Talk:Humanism/Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022
In the section Geographies of humanism, the paragraph under the subheading United States contains some minor spelling and grammar errors (e.g., see bold tagging below).

In the United States, constitution was shaped by humanistic ideas endorsed as part of the Enlightenment of the first presidents of the United States, but did not go far enough to tackle gender and race inequality issues.[131] Black community (change to communities) experiencing injustice leaned towards atheism in the 20th Century. Lately, many black organisations (change to organizations) rejecting theism or having a humanistic related agenda are loosely connected within the Black Lives Matter movement.[132] Humanism is (change to in) Latin America is hard to detect mainly because of the dominance of Catholicism and Protestantism.[133] European positivism had influenced the thought of scholars and political leaders in Latin America during the 19th century but its influences waved at the next century.[134] Black literature reveal the quest for freedom and justice in a community often subordinated to white dominance.[135] In the (omit the) recent years, humanist organizations have multiplied in Latin America.[133] Nomdeinterweb (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you both, these were my mistakes.Cinadon36 08:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why we're all here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022
move this part "Starting in the 20th century, humanist movements have typically been non-religious and aligned with secularism. Most frequently, humanism refers to a nontheistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. Humanists tend to advocate for human rights, free speech, progressive policies, and democracy. Those with a humanist worldview maintain religion is not a precondition of morality, and object to excessive religious entanglement with education and the state. Humans, according to humanists, can shape their own values, and live good and meaningful lives" to a lower paragraph. CrocoDIilios (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Historical Errors
This Article often Quotes Verbatim various Secular Humanist Publications, and repeats the Materials that are Designed to Promote Humanism. It does this as a Matter of Fact.

It also makes Rather Obvious Historical Errors, such as Claiming this.

"Thales' pupils Anaximander and Anaximenes said nature is available to be studied separately from the supernatural realm.[12]"

This is not only Not True, it is a Comedy of Errors. We do not even have much Surviving from Anaximander or Anaximenes of Miletus. What We do have from them or others Who Addressed His Ideas say Nothing like this. They actually Discuss a Cosmological Order Created by the gods and following patterns eventually Stabilised by Zeus.

Further, While this sounds Strange today, the Concept of The Supernatural did not exist until about The 6th Century AD and this can be proven on The Wikipedia Article on The Supernatural. The Idea Originally Applies Only to God and is Explicitly Christian in Origin.

No Greek Philosopher refers to "The Supernatural Realm" or "A Supernatural realm" and the gods themselves were not Understood as Supernatural.

I also do not Think Protagoras should be Confused for Milesian as He was a Sophist and Sophists were not Milesian. But We can correct that Later.

The account of Protagoras Saying he Knew not if The gods Existed is also Dubious and not Demonstrable. It is an Ancient Claim but comes not from a Fragment of Protagoras but from Writers Centuries Later like Cicero.

Also, Rationalism did not Trace to Ancient Greece. Some ideas that Rationalism developed from came from Ancient Greece, But Rationalism was an Early Modern Philosophical Movement from The 1600's. It also has Deeply Christian Roots yet Christianity is Conspicuously Absent in This Article except as something Humanism opposes or disproves.

In fact, this seems to Comport with the Popular Mythology of modern Militant Atheism that The Christians Destroyed Classical Knowledge and it was The Muslims Who preserved it, and how it was Only Re-Discovered by Christians in The Renaissance. This would be News to Thomas Aquinas or Anselm of Canterbury, Who extensively used Aristotelean Logic. The Eastern Roman Empire also Rather Famously preserved the Works.

And Values like Individualism and Rationality are not "Humanist Values" that Muslims orusued, as if it was Only an Infusion of Humanism that caused this.

I also have to Question using A. C.; Grayling as a Source for this Information as he is Notoriously Anti-Christian and Anti-Theist, and is not a Historian.

Also, Why is Renaissance Humanism conflated with Humanist values as if Modern Humanism is a Direct Development from Renaissance Humanism?

And Why is it not mentioned that Many Renaissance Humanists were Clergy? Or that a lot of the Focus was on a Better Understanding of Translation Methods to Better translate or understand The Bible? Reading This Article you'd Think Humanism emerged fully Independently of Christianity and Renaissance Humanism was huts a prototype of Modern Secular Humanism.

That is of course not the Truth.

Neither is this.

"During the Age of Enlightenment, humanistic ideas resurfaced, this time further from religion and classical literature.[32] Science, reason, and intellectualism advanced, and the mind replaced God as the means with which to understand the world. Divinity was no longer dictating human morals, and humanistic values such tolerance and opposition to slavery started to take shape. Life-changing technological discoveries allowed ordinary people to face religion with a new morality and greater confidence about humankind and its abilities.[32] New philosophical, social, and political ideas appeared. Some thinkers rejected theism outright and various currents were formed; atheism, deism, and hostility to organized religion.[33] Notably during the Enlightenment, Baruch Spinoza redefined God as signifying the totality of nature; Spinoza was accused of atheism but remained silent on the matter.[34] Naturalism was also advanced by prominent Encyclopédistes. Baron d'Holbach wrote the polemic System of Nature, claiming religion is built on fear and helped tyrants through the ages.[35] Diderot and Helvetius also combined their materialism with sharp, political critique.[35]"

Linking Humanism to Rationalism, and being Rational, and Linking Humanism to Advancement and Impro ement, and Religion to Inferiority, Really does seem the Theme of This Polemic.

Spinoza was also not an Atheist. This Article Implies he is, and Lies about Him Remaining Silent on the Question hen Accused of Atheism. He was not Silent. He professed belief in God and Rejected the Claim that he equated God with Nature. Read at least Spinoza's Wikipedia Article. it is as Plain as can Be.

Naturalism is also not a rejection of Theism, or Religion.

Baron d'Holbach also did not say religion is Built on Fear and Helped Tyrants. Indeed, unlike the Biased Humanists Who Write the Humanist Materials that were Composited together to form this supposed Article, He Understood Religion to be Universal and Necessary. He did attack Christianity, or traditional Religious Beliefs, but He never attacked Religion in General. indeed, he said this in His "System Of Nature":

"It necessarily results, that man in his researches ought always to fall back on experience, and natural philosophy : These are what he should consult in his religion—in his morals—in his legislation—in his political government—in the arts—in the sciences—in his pleasures—in his misfortunes, Experience teaches that Nature acts by  simple, uniform, and invariable laws."

He did not say Religion was built on Fear. Or that it Helped Tyrants.

Bacon and Hobbs were also not Materialists in the way This Article says. Hobbs was a Materialist, but not an Atheist, and He believed God was a Material Being.

Hobbs explicitly discusses God Existing several Times in His Works, such as "Elements of Law " Where he uses His Own Version of The Cosmological Argument to Show God Exists. That would be odd if he were an Atheist.

As for bacon, This was taken from His Article on The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"Speaking of himself in an authorial voice, Bacon reflects on the state of science and derives his construction of a research program from the gaps and deficiencies within the system of disciplines: sciences of the future should be examined and further ones should be discovered. Emphasis must be laid on new matter (not on controversies). It is necessary to repudiate superstition, zealous religion, and false authorities. Just as the Fall was not caused by knowledge of nature, but rather by moral knowledge of good and evil, so knowledge of natural philosophy is for Bacon a contribution to the magnifying of God's glory, and, in this way, his plea for the growth of scientific knowledge becomes evident."

he was not an Atheist, either.

The Article did not say thy were but did Imply they were. Given how materiualism is Linked to Humanism and Contrasted to Theism.

Also, According to Tis, using the Word 'Man', in Singular Form, to Refer to All umanity began in The Englithenment as a Result of Humanist Thinking.

"Also during the Enlightenment, the abstract conception of humankind started forming—a critical juncture for the construction of humanist philosophy. Previous appeals to "Men" now shifted towards "Man"; this is evident in political documents like The Social Contract (1762) of Rousseau, in which he says "Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains". Likewise, Thomas Paine's Rights of Man uses the singular form of the word, revealing a universal conception of Man.[36] In parallel, Baconian empiricism—though not humanism per se—paved the way for Thomas Hobbes's materialism.[37]"

The Thing is, This is a Lie.

This is from Etymonline: "Man also was in Old English as an indefinite pronoun, "one, people, they." It was used generically for "the human race, mankind" by c. 1200. As a word of familiar address, originally often implying impatience, c.1400; hence probably its use as an interjection of surprise or emphasis, since Middle English but especially popular from early 20c."

The Bible also uses man, Singular, to Refer to Humanity in English as Early as at least The Tyndale translation. And the Book of Common Prayer if 1549, let alone The 1662, uses i this way. How is it Attributed to The Enlightenment and Humanist values?

The Scientific Revolution was not Really The Same as nor was it dependant on The Enlightwenment.

Oscar Wilde was not a Humanist or a Materialist and was, in fact, a Christian. This is the same Oscar Wilde Who said this.

"[Christianity allows mankind to] grasp at the skirts of the Infinite. Since Christ the dead world has woke up from sleep. Since him we have lived.[3]"

Darwinism is not Specifically Humanist and the whole Advances in Science destroys Religion Narrative needs to be Removed.

There is No Difference between Religious Humanism, which is :now Rarely practiced", and the Non-Religious Life Stance Philosophy of humanism that is.

Religious Humanism is still practiced. It is just not called Religious.

Fowler says Religious Groups like The Wuakerfs use the term but it is Misapplied. Why should We care what Fowler said?

Christian Humanism did not begin in The Late Middle Ages. It began in The 1500's.

Political Humanism is not Marxism.

Does this Sound Unbiased?

"The core elements of humanistic thought are education, reason, individualism, and a strong belief in the universal human nature. Atheism, which is common among humanists, is a byproduct of reason embracing science."

I guess if You believe in God You simply are not rational.

Atheism is not a Byproduct of Reason embracing Science. That is a ridiculous and Incredibly Biased Thing to say.

This is Sheer Nonsense.

"Immanuel Kant provided the underpinning of the humanist narrative. His theory of critical philosophy laid down the foundations the world of knowledge, defending rationalism and grounding it, along with his anthropology (his study of psychology, ethics, and human nature) to the empirical world."

Kant wrote "A Critic of Oure reason: and rejected Rationalism.

He was also The One who formulated what Grew into Transendentalism in The Late 19th Century. His Transcendental schema Doctrine.

Humanism may have Developed from ideas that go back Centuries but Humanism is not Centuries Old.

Utilitarianism is not Humanism.

Comte's Religion of Humanity was not some Minor Detail, and was Directly what Secular Humanism Evolved from.

Also, how can Modern Humanists be said to Reject Moral Relativism if Humanists Think Morality Evolves around a Society and Changes over Time? That is Moral Relativism.

This is from The Wikipedia Article on Moral Relativism.

"Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is a term used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and their own particular cultures. "

This is what This Article says.

"Contemporary humanism considers morality a natural phenomenon that evolves with and around society. Morality is seen as a tool aiming for the flourishing of human rather than a set of doctrines."

So, Modern Humanists are Moral Relativists.

Kierkegaard was not an Atheist.

This Article endlessly Links Humanism to both Atheism and Read on and even goes so Far s to say Atheism is a Byproduct of Reason Embracing Science then says Humanism is Heavily Shaped by Albert Cadmus Who did not Believe in God Or Reason.

Individualism and Personal Freedom do not lead to Liberalism. This is what Conservatives advocate for.

Humanism VS Theocracy? Actign like tis Either Secularism or else Theocracy, with Theocracy beign the Scary Dictatorship, is Absurd.

Humanism is not at odds with Conservatism, Conservatism cannot be reduced to "preserving Traditions", and not all Conservatives are Christians.

And given This Article Says nary a word Negative to Humanism, this is Striking,.

"elements such as xenophobia, bigotry, and animal cruelty are sometimes also part of Christian values."

So in an Article on Humanism, We are Told Humanism never includes Xenophobia or Bigotry or Animal Cruelty but Christianbity sometimes does.

Yes No Bias there...

Was there even a Point to Include that other than to Demoi nise Christianity and to Promote Himanism at its Expense?

Also, Humanism does not Oppose Marxism. Most of the Leading Humanists of the Early to Mid 20th Century were Marxists. And Facism was supported by Several Humanists. And so was Nationalism.

this Article admits that.

Also, MANY Humanists today are Marxcists.

The Geography Section was more Potshots at Christianity and "Religion" as is Defined Here to Exclude Humanism, and now also Attacks Islam. Like calling them Converters who set up Autocracies' in Africa. I bet those Autocrats also beat Animals. Those Christians and Muslims were so Evil. its because they believed a god Exists. That means they followed Religion and thus Hated Things that are Good and Noble. Unlike Humanists.

Even The Critisism Section Praises Humanism as Empathetic, and says Criticism focuses on its Adherents to Human Rights and Call for Empathy. So, No Criticism from Christians is here. I guess those Idiots don't Matter. And I am sure Everyone Agrees Humanists Ahdhere to Human Right's and Stand for Individual Freedom. No One Questions that. its just True.,\

I am sorry, this is a Joke. I'll be back Later to Add a New Criticism Section that is based on Real Critisism.

Humanism is Critisised for its Epistemology, its Overarching Assumptions of Human Nature, its Reliance on Outmoded Concepts of Materialism, and for its Pretext of Individualism whilst Demanding We all Adhere to Specific Ideals.

There are Many Critisisms of Humanism, and the Critics do not Agree Humanists Adhere to Human Rights an Freedom.

Tony Davies said Karl Marx said Humanism was a Bourgeoisie Project. Did Marx Really say this though? If so, where?

The Artic;e is now Protected? I can't Edit it?

Look, I am not a CVandal. This Article is Biased. It clearly is Written as Humanist Propoganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKWills (talk • contribs) 08:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You don't mention everything
you write: "prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism)"

Critical thinking is very generic without a framing method because it includes philosophical reasoning based on common sense; and we know form facts than neuroscience, astrophysics and in general science, isn't usually explainable with common sense. As a matter of fact common sense leads to mistakes if the question is about an intricate issue.

The two important methods of safe reasoning are:


 * 1) scientific empiricism: observational data, because lay-empiricism includes hallucination and intoxication not recorded from the side of the scientist
 * 2) rigorous mathematical proofs; if possible metalogically causal (the mere collage of formulas is gerrymandering; the formulas should be causally linked and not a biased fabrication)

Humanism evolves, and is linked to the evolution of humanity and philosophy. Be fair. Write "old" and "new" values. It's a lie to claim that old humanists have the same non-evolving values with the modern ones. Write that the main idea is the same, but refined, because the philosophical evolution and the notional/conceptual evolution of humanity are components of humanism. Humanism isn't statistic (humanity isn't statistic; thus by definition humanism isn't also). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKWills (talk • contribs)


 * Couldn't spot the sentence in the current version. Cinadon36 11:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Humanism As Religion
I made a very Mil Revision. Instead of Humanism is Non-Religious, I said it Claims to be Non-Religious. I did so because, while I Recognise Most Humanists today prefer to View their Beleifs as Non-Religious, and as an Alternative to Religion, there is No Clear Reason to make a Distinction between The philosophy we call Humanism an Religion. Especially since The First Humanist Manifesto calls Humanism a Religion, and since Humanism, the Philosophy, came out of Auguste Compte's Religion Of Humanity.

I get that its Popular to Think a Religion needs a go or gods and the Supernatural, but Even Wikipedia's other Articles Contradict the idea that this is the case, and The Article on Religion use to until it apparently Angered people. Still, there is an Article on Secular Religion, which I Quote here.

"A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities. Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are capitalism, nationalism, internationalism, Nazism, fascism, feminism, communism, Maoism, Juche, progressivism, transhumanism, Religion of Humanity, Jacobinism, and the Cult of Reason and Cult of the Supreme Being that developed after the French Revolution."

Humanism Qualifies as a Religion under Many Definitions, which should be Mentioned.

SKWills (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for bringing this at Talk page. WP is based on what Reliable Sources are saying (See Reliable sources). What do modern scholars say about humanism, that is the question. I see that you are making a point based on your reasoning, but this is not how we edit WP. Cinadon36 18:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not make a Statement based on My Own Reasoning. I even said The Wikipedia article on Religion Contradicts what was said. And Modern Scholars do not say Religion Requires belief in a god. Humanists today may say this so they can Claim their Philosophy is not a Religion, but some Christians say Their Beliefs are not religion either, but I doubt You'd Approve of Editing the Christianity Page and removing calling it a Religion.
 * Further, the First Ever Humanist Manifesto says Humanism is a Religion. That is, The Humanist Manifesto 1, from 1933.
 * Here, for example, from The First Part of The Manifesto.
 * Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.
 * Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:
 * The Various articles also Contain references to Humanism as a Religion.
 * Humanism was Considered a Religion Historically, and Continues to be Considered a Religion. Even some Humanists say this. SKWills (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Article is reflecting what contemporary RS on humanism are saying. Cinadon36 11:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

About a sentence
THIS IS SUBLITERATE NONSENSE: "Humanism is defined as a champion of human freedom and dignity" Not encyclopedic in tone to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * That part of the sentence is problematic but all of the sentence is not that bad. "Humanism is defined as a champion of human freedom and dignity but it is linked to oppression through it being a byproduct of modernity". It should be worded better though, I agree. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 05:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 21:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're writing such incoherent sentences to begin with, perhaps you need to find a more suitable hobby than editing Wikipedia. There are a few other grammatical problems in that paragraph alone. Palm Puree (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Feel free to make a contribution yourself rather than whining about it on the talk page. Moozipan Cheese (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Vandals are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. This guy is not fluent in English. Look over his edits closely and you might understand where I'm coming from, they're practically vandalism if you try to read them closely, but they look okay at first glance so seem to be flying under the radar.
 * Here's an example from a different page, every single paragraph he's added in this edit has multiple grammatical errors that are glaring to any native speaker. I think it's also pretty unlikely he has a good understanding of the sources he's citing. Palm Puree (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Focus on the article please. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 05:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to be impolite but someone has to point out the elephant in the room, namely your habit of squatting on certain pages and repeatedly adding barely readable content. Palm Puree (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You do have a point that article needs improvement. So, I just listed it for goodwilled WP editors to help. . If you have a thing with me, you can go to the ANI and tell them what you think the problem is. If you dont, and keep being impolite, I will go to ANI and say you are harassing me, coz that is the way I feel. Also, I plan to continue editing WP. I like it alot and I have helped, to improve many articles. I am proud of my work here. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 14:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE/WP:NOTESSAY issues
So I came across this article as part of the GOCE drive, and it's gonna need significant work before it is ready for a copyedit or any sort of GAN. Basically, massive parts of the article are inappropriately written in wikivoice and I have concerns that the article skews extremely positive in its coverage of humanism. I appreciate the source work that @Cinadon36 has done here (this was the version before they began rewriting the article) but this reads like an essay, rather than a Wikipedia article: Basically, this article reads like a endorsement of humanism, rather than encyclopedic coverage of a philosophy. Every one of the sentences I just listed--and many more I didn't--needs to be attributed to a source and made clear that this is the humanist position, not an objective fact. I'm leaving this message so that Cinadon, who hopefully has most of these sources still, can work on attribution. If not though I would be removing significant chunks of this article wholesale. Alyo (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 23:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Modern day humanism stands for human freedom, autonomy, and progress. -- if this was a product, I'd immediately remove this as advertising
 * While very few people identify as humanists, many more rely on logic and science, not holy scriptures, to build up their worldview and make daily decisions about their lives -- inappropriate dig at religion
 * Themes
 * Humanism is a naturalistic philosophy—it rejects gods, angels, immortal souls, and all supernatural phenomena. The universe is natural and can be studied by science. -- inappropriate wikivoice in second sentence
 * On the other hand, traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short. The ontological argument (roughly, that God exists because we can think of him) lacks empirical evidence, and seemingly lacks understanding of reality. -- wildly inappropriate wikivoice
 * The teleological argument (or argument from design) has been eliminated by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. -- see above
 * A more popular cause of religious belief is personal experience—which is also problematic, because personal experiences are vague and subject to interpretation, and wishful thinking might also lead the way to desired conclusions. -- see above
 * Humanism is at odds with conservatism, which relies on long‐standing traditions, and tries to preserve Christian values: elements such as xenophobia, bigotry, and animal cruelty are sometimes also part of Christian values. -- NPOV
 * Geographies of humanism
 * In the Analects of Confucius, humanist features are apparent; respectfulness, reasonableness, kindness, and enthusiasm for learning. -- NPOV, inappropriate wikivoice
 * Black communities experiencing injustice leaned towards atheism in the 20th Century. -- really gonna need a source for that


 * @SKWills was largely correct above in their comments, despite the bad way they went about it. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 23:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I get that you do not like some parts, we can discuss them. Some issues that you point out, were already concerns of mine; since I am pro-humanism, I was aware that something like that might occur. So, most of those points you make, I feel are not a real issue per  WP:YESPOV. I will try to address them separately, each one in a new sub-section. It might take a while. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 04:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think WP:YESPOV/WP:WIKIVOICE means, but it does not mean that the points I make are not a real issue. Look at the example in the first bullet of that section: an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." You and I most certainly agree that genocide is evil, but we still cannot say "genocide is evil" in wikivoice. Rather, we must attribute that opinion to someone. That's what needs to happen here. This edit is an example of what I'm saying needs to happen throughout the entire article. Additionally, I hope you realize that I only pulled out a few examples to make my point. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Well, I feel you do have a valid point but I am not sure to what extend you are right. It is plain wrong to make assertations on badness or goodness, as WikiVoice. If I have done so, I will attribute the claim. But in cases of widespread acceptance of a fact, (ie that traditional arguments arent popular any more) I wont. It is a different issue. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 14:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, if A, B, and C (all RS) say that the sky is blue, (being blue is a matter of perception), then we can say that "The sky is blue[source]", while "According to A, B and C, the sky is blue[sources]" would be inappropriate. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 14:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a different issue. You, probably because of your familiarity with humanist literature, believe that those statements are objective facts. They are not. I'm putting this very plainly--in almost every sentence of this article, and particularly those dealing with the values of humanism, the statements need to be attributed to the source. I mean heck, I don't even understand how you're making the argument that "traditional arguments aren't popular" when it seems very clear to me that the sources are only saying that in the context of academic/theological justifications for religion. It is very obvious that at a more general level, traditional arguments for god are incredibly popular, based on the sheer number of people still in organized religion.
 * It also worries me that you're equating religious arguments with the sky being blue. If you can't see how those are different then I'm very worried about your ability to edit this article fairly in the future. As far as wikipedia is concerned, almost nothing in this article is an accepted fact at the same level of the sky being blue. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also worried on you having an opinion without reading the sources and be so willingly to start deleting. Article should reflect sources and it does. Sources are reliable. There are plenty of authors stating that traditional arguments are failing. Instead of lecturing, why wont you find a couple of Sources (on the topic) that state otherwise? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 14:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of authors stating that traditional arguments are failing -- then say that those authors said that. You cannot just say their conclusion. I don't need to read the sources to know that the content in the article is inappropriate. Please, read WP:WIKIVOICE and then explain to me how the policy--not the sources--allows you to say "traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short". Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, when lots of reliable authors saying p and no one is saying not-p, then we can say p in wikivoice. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 15:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Naturalism

 * Naturalism. I have made this edit ( Humanism is a naturalistic philosophy—it rejects gods, angels, immortal souls, and all supernatural phenomena: for humanism, the universe is natural and can be studied by science, to watering the claim down. Hope now it is ok. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 06:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Traditional arguments
Well, I am not quite sure were your objection is. Lets say it is in the first sentence. Traditional arguments of religion, are not popular these times.(That 's why they are called traditional). Per source: I shall look first, very briefly, at the traditional classic arguments for the existence of a god. There is an enormous literature dealing with them, and what I have to say will be perfunctory and will not add anything new, but it is an integral part of my case for humanism and I need to say it. Many modern religious believers and many theologians tend to dismiss these traditional arguments. Of course, they say, no one now relies on them; it is accepted that religious belief cannot be based simply on rational argument, and has to be understood in quite different terms. Per source, p26, cited. (Norman, On Humanism). As far as I remember, reading elsewhere (The Cambridge Companion on Atheism), theistic arguments have moved. So I do think, the statement in the article reflects RS. Maybe should be reworded? What about this --->Traditional arguments are...not convincing(?)- Please feel free to make suggestions (of course you are more than welcomed to edit the article directly). <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Before I start editing the article and wholesale deleting passages because I don't have access to sources, I'm trying to help you understand what the issue is. On the other hand, traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short is a statement of fact made in wikivoice. That's not acceptable. However, if you say Influential humanists such as Stephen Law and Richard Gale argue that traditional arguments for the existence of God fall short[source 1][source 2], that's completely fine. Do you see the difference? Alyo (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, prof Stephen Law, at Humanism, a very short introduction by OUP, writes something similar (albeit, not the same). It is the Conclusion at Chapter 2 "Arguments for the existence of God". " Conclusion In this chapter, we have looked at examples of two kinds of argument widely considered to provide belief in God with a fair degree of rational support: cosmological arguments and arguments from design. On closer examination, the arguments examined turned out to support, at the very most, only the claim that there exists some sort of intelligence, or perhaps a necessarily-existing-something-or-other, behind the universe (and I believe we have seen good reason to suppose they fail to achieve even this much). It is, in each case, on the basis of the argument presented, a huge and unjustified further leap to the conclusion that this intelligence is, say, the God of traditional monotheism" <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There it is, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism by Michael Martin, Publisher:Cambridge University Press, there is the chapter titled 5 - The Failure of Classical Theistic Arguments, authored by Richard M. Gale  . You can have a look what it says or how it goes on. In any case, I think the first sentence is supported strongly by bibliography but I wouldnt mind toning it down somehow. As I said earlier, feel free to make suggestions or edit the article. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I hope you wont start deleting the article, without having knowledge of the sources. How can anyone do such a thing? In any case, I can provide you with the source, and edit the article as you wish- I wont mind. Now on your suggestion, we shouldnt make attribution if there is general acceptance of a statement, but I wont mind your wording, even though I prefer mine. Traditional arguments have failed, but there are ...lets say new ones (that are more complex tbh). Final point: Please ask for sources, and you shall have them. Then edit. Dont delete just because it doesnt sound right. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 14:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be honest, I don't have the time to read dozens of books and articles about humanism in order to double-check your additions. I'm hoping you will do that, both as someone who is clearly passionate about the topic and also has the sources. If not, I would have to advocate for a return of the page to this, before you started editing. Again, all I'm asking is that the statements about the values of humanism be attributed to the author. If that just means for now you saying "According to X" at the beginning of each sentence, that would be a great start. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, you do not have time to read the sources but you want to backroll the entire article? That doesnt sound correct. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 14:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The first option takes days/weeks, the other takes two seconds. Yes, that's correct. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The second option is totally out of discussion. The previous article had many problems. It sounds as I threat: if you do not bow to what I say, I will wipe out the entire work you have done. This version is much better (it needs copy/editing), maybe needs attribution in some points, and I will be happy to work with you to fix it. But in order to work on this issue, you have to read the sources. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 15:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then please start attributing the claims. You added them--you have the burden to make sure they are correct and follow wikipedia policy. Otherwise I have no other choice but to remove some of your additions. I simply don't have the time to read Humanism. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will but it might take some time. Give me a week. Here is a deal: If I do a good job, agree to do the copy/editing? If you do not like it, roll it back. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 15:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Or two weeks. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 15:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Or we can do it section by section. That would be better. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 15:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'm happy to wait. I just want to make sure you understand what the issue is. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I get what your issue is, I just do not agree entirly on your perspective. I think we can employ wikivoice making statements in a more liberal way than you say/want (see my arguments above). In any case, I will edit the article having in mind your objection(s). I think the article will benefit from your critical stance. Lets see. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 15:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want a second (third?) opinion, you're welcome to ask at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will do it later, but to tell you the truth, since we have reached an agreement on how to go forward, since I have so much work to do, and since noticeboards are for users who cant find a solution at the talk page of the article, I hesitate. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 15:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Towards a new version

 * , Are you ok with the section of Etymology and definition? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 20:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Just completed History section. Any comments? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 04:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your edits are good :) I haven't done a full read but I also think that the history section, because it's more descriptive/objective, should require less changes than some of the other sections. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 04:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Bravo to Cinadon36 for all of their work here. I came to the page looking (with little optimism) for a section on Chinese philosophy and was happy to find it. The content on Confucianism seems all correct and to the point, and it is nice that Mencius is mentioned, but its worth looking into Neo-Confucianism in regards to Humanism as well. I've made some minor corrections; junzi for instance is not really a quality someone can obtain but a role they can assume, almost like become a "saint" or "sage", though it is often over-simplified and translated as "gentleman". The second paragraph of the East Asia section is a little strange, given that both points seem to have already been made. On this topic though, it seems like a lost opportunity to not expand on Buddhism, given its central relevance throughout history and the contemporary world.  Aza24  (talk)   08:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your nice words and your edits. I am going through the article for one more time and I will try to address the issues you raise regarding East Asia section and Buddhism. I will let you know (at your talk page) so you can check for any inaccuracies etc. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 11:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Variates of humanism, fixed. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 13:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Philosophy. . This section might be a little controversial and I would like your input. At the previous version, while all statements were based on RS, some readers might find it as an advertisment. Having in mind the essay Criticism, I decided to transfer the text from the section criticism this section, since criticism was mostly philosophical I hope that fixes it. Your thoughts please. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 18:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I could see both sides. On the one hand, I see your point about the philosophy section being too positive. On the other hand, I would think that humanism was a big enough topic in philosophy to have it's own dedicated "criticism" section, sort of like Pragmatism, Postmodernism, Marxism, or Existentialism. The only thing that would sway me towards having it in its own section would be that then the criticism section could be expanded beyond just philosophical criticisms, perhaps to include more social concerns and invite other editors to expand the article in other ways? But I'm also less familiar with the available material than you are--what do you think? Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 20:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell: I will try to move parts of the philosophical criticism to other parts of the article, as I move forward. Longer version: Thanks for the interesting examples of other articles. I am well aware of many more cases where a "criticism" section is added to the article. I am also perplexed on this issue. But I lean towards not having a section on criticism. I think, having criticism spread through the article facilitates comprehending the narrative better. Almost all books on humanism discuss "pro-humanism" and "anti-humanism" arguments/views in various chapters. Albeit, the best book (in my humble opinion), Penn's The Oxford Handbook of Humanism (2019) has a dedicated chapter on criticism. Nevertheless, it also discusses criticism of humanism in other chapters. So, I am thinking: "follow the sources". Having said all these, I acknowledge that the current version of the article is somewhere in the middle ground. The section on criticism has become a subsection. Not much of a change, is it? Anyway, my intention is to move parts of the criticism, where appropriate to other sections. I will see the end result and revisit this issue. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 21:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Humanism and morality, re-written. . Two lines of criticism are in place, along with their responses. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Humanism and religion- re-written. . The reason of doing so, I thought the previous version was not explaining the (rather hostile) relation too well. I feel now it is better. I relied heavily on Oxf Handbook of humanism. All sentences but the first one, are attributed. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 18:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Humanism and the meaning of life, I leave it as it stands. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 19:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Humanism and politics, done. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On African American abandoning theism, claim attributed.
 * Lead. Reinserted modified sentence but then removed a part cos it is prob. undue
 * On Confucius, attributed.

Your comments please.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 18:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not following every single edit, but what I've seen seems to consistently be good improvements. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 18:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Would you then reconsider the Essay-like template? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 12:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you've finished your updates, and I'll do another full read-through and start my own edits. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 13:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I am done, the ball is in your hands now. If you need anything (sources, chat or whatever), let me know. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 14:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll look at it between now and this weekend. And yes, I'm sure that I'll ask for some source excerpts. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Humanism And Religion Bias
I Removed this Section. I did so because it Reads like a Promotion of Humanism not an Encyclopedia Article about Humanism. It did not even Discuss Humanisms Relationship to Religion, but Rather simply listed Popular Arguments used to Justify rejection Religion in Favour of Humanism, and Cites Victor Stenger and other Militant Atheist Sources. What does saying The Argument From Aesthetics doesn't Convince People have to do with Explaining what Humanism is?

I quote the Part I deleted below. Then I Will respond.

"Humanism and religion

Humanism is a naturalistic philosophy—it rejects gods, angels, immortal souls, and all supernatural phenomena. The universe is natural and can be studied by science.[89] While opposition to the various forms of theism might come from many philosophical or historical domains, the most convincing argument in terms of public opinion is naturalism."

According to Who? And Why should it matter what the most Convincing Argument in Terms of Public Opinion is? This sounds more like a Promotion of Humanism and Why it should Be Chosen instead of Religion. Of Course, Humanism is not a Religion. Saying that is Offensive and, Apparently, is Me using My Own Reasoning. But, this is simply reporting a Fact?

Also, Why is The Article Conflating Theism to Religion? And Why is it Presenting Theism, and thus Religion, which are presented as Synonymous, as Opposite Naturalism as if Naturalism is an Alternative to Theism? One can be a Naturalist and still be a Theist.

Wikipedia has an Admittedly Poor Article on Naturalistic Theism, and other Views such as Process Theology. Not all Theism is Supernatural.

Then there's this Gem.

"Historical arguments fail to convince the public because historical research is often open to interpretation.[90]"

The Public is not Overwhelmingly Humanist. I also Fail to see what "Convincing The Public" has to do with what Humanism is or its relationship to Religion. This, again, seems like a Promotional Advertisement for Humanism, not an Article about Humanism.

"For similar reasons, large parts of the population are unconvinced by arguments based on aesthetics (classical literature touches human souls more than holy scriptures)"

Isn't it Purely Subjective to say Classical Literature Touches Human Souls more than Holy Scriptures? Why is this Passed off as a Fact?

"or ethics (religion's history on slavery, gay rights, racism).[89]"

Religion has No History. Religion is a Category, not this One thing that Actually Exists. And Honestly, Why is This Article saying Religion has a History of Slavery, Gay Rights, and Racism? How does that Explain the Relationship between Humeanism and Religion? It seems it is saying The Public rejects Religion due to its Support for Slavery,for its Opposition to Gay Rights, and for its History of Racism which is Polemic and incredibly Biased.

Especially given it makes No Effort to Counterbalance by either Noting "Religion" also has a History of Opposing Slavery, and how The Abolition Movement was Started by Christians, or how Racism was also Opposed by Various Religious Groups. Even Gay Rights have been Supported by Various Religious Groups, including Christian Ones. And this is Playing by the Imposed Rules of Viewing Humanism as "Not being Religious".

This Article Acts as if religion Promotes these bad Things and Humanism,which is the Opposite of Religion, rejects them.

Which also Ignores the History of Atheistic Philosophy, Including Humanism, and how Slavery and Racism have been Advocated for by Atheistic Groups that serve as Precursors to Modern Humanism. Eugenics, for example, was Promoted by Secularist and Humanist Organizations, and so was Scientific Racialist Theories. Gay Rights were even Opposed by them Historically.

The Article is simply Ignoring this. All of which can be discovered in the Articles on Eugenics ot looking up Articles on Eugenicists.

"Driven by the successes of science and technology, naturalistic arguments gain prominence in public opinion.[91]"

This is not true. Humanism is not Synonymous with Science, nor is Religion opposed to Science, and Naturalism is neither the Antithesis of Religion nor is it necessarily Tied to Scientific or technological Advancement.

"On the other hand, traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short."

This is not the Other Hand. Its the same Hand. And Why is Wikipedia saying Traditional Arguments for The Existence of God are falling apart? Is that a neutral Assessment?

"The ontological argument (roughly, that God exists because we can think of him)"

The Ontological Argument is not 'God exists because We can Think of Him'.

"lacks empirical evidence, and seemingly lacks understanding of reality."

This is what I mean. This is a Polemic, not an Article. It is an Effort to get the Reader to Reject the Ontological Argument and other Arguments for the Existence of God. That is not Explaining in a Neutral and Unbiased Manner Humanism and its relationship to Religion.

"The cosmological argument (God as the necessary first cause) also doesn't prove God's existence since other causes, or prime movers (physical entities, mass, energy, or something else) might have been the cause of the universe."

Is this Article about Humanism? or Why Theism is wrong and We should all be Atheists?

"The teleological argument (or argument from design) has been eliminated by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection."

Has it? Because the Last time I checked, One can Believe in evolution and Still Think The Argument By design if Valid. I'd also like to Cite the Existence of Creationists today. I am not a Creationist. I am however Annoyed by this Article's Favouratism.

"However, the failure of rational arguments to prove God's existence does not prove God's non-existence.[92]"

This is as Close to Unbiased as it gets. But the Attacks on Theism and the Dismissal of Arguments for God's Existence don;t show there to be a Failure of Rational Aruments, as they are Strawman version of them.

"A more popular cause of religious belief is personal experience—which is also problematic, because personal experiences are vague and subject to interpretation, and wishful thinking might also lead the way to desired conclusions.[93]"

There is No Basis for saying this is Popular or to Care. Popularity is not Really the Issue here. And just because Richard Normal or some other Humanist find something Problematic doesn't mean it is. This is an Opinion, not a Fact.

"While humanism was founded as antithetic to religious establishments,"

This is actually a Lie. When Humanism was Founded, it called itself a Religion. And set up its own Religious Establishments. The Humanist Manifesto 1933 makes this Very Clear and I have Quoted it.

Indeed, the Distinction between The Sacred and The Secular cannot be Maintained.

"religious views are not totally incompatible with humanism"

The Views of Humanism are Religious.

"Many deists, for example (such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltaire, Thomas Paine), had views resonating with a humanistic approach to life—since (for deists)"

Which is an Effort to Link them to Humanism. But, they were not Humanists. They Lived before Humanism came to be.

Also, Religious does not mean beleives a god Exists. That is Theism. Theism and religion are not Synonyms.

"God does not interfere with our daily life or give commands, they can espouse a humanistic perspective.[94]"

This does not Really mean Anything. its an effort to Win People over to Humanism by saying You can Believe in God if You Must, just do not believe in an Interventionist God. This is a Typical Secularist Argument, but it is Shallow. They call Theism a belief in an Interventionist God, and posit Deism as Distinct from Theism. Its not. Really Deism is a form of Theism.

"Also, many humanists have an anthropological interest in religions—how they evolved, matured, affect morality, and other features of the human condition.[95]""

Which is not Relevant to explaining what Humanism is and its relationship to Religion.

This Section is as I said, a Polemic. it is not Unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKWills (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thanks for contribution. Pls sign yr comments. This section is covered in detail in books on humanism. Therefor it does have a place in the article. More, later today ot tomorrow.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 05:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * All the Books on Humanism are By Humanists and were Written to Convert You to Humanism. The Books By A C Grayling or Fowler or Davies are Purely Humanist Books Written to promote the Humanist Religion. And it is a Religion.
 * I mean, Come on, am i supposed to Think even the Critics of Humanism Think Humanists Stand for Individual Eights and Freedom? Am I really supposed to Think that that Crack about how Xenophobia, Bigoty, and Animal Abuse being Present in Christianity was in Any Way Beneficial in explaining Humanism and is not just a Cheap Attack on Christians? Am i supposed to Pretend All Conservatives want to promote tradition for traditions Sake and Christian Values? These aren't Facts, and I simply do not Care what Humanist books said about the Critisism of Humanism. you did not go to Any Actual Critic of Humanism to get the Critisim of Humanism. you went to Humanist books to get the Criticism of Humanism.
 * I am not going to pretend Humanism is Centuries old, and goes back to Greek Philosophy. Nor am i going to pretend The Religion of Humanist was not very Inflectional wen We;d not even Have Secular Humanism today if not for The Religion of Humanity. I am not going to pretend Kant was a Rationalist who supported Humanist Values. I am Certainly not going to pretend Individualism and Reason are Specifically Humanist Values so Anyone who Promoted them was a Humanist. Or that Christian Humanism began in The Middle Ages.
 * I also won't Pretend Atheism is a Byproduct of Reason Embracing Science. Do You even Know how Insulting that is? You are basically slaying if You believe in God You are not Rational and Reject Science. And since You equate Religion to Theism, Anyone Who is Religious is Irrational. Do You Really Think that comes off as Nonbiased?
 * We have to Define Religion the way YOU chose to define it. we have to Accept that Humanists are Rational. We have to Accept that Humanism is not a Religion. Ae have to Accept that Religion is Irrational. We have to pretend Humanism is all about Freedom and Individual Rights. Ae have to pretend Conservatives reject Individual Rights.
 * None of that I am willing to do.
 * This Article even says Immanuel Kant advocated for Rationalism. Kant Write A Critique of Pure Reason where He rejected Rationalism. And yet because a Humanist Book by Fowler or Davies said He Promoted Rationalism it has to Remain in this Article and Accepted as True?
 * Rights is not an Article on Humanism, it is a Pamphlet Trying to get You to Convert to Humanism, and on the Side Promotes Hatred and rejection of Christianity and to a Degree Islam.
 * This Article is a Bad Joke. You just Blindly Believe without Evidence whatever Humanist Books Tell You about Humanism, and even Derive the Criticism Section from Humanist Books.
 * That is Horrifically Biased and One Sided.
 * its like if The Article on Christianity used Exclusively Chick Tracts as a Source.

SKWills (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * All books are RS. You raised a lot of issues. Can you point to a book you think it should be excluded? All those arguments, you say are irrelevant to humanism, they are included in those reliable books. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 11:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Content aside, there are many grammatical issues in the article which could do with being corrected. I would like to be able to edit for this reason. Eadavies (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there @Eadavies, you are more than welcome to edit the article. As you can see from the bottom of this page, I'm also doing a top-to-bottom copyedit right now. However, I welcome other contributions. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 17:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You could also add "Humanistic Judaism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Judaism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.242.137 (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, that is a valid example but I think we should include prominent examples when mentioned in RS discussing Humanism. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 17:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Etymology and definition
Alyo (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 13:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Defining humanism reveals the controversy surrounding humanism" is a little unclear--what controversy? Can you rephrase what this sentence is trying to convey, and we can rewrite it? Is the controversy just that there's no clear accepted definition of humanism?
 * I removed the last line of the Hook definition because it's clunky, but let me know if you think that's important and we can re-add it, although it may need to rephrase the sentence so it flows better.


 * Yes, there is not a consensus on the definition- but you are right, "controversy" is probable an overstatement. No, Hook's definition is not that important. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 03:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cinadon36 Do you want to rephrase it to say something else about there not being consensus on the definition? Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure, I will, but maybe on Monday.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 15:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No rush! I created this section so that we can work on different things at different times. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, here it is how I have re-worded the specific sentence. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Humanism

 * I added some cite tags to this section, but on the whole I would just say to make sure that the sources say that, for example, Protagoras was making proto-humanist statements, or that there's a direct line of connection between Socrates and later humanism. The quotes themselves don't need citations, but this article is making an argument that they represent early humanist thought, or at least that there's a connection between these quotes and later humanism--and that needs a citation. If a source doesn't say that Epicurus or eudaimonia is connected to humanism, then why is it mentioned at all, right? So just make sure those sources are doing that connection. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 16:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your edits and comments. Sometimes, I do not add a ref at the end of every sentence, I add it at the the end of the next sentence or at the end of a paragraph. I remember reading that connection somewhere, I am sure I will find it. Almost all RS on humanism treat Protagoras in the same fashion. I will go slow, it might take me a week or so. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I assumed you were doing--in general that's ok, but since so many of your sources are offline and the reviewer can't immediately check them, you will help yourself a lot in a future GAR if you add more footnotes. The other factor here is that some of these sentences are very big in what ideas they convey. For example seems true as I read the section and I'm sure is backed up by the book, but it's also a very notable statement about one group of philosophers being the first to explain the world a certain way--I think that's important enough that we should have a footnote for it.  Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not keen on adding footnotes. It is like hiding text in small corners. Also it aesthetically, they are somehow problematic. I understand though, this is a matter of taste. In any case, if it is going to help with GAR, I will do it. About Pre-socratics now, it is a widely accepted claim, I am sure there is plenty of evidence but what exactly should I add? as a |ps= or [note1]? And should I just add the text from the book I read +/- a very short comment? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I say footnotes I just use that as a synonym for a citations--I don't mean an explanatory footnote with text. If you don't want to add text in footnotes I'm completely fine with that. Unless you are making very extreme claims, most reviewers will assume good faith about you inserting a citation, and they will trust you that it backs up the sentence. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 16:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I had already prepared this edit, so tell me what you think. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 18:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's great, but yes, I apologize for not being more clear--I didn't mean that you needed to type up content from each source into a footnote. Just the "Law 2011" or "Curd 2020" might be sufficient. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 22:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 06:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The connection of the ancient greek thought and contemporary humanism, is well established in various RS. For example,
 * Corlis Lamont (1997)- p68 The Humanist viewpoint permeated much of Greek culture during the Periclean Age
 * AC Grayling, Handbook of Humanism (2015) p87: "Despite the fact that the word ‘humanism’ has a short history, relatively speaking, its contemporary meaning relates it to the ethical tradition begun in classical antiquity".
 * Soffer 550: Heidegger, Humanism, and the Destruction of History, Author(s): Gail Soffer Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Mar., 1996), pp. 547-576 "Yet in the first instance, for Heidegger "humanism" retains its wholly traditional his torical reference: the movement to retrieve the literary and artistic heritage of ancient Greece and Rome, and to establish study of the classics as an educative ideal, a movement begun in the Renaissance and still effective in Heidegger's own day in, for example, the institu tion of the humanistic Gymnasium."
 * J.Brent Crosson, The Oxford Handbook of Humanism: "The story of Humanism is also told as an insular European story of the reawakening of the knowledge of Ancient Greece"
 * Stephen Law: "But perhaps the most important Ancient Greek philosopher, from the point of view of humanism, is Epicurus (341–271 BC)" Law dedicates 6 pages in discussing classical thought in History Section of humanism A Very Short Introduction.

The above list is not a complete. Other authors discuss specific preSocratic (mostly Protagoras) or classical philosophers. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it over the weekend, maybe we should add a phrase or a sentence on this. It seems more important that the rest of the text! :) <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How about adding this sentence ? "It is a widespread view among scholars that the humanistic feutures of ancient Greek thought are the roots of humanism two thousand years later."  What do you think? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 20:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So the only thing here is that if you're going to have the word "widespread", you need to have a source that actually says "this is a widespread view". It's not enough to just have multiple scholarly sources that draw that conclusion, because in theory all the other sources could say something different. However, you could also say "it's a repeated view" or "many scholars hold the view" or something similar, and then just cite the various authors you have? Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 21:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * TBH, initially I thought the statement is strong enough to be added as a WP VOICE per WP:YESPOV I have never met/read anyone who claims otherwise. It is not a debatable issue. I didn't used a WP VOICE coz, it is still a view, not a fact. (But someone could argue: A shared opinion by many scientists, should be treated as a fact) In any case, I am not opposing your suggestion, I have changed the word "widespread" to "repeated" which I think is quite ok, I am happy with it. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the part about "Avoid stating facts as opinions"? I understand how you can read that, but you need to look at the overall message of that section and compare how little of that policy talks about stating facts without attribution (three sentences) versus the general need to be very careful with any statement and make sure it's correctly attributed (everything else). Based on my experience, while that sentence may be fine for general editing, I think you're overestimating how much credit you'll get with YESPOV at peer review processes where everything's held to a higher standard, especially for this sort of general knowledge article. You should assume that if a statement requires any level of expertise to "know", then it's not as obvious as YESPOV is meant for. I'm a professional with multiple degrees--if I don't know it, then I don't think it rises to the sort of "sky is blue" level. On the other hand, if it's so truly that obvious to people in that profession, then hopefully it's at least easy to verify in some way? But yes I think "repeated" or even "common" is perfectly fine based on this sourcing. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 16:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My take is that if there is a consensus among all experts of a field, then I take a YESPOV approach while editing WP. If there is consensus minus one expert, then it is not YESPOV. Anyway, your suggestion was a nice solution, thanks again. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 06:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Renaissance

 * -- Can you expand these sentences in a way that makes the connection to humanism more clear? Why is it important to mention these places?
 * Hmmm, it seems you are right, it seems a triviality and since section is already larger than others, I removed it. . <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 17:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * -- which one did that, just Bruni?
 * Yes, fixed


 * -- can you clarify this sentence? Is the argument that the translation of biblical texts was a humanist move? If so, how?
 * The argument is that translation of biblical and other religious texts was a move influenced by humanism. Source says:"...To give another set of examples from a different cultural sector, Humanism helped to transform the religious situation in the hundred years before the Reformation. Pope Nicholas V (1447–1455) is a key figure here. He had the plan to transfer into Latin the whole Greek classical and patristic heritage. His favorite humanist, Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459) made a new translation of the New Testament from the Greek and the Psalms from the Hebrew. George of Trebizond translated Eusebius of Caesarea, John Chrysostomus, and Cyril of Alexandria. Before and after Nicholas’ pontificate, other humanists translated Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzenus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Origen. These translations started to be printed in the later fifteenth century..."
 * I will see how I can make it more clear, or may I will just add the quote at footnotes. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 06:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is really interesting. I've adjusted that sentence here--let me know if it conveys what you want to convey. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 21:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That s definitely an improvement, thanks! <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Once you clarify the sentence, that will also help me to better phrase the ideas in the sentence  Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 18:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe needs rewording. Here is the text of the source: "Humanism immensely enriched, if not transformed, disciplines outside the studia humanitatis, as humanists themselves combined different expertise or, alternatively, non-humanists made use of what they received from humanists." And it goes on, explaining advances in maths, philosophy and religion, by various humanists. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 19:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * how does it look? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 20:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022
change

Contemporary humanist organizations work under the umbrella of Humanist International.

to

Contemporary humanist organizations work under the umbrella of Humanists International. David-NL-1978 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I had the same question when reading that section. @Cinadon36, which did you mean to say? Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 16:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right, thanks for noting. Fixed. . <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 18:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of
I am thinking of removing it. Some issues raised have been resolved as far as I can tell. would you be ok with that? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed a sentence
I removed a sentence I couldnt verify High-profile members of academia and public figures have published work in The Humanist, and joined and lead the AHA.

I will see if I can spot it somewhere else, but I am not too optimistic about it. And it isn't that significant.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

personal essay tag
Can someone please locate the areas at the article that text resembles a personal essay, so I can fix them in due time? Thanks. notifying. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 17:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2023
Under the Morality heading, second paragraph, second to last sentence should read, "Shook..." rather than "Spook..." Thing69 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

✅. Next time, WP:FIXIT. Zefr (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

 * Article fails B-class criteria #1 and #4. Reassess article.


 * A February 2023 inline "citation needed" tag,
 * A January 2023 inline "ambiguous" tag.
 * Two inline 2023 "clarification needed" tags.
 * An October 2022 article "essay-like" tag and January 2023 "essay-like" section tag is a style issue.
 * A January 2023 "Dates and numbers#Chronological items" tag. --  Otr500 (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Otr500 most issues have been resolved. Can you help me with the dates and numbers tag? You mean the "Use dmy dates" I thought that was just an advice. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will take a look later today/ -- Otr500 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A tag at the top of the article is so all the date formats will be consistent. A "Dates and numbers#Chronological items" would be a timeline. It makes an article hard to read if the timeline (series of events) is not in some order. I didn't look at it but will. --  Otr500 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo
In the "Renaissance" section, there is the sentence: "Petrarch'ims enthusiasm for ancient texts led him to discover manuscripts such as ..." "Petrarch'ims" is likely a typo, but I'm not going to create an account just to fix it. Somebody fix it, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.2.184 (talk) 20:33 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank-you. 98.216.2.184 (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Alan Haworth
Link to Haworth is pointing to the Hockey player not the philosopher. Paul Fabrizio (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Done, thank you. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)