives 16,200 results for "scientists and humanists": Just look at the first page to get the drift: 1. "UCSB Scientists and Humanists Discuss the Origins of the Universe." 2. "THE issue of noncommunication between scientists and humanists is of long standing. C.P. Snow, the late British physicist and author, suggested that... 3. "The evolution of human cognition and neuroscience: a dialogue between scientists and humanists"  4. "In an unusual collaboration among scientists and humanists, a Cornell University team has demonstrated a novel method for recovering faded text on ancient..." 5. "After Bath: Scientists, Social Scientists, and Humanists in the Context of Online Searching."   And on and on.  Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your source-finding efforts, but I'm not sure why you're looking for sources relevant to Humanities or humanist. While I understand the linguistic connection, both have their own, separate articles, and discussion about either belongs there. ← George [ talk  ] 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm rebutting OldMan's statement that humanist as one who professes the humanities is "used rarely if at all." But it has been a point of contention whether to look just at the noun form humanism in this article, or at the word humanist as well (and humanities and humanistic).  I think they are all in play because of the constant interplay in actual usage, and the page itself gets the redirections of the word humanistic.  If you go the the page on humanist, you see a disambiguation page that starts off: "Humanist may refer to: a proponent of the group of ethical stances referred to as Humanism / a figure in the European intellectual movement known as Renaissance Humanism / [other possibilities]."  But it also means a supporter / one who professes the liberal arts.  This page on humanism should be something that brings greater clarity to all these interconnected terms. Some people are going to be coming here to find out further information on the usage of humanist.  Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I think that this is the wrong approach. This article should discuss the uses of the word humanism and humanistic (as long as it redirects here, which may or may not be a correct redirection - I don't know). Anything involving usage of the words "humanist" or "humanities" belong on their own pages, and should only be mentioned in passing, as a jumping off point to those articles, where the bulk of the information relevant to them lives. Why does this article care if a humanist is one who professes the humanities or not? That kind of information belongs only in the "humanist" article. ← George [ talk  ] 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the page on humanist. It sends people back here (and to other places as well). I think it must be counted as relevant. Once again: searches on humanistic get sent here too.  This is not to be ignored in the introduction: such is simply good encyclopedia practice.  If you re-direct someone somewhere, don't make the relevance hard to find. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, one of the disambiguated links on humanist points here. And using it in this article, in a manner that matches the definition given in that link ("a proponent of the group of ethical stances referred to as Humanism"), makes sense. However, trying to entangle a third article, based on a separate definition of humanist from the disambiguation page ("a scholar or academic in the Humanities") doesn't make sense. It's a failure of basic logic – if some cats are cuddly, and some cats are orange, that says nothing at all about the relationship between cuddly and orange. I'm fine with anything related to the word humanistic, which redirects here, or anything related to the appropriate definition of humanist, which redirects here, but finding sources that match a different term altogether, based on it's connection to a third word that has multiple meanings just makes no sense at all. These discussions should be kept prescient to this article. ← George [ talk  ] 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But the problem is that the term humanism give rise to different meanings. A humanist is one who professes humanism.  In an encyclopedia article on this topic, shouldn't the ambiguities be made clear?  This is the catch-all word, the umbrella word (which was historically based in the educational literary usage anyway)? What is the practice of other leading reference works on the word humanism?  They give the levels and complexities of meaning.  Why collapse this page onto one branch of the word's evolution without giving the larger picture?  I don't understand how this is helpful.  Someone looking for humanistic will often, even most probably, want something that is related to the humanities / liberal arts traditions.  Why should they be sent to this page if it doesn't deal with that meaning right off the bat?  Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To say a humanist is one who professes humanism is fine. To go into any great detail about humanists belongs in the humanist article. If the usage of the term humanism is diverse enough, then this should be made into a disambiguation page. If the usage described in the article is the most popular usage, then this should not be a disambiguation page. If someone looking for humanistic will "most probably want something that is related to the humanities / liberal arts traditions", then humanistic should not redirect here, it should redirect to the humanities article directly. It sounds to me like you're proposing three changes then, unrelated to the introduction of this page: (a) moving this page to somewhere else, (b) making this page a disambiguation page, and (c) redirecting humanistic, either to that disambiguation page, or to the page on humanities. Each of these is a valid proposal to make, so you might want to consider proposing them in new sections, and we can drop attempting to rewrite the introduction to this article to extend beyond the article's scope. ← George [ talk  ] 21:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(UNDENT) I did want to call this page Humanism (Philosophy), but that was rejected (not with many folks voting). I would accept a disambiguation page as a decent solution. And yes, I'd like to link humanistic to its most likely target usage. My great preference is for following the custom of the leading reference works on humanism. Not only is this some guarantee of objectivity and coverage, but it allows for people to see that the meanings are not TOTALLY discontinuous. The "secularizing" dimesion (not anti-religious or anti-faith or anti-ecclesial, note!) of Renaissance humanism links with the full (anti- or a-religious) secularism of much contemporary atheistic / rationalistic humanism. There is some genetic and spiritual inheritance there. If we can't have one integrated article on humanism, I would then favor the disambiguation. I am stepping back for a moment, however. This has cost far too much time and effort on my part already, for no visible results (--except that I am MOST grateful for your and other voices that have joined in the coversation). If Wikipedia is going to work, we need more voices on issues like this. Notice that Wiktionary defines humanist this way: 1 (historical) In the Renaissance, a scholar of Greek and Roman classics 2 a scholar of one of the subjects in the humanities 3 a person who believes in the philosophy of humanism. I wonder why the opening paragraph couldn't just at least reflect the same range of meaning and link to other articles from a central brief narrative. Why does the word humanism have to mean one and only one thing? Any inspired writers out there who "get it"? Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal of OldMan's contention about the first use of humanism: OED gives 1812 COLERIDGE Omniana in Lit. Rem. (1836) I. 377 A man who has passed from orthodoxy to the loosest Arminianism, and thence to Arianism, and thence to direct Humanism. But Wikipedia says "in 1808 Niethammer published Der Streit des Philanthropinismus und des Humanismus in der Theorie des Erziehungs-Unterrichts unsrer Zeit (The Dispute between Philanthropinism and Humanism in the Educational Theory of our Time)." Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This "rebuttal" is incorrect. You make no claim here that shows the use of the term "humanism" earlier than 1812; you show instead the use of the term "Humanismus," which you do not define here. In fact the Italian term "umanista" is even older than your German use, dating back to the 1400s, and the latin term from which it's derived is older still. OldMan (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal of OldMan's contention that humanism contrasted with "Not only the training, but also the philosophy itself, which indicated already that humanism did not rely on faith in the church and its parochialism." This has already been rebutted: Remer's Rhetoric of Toleration has been cited twice; also Trinkaus In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought (1970).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson Delgado (talk • contribs) 15:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This "rebuttal" is incorrect. Your sources do not make any claim about the parochialism of the church; a failure to make a claim is not the same as making a negative claim. There are several sources that do recognize that Renaissance humanism not only contrasted against the educational approach of scholasticism, but the very philosophy of scholasticism, which I've quoted above in the "dictionaries and encyclopedias" section of this very talk page. OldMan (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal of OldMan's contention that humanism as "an approach to education that relies on the cultivation of the person through literary and cultural means...is not correct; it is very rarely used to mean that." Three non-esoteric examples were provided in the Current Usage section.  Furthermore the adjective humanistic is in play on this page (as a redirection page for searches on this term), and humanistic is very frequently associated with liberal arts, e.g., the verifiably recurrent phrase humanistic studies.  No tiny minority usage here, but a general and widespread one.  Verifiably. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This "rebuttal" is incorrect. All sources that you've cited have been selected by you specifically because of their bias. None of your sources make any claim as to frequency of use, and none were selected because of their popularity, sales rank, page rank, or any other objectively-verifiable means. This would be akin to saying, "I've found the Flat Earth Society's webpage, so now that I can cite it, let's go edit the first paragraph of the 'earth' article to give it equal weight!" Wikipedia policy is very clear on the acceptability of such behavior. OldMan (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's official policy for resolving naming conflicts gives six different ways to verify common usage, based not on Confirmation bias but on popularity and common practice, and among those six different ways, provides five different external links you can use to search for common uses. Which of those techniques or external links did you use to find these sources? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 151, I think you are getting into sophistry and avoidance. I give verifiable sources, so you want to switch to the psychological measures for confirmation bias.  Let's stay with the commonsense approaches of the everyday world.  Am I providing verifiability by citing well-known reference works like the OED and EB, the work of many scholars and writers, numerous counts of telling phrases on webpages, and well-reasoned argumentation about usage and estimation of usage? Don't these count for popularity and common practice?  There is only so much time and space. Let's stay real.  You can argue the millions of statistics ad infinitum, but the argument ought to be settled in a reasonable way within a reasonable timeframe.  If you want to claim greater objectivity, how did you miss the things I have raised? By such misdirections, you are making it very hard to improve the article. What is your proposed opening paragraph? Let's follow George's advice and stick to that.  Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with citing ONLY "common sense" and "being reasonable" to defend your opinion is that those are equally applicable to both sides of an opinion without providing any way to verify either side objectively. They're purely emotionally-laden terms that convey no actual reason to agree with your assertions. See, look, your entire paragraph is equally true when I change a few words to make it reflect a viewpoint opposite yours:


 * "Wilson, I think you are getting into sophistry and avoidance. I give verifiable sources, so you want to switch to the psychological measures for confirmation bias. Let's stay with the commonsense approaches of the everyday world. Am I providing verifiability by citing well-known reference works like the OED and EB, the work of many scholars and writers, numerous counts of telling phrases on webpages, and well-reasoned argumentation about usage and estimation of usage? Don't these count for popularity and common practice? There is only so much time and space. Let's stay real. You can argue the millions of statistics ad infinitum, but the argument ought to be settled in a reasonable way within a reasonable timeframe. If you want to claim greater objectivity, how did you miss the things I have raised? By such misdirections, you are making it very hard to improve the article."


 * Actually this paragraph is MORE true when I write it, because I actually HAVE contributed over a hundred different sources, and they WERE NOT hand-picked to match my opinion but based on objectively-verifiable and algorithmic approaches to popularity. So answer your own paragraph yourself: why must you be so unreasonable and nonsensical to ignore the huge numbers of sources I've cited? Why can't you be more reasonable? Why can't you admit the usage within a reasonable constraint of time and space? As for my suggestions to improve the opening paragraph, I already DID suggest improvements, SOME EVEN BASED ON YOUR INPUT, for example, on 18:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC). 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision of the opening paragraph
Here is George's proposal for the opening of the humanism article:


 * Humanism has been used to describe a number of different human-centered philosophies and schools of thought, some of which rejected religious belief, and others of which were compatible with religious belief. Originally, the term described the intellectual movement that rediscovered the classical Greek and Latin texts during the Renaissance. In modern times, the term has taken on a dual meaning, used to refer to either a devotion to the humanities and study of the liberal arts, or a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people. (then continue with some slightly modified version of my earlier proposal maybe...)

Let's work on making it as clear, verifiable, beautiful, helpful, and in line with the best encyclopedia practices as it can be.

I believe that I have already rebutted most of OldMan's claims of non-verifiability and incorrectness. He is welcome to respond. I think we have a working consensus that religious stance is not involved directly in the core meaning of the word. I do not accept the exclusion of literary / cultural / liberal arts dimensions of the history and usage of the word and its ambit of meaning. It is connected with humanities and humanist and humanistic. Many people connect these words conceptually, even if there are simultaneously other major contemporary traditions that go in different directions and prescind entirely from this liberal-arts idea. (Why not say this in the intro?) At minimum a historical explanation of the evolution of the several meanings and usages would be necessary to help orient those who consult this page. Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your "rebuttals" were all factually incorrect; please see above. "Why not say this in the intro?" Wikipedia policy is very clear on how to assign weight to minority viewpoints. Please provide sources that give equal weight to this use of the term that are selected for their objectivity, rather than for their bias, and I will agree to more prominent placement of this opinion. But it hinges upon your giving objective sources, rather than biased sources. OldMan (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your responses to the rebuttals are all wrong-headed or simply wrong. Humanismus is translated / understood as humanism.  It occurred in 1808. The fact that humanista occurred in the Renaissance only strengthens the case for including the literary / cultural use on this page.  That was their context.  The implication that early humanists were not believers or stood over/against the faith of the Church is simply not true, and you do seem to be implying this. Scholarly sources were cited, including a very long study of this very question (Trinkaus).  If you want to make some kind of nuance, then be sure to represent Trinkaus's thoroughly researched and well-sourced view too.  You say I selected sources for their bias?  I raised recurrent usages that you claimed were very rare.  I showed factually they are not rare.  You seem to want to deny fact. But the usages exist abundantly.  You simply want to shout "bias!"  Frequency of use is a red herring.  No one has accurate statistics on that and your study has not been shown to be one used by reference works to determine such issues.  Furthermore you don't include in your searches things like "humanistic studies" which tend to point to the liberal arts uses.  OldMan, you are the Flat-earther who says your own society all believes in one approach therefore everyone else should too because they happen to have more occurrences of their terminology in one sector of the web / bestselling books / newsheadlines. And if someone brings out a National Geographic magazine with the picture of a round earth, you want to say "You just picked out that magazine because it supported your view!!"  What is a reasonable person to do with such an intentionally dense opponent?


 * Why don't we all agree that the default position should approximate the best, fullest, most comprehensive, and most authoritative reference works? That is a check on objectivity, is it not? As the page is now it manifestly deviates from that norm and is indeed suspect for bias. Even the reference works cited above by OldMan give some due to the wider range of meanings.  I am asking for at least this much "objectivity" and "inclusivity."  Wilson Delgado (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your continued refusal to provide objectively-selected sources for frequency of use, and your repetition that "no one has accurate statistics on that" after the citation of over 100 sources, and your patent contradiction of the Online Etymology Dictionary (already cited by this article) are here noted. OldMan (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OlMan, I suggest you check out WP:LEAD. You seem to be insisting that material covered in later sections, where it forms a reasonably large % of the total article, is excluded from the LLead. This is the opposite of WP policy: " The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead." - and so on. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I insist no such thing. OldMan (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision of Opening - New Suggested Version
I propose something like this for the revised opening:

Humanism is a human-centered approach, attitude, philosophy, or manner of behavior [note: cite OED and EB] The term is semantically complex [note: give full definition in Merriam Webster or OED as verifying example], as it sometimes evokes liberal arts studies [note: as in the title of Richard Lanham's Literacy and the Survival of Humanism], the historical movement known as Renaissance humanism, or a philosophical approach (secular or religious). The term umanista (humanist) in the Renaissance meant one who studied "human-oriented" fields, such as grammar, rhetoric, history, and moral philosophy, rather than professional systematic philosophical and theological studies. The humanist curriculum was given the name Humanismus (i.e., humanism) in 1808 by the German educationist Niethammer. These studies were later called humanities [note on the history of this term] and "humanistic studies" [note giving example of current usage] and sometimes opposed to the sciences [note giving example of current usage]. Once this concept of humanism had emerged with this semantic field, one could use the terms humanism or humanistic or humanities to mean a kind of education that forms students through literary and cultural means [note: hence books with titles like Socratic Humanism or The Humanism of Cicero and phrases like "the humanism of Matthew Arnold]. A further evolution of the term took place when it began to refer to a systematic and rationalistic philosophical approach.  [...on to development of this direction, eventually merging with the substance of the current opening]

Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there would be justification for a second section, between the lead and the "modern aspects" on the "etymology and development of the term", which could take much of this stuff, with some also going into the lead. This might be a way to reconcile the differences over the lead, & is something often found in similar articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 4 March 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)
 * We are not talking about "views" at all, but different meanings and definitions of the same word. All of the different meaning have their own articles, & those more policy-minded than myself would probably insist that Humanism is a disam page, if this endless and  lame dispute were brought to their attention.  I have not come down to that position myself, and have no problem agreeing that secular humanism is the most common sense of the word today, although it does not in fact enjoy the massive predominance that you assert, but I won't accept an article called humanism that a) defines it only as secular humanism to the virtual exclusion of other meanings, and b) attempts to  distort the history of earlier forms of humanism to co-opt them into being merely forerunners of modern secular humanism.  The different senses of the word overlap in a complex manner, & this article has to reflect that, or it is merely a POV fork. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually we ARE talking about "views," because the issue of contention is not the VARIETY of ways the term "humanism" is used, but the FREQUENCY with which each is used. I do not know if "secular humanism" is the most frequent use of the term, because there are a large number of people who practice humanism as a form of religiosity, and this is in contrast to mere "secular humanism." This includes many members of the IHEU and AHA, for example, which appear to be predominating the news and organizational websites. Consequently I think we are in agreement that this article should not--and I would say DOES NOT--"define it only as secular humanism to the virtual exclusion of other meanings." However, please be aware that Wikipedia does not purport to be a dictionary that describes all possible uses and meanings with equal weight on each; that is the function of Wiktionary instead, which is also a Wikimedia project. If that is your aim for this article, might I redirect you in that more appropriate direction instead? Wikipedia's policies are clear about the difference between Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary definitions. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, different meanings are different subjects, or overlapping ones, not different views. That "there are a large number of people who practice humanism as a form of religiosity" is a questionable claim (different from "there are a large number of people who practice religions with a humanistic attitude") and one not, fortunately, made in the article.  Trust me, you are wasting your time with all these references to WP:UNDUE, dicdefs etc. WP:NAME does not operate on a first past the post basis. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Johnbod's perceptive remarks and his description of what is not acceptable. The introduction is clearly misleading.  Many people have noticed this (see About that POV template, where I list some of them and their words). The approach to explicating the complex term humanism is out of sync with major reference works, encyclopedias and dictionaries, even ones that OldMan has cited. OldMan's list of 20 policies "broken" by the proposed introduction is highly interpretive and tendentious (e.g., I would judge that OldMan is the one disguising obstructive efforts as helpful; that OldMan is supporting the presentation of a variant submeaning as the core meaning).  His list also relies on an unjustifiable overestimate of the value of a selective statistical study that has not been --and should never be--generally accepted, for reasons given when the survey was made.  Widespread current usage has been testified for other uses (with typical examples in the Current Usage section).  Statistics suggestive of the abundant appearance of other uses (e.g., "Christian humanism") have been provided. OldMan ignores the larger ambit of relevant meanings, which appears in phrases like "humanistic studies" and "humanists and scientists." Even if some meanings get assigned to other pages (like the article on humanities), a general survey of meanings and a history of the term are called for at the beginning of the article. The proposed paragraph gives only what is verifiable. Furthermore, the proposed opening sentence, about "human-centeredness" is actually pointed to by OldMan when he used the term "human-centered philosophy" for so many items in his survey (even if systematic philosophy was not necessarily at issue). OldMan is blocking the improvement of the article and cloaking himself in the policy statements of Wikipedia. Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That was me that gave you 20 policies you were breaking, and I'm not impressed by your elementary-school level retort, which amounts to, "Nuh-uh, YOU are!" You simply continue to cite already-refuted sources, such as your "Current use" section of this page, which contains the following refutation by me already: "If they were common, frequently-used examples of the term 'humanism,' they would appear in best-selling book lists, top responses to searches according to Google's pagerank algorithm, or on top-ranked Alexa websites. They do not, therefore, they represent only a minority opinion here... and every time you cite this section proves only your Confirmation bias and irrelevance to the term 'humanism.'" This continued attempt to use already-refuted sources is an example of your tendentiousness. However, I want to repeat that I welcome your inputs to this article, and upon citation of objectively-verifiable sources for frequency of use that shows a greater-than-minority view in favor of your edits, I'll be happy to help you incorporate those changes. May we see such objectively-verifiable sources at this time, please? Thanks very much! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misidentification. One cannot adequately refute something just by asserting that a refutation has occurred. You do not seem to regard the Encyclopedia Britannica as objective proof or as an authoritative voice, but I do. You continue to ignore its statement that "Most frequently, however, the term [i.e., humanism] is used with reference to a system of education and mode of inquiry that developed in northern Italy during the 14th century and later spread through Europe and England." This should have some impact on Wikipedia's idea of how it should frame its opening of the same article, even if it brings new nuances / emphases to light.  Statistics from things like Google's pagerank algorithm can be very misleading with long-used complex terms like humanism and the terms in its allied semantic field.  Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not "refute something just by asserting that a refutation has occurred," as you say. I refuted it by quoting text from the "Current use" section of this page; specifically, the following passage: "If they were common, frequently-used examples of the term 'humanism,' they would appear in best-selling book lists, top responses to searches according to Google's pagerank algorithm, or on top-ranked Alexa websites. They do not, therefore, they represent only a minority opinion here... and every time you cite this section proves only your Confirmation bias and irrelevance to the term 'humanism.'"


 * Consequently, it makes me happy to see you now abandon all the refuted sources, leaving the only one that actually makes a claim to frequency of use. This is progress in our discussion! Thanks! I came into this article assuming that everybody already knew the EB was half a century out of date on this topic. Now that our attention is on it specifically, let's pin that down. Let's answer, among ourselves, "how would we know if the Encyclopedia Britannica was fifty years out of date on this?" How would we check to find out of this is an error on their part? What's your take on that? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disallow the possibility of change of proportion of usage over time. Respected reference works still consulted today, included some cited by OldMan, should be taken into account, as should the difference involved with terms embedded in usage and in books that do not make into the alexa or google algorithms.  The current usage section shows the living, contemporary, widespread impact of the long history of the prior usage.  You want to minimize that into insignificance, quite unfairly, I believe. At the very minimum, an explanation of the larger terrain of the concept is needed.  What, tell me, do you really lose by accepting my latest proposed introduction? You still get to have your favored usage, but it will be put into a larger historical context. I do not say anything there that cannot be supported.  How is that not a great improvement over the misleading introduction that is there now?  Wilson Delgado (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The introduction does a fine job of introducing a CONCEPT, if not the etymology and historical use of a specific WORD. This is a difference of approaches that is actually specified by the WP:DICTIONARY policy. Allow me to say, if we were working together on Wiktionary, you and I, we would probably have very little to disagree about! You'd find it very, very easy to reach consensus with me. However, your continued efforts here always make me wonder why you don't contribute to the Humanities article, as this seems to be where your interest lies, and this is the CONCEPT (if not the word) that drives all your suggested edits so far. I think your intentions are okay; I just think your actions based on them are just not appropriate for this particular outlet. Otherwise, you'd have me in agreement with you! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't go over to the humanities article because I was more concerned about people being misled by the humanism one. I just gave that a priority.  Yours is not a bad suggestion. I just have limited time and focus. Wilson Delgado (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)