Talk:Humanism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Neutrality

There doesn't seem to be any clear indication on this page of what if anything is currently being disputed within the article. Could someone please briefly summarise the specific issues or is it time the tag was removed? Mighty Antar (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The opening currently reads:

Humanism is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality. Although the word has many senses, its meaning comes into focus when contrasted to the supernatural or to appeals to authority.[1][2] Since the nineteenth century, humanism has been associated with an anti-clericalism inherited from the eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosophes. Twenty-first century Humanism tends to strongly endorse human rights, including reproductive rights, gender equality, social justice, and the separation of church and state. The term covers organized non-theistic religions, secular humanism, and a humanistic life stance.[3]

This gives a particular spin and delimitation, associating the concept above all with secular, anti-traditional-religious, enlightenment, rationalist, philosophical humanism. But it has been demonstrated that humanism and the closely related humanist and humanistic have many prominent uses that do not fall into this category. In the present exposition, one submeaning unfairly usurps the center of the field. The article's introduction misleads readers, therefore, though it also points to other meanings. The article should be labelled correctly and the primary result for searches on humanism and humanistic should be the DAB page. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In what way could the article be "labelled correctly?" Please give an example. The introduction seems quite broad and open to interpretation - almost catholic, one could say. Also, which particular submeaning usurps the rest? And what page do you mean by the DAB page?Peter (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It could be labeled Humanism (Philosophy). This would distinguish it from the cultural and educational uses of humanism, and from the broader, more general meaning of humanism as "a way of thinking or acting that gives some kind of priority to the human sphere. If you read the Talk archives, it is all said there. Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The current definition is correct and very broad. i can not see how it dicriminates any form of humanism. In the contrarry I could be argued, that it is to broad. Because of that I think it is time to remove the tag.

Unless of course someone explaines why this would not be acceptable.Reafdaw (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comment just above, from Dec 16, 2009, for the explanation of why this is not acceptable. Wilson Delgado (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I also see the current definition as broad but correct. There are some rather strange redirects Guided experience, What should I do?, Humanistic, Progressive humanist, Liberal humanism and Humanistic studies. Perhaps the issue is that these should require a disambiguation page WP:DAB where they can be linked to articles more specific to these themes rather than trying to address all the aspects in the current Humanism page and introduction? My view is that the neutrality tag is based on a tendentious argument rather than the accepted neutral point of view and as such I propose removing the tag. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious argument? The Wikipedia page is out of sync with the Encyclopedia Britannica and other major reference works. Are they all just tendentious? How do you engage the substance of the argument that is supported by many prominent uses of the word that do not refer to the rationalistic systematic philosophical movement that is strongly associated with anti-Church sentiments? Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If I enter [[Humanistic studies]] I would never intend "Humanism" the religion, but I would most probably intend Humanities the academic field. IMO that's the real original meaning of "Humanism", while "Humanism" the religion is like the Roman Catholics trying to anathematize the non-Roman Catholics for information obscuration purposes. I changed the link Humanistic studies accordingly. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the neutrality of this article is still very questionable. There is a lot of good detail on humanism of the renaissance It seems at times people are just editing it with thoughts references floating around in their minds at the time - this does not help readability. Once the breadth of the article (not merely the definition) is improved then the neutrality tag could be reviewed. I definetely agree the article does not do enough to render invalid claims of narrowness. The history of humanism needs to be laid out better - classical antiquity begins around the 7th Century BC until about 5th century AD. I knew this before reading the article, but had to go back to books to straighten my thoughts out after reading bits of it. Perhaps strictly speaking it is incorrect to refer to some of the writers at that time (classical antiquity) as humanists as the term seems to have its origins during the Renaissance, which was just that - a renaissance coming from renewed interest in, amongst other things, the classical Greco-Roman world. So IMO the article needs to be clearer about how humanism emerged after the middle ages and its seeds in classical antiquity. DMSBel (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added one link to the article on christian humanism, as it helps to support the content of this overview. That christians could accept early renaissance humanism demonstrates a significant difference in the humanism of that period IMO from it's present expressions. This needs to be addressed. Clearly secular humanism is a more recent development, emerging from the Enlightenment. This overview is not supposed be an endorsement of either type. Neutrality can best be preserved by covering all aspects of the subject. Comments on the history page such as "This is b###s### I am a secular humanist and damn proud of it" as a reason for making changes keep the neutrality of the article in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Humanistic

I searched humanistic (from the article in dances with wolves whereas the film gives a humanistic view of the native americans) in wikipedia and got this. No man, No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.102.239 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure the point you are making? I have heard the film described as re-visionist, but have not watched it myself. Are you saying the film did not give a humanistic view of the native indians?82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is the right word - I changed it to "sympathetic". Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe 72.88.102.239 refer to Humanist. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

History chronology disorder

I'll just mention the year sequence of the section History to indicate what's in disorder: c:a 1806, 1836, 1856, 15th century, mid-18th century, 1765, 1812 etc. etc.. Time goes linear, not zig-zag, and consequences go forward in time, not backwards! The humanism couldn't have emerged in 1806 if it refers to a umanista of 15th century... I believe the "humanism" of this article is either Enlightenment thinking similar to that of Culte de la Raison but not emergent from it, or that it is a sect of Religion of Humanity emergent from Positivism per Auguste Comte. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the concept "humanism" contains a lot of different currents. I referred to Humanism (life stance). The section is in disorder, for the rest I was wrong. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Humanism

I think in nearly all article of some profound school of thought in wikipedia has some criticism heading, if not a separate article. I just call to show the need for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielGenesis (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

POV tag from 2009

I've removed the POV tag from 2009. Tags are used to highlight a problem so that it can be fixed. They are not used as a permanent badge of shame. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And you decided that things were fixed? The deception of the opening is still there, and therefore the warning is still needed. Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. If there is a problem, then fix it. Adding tags on a permanent basis isn't a solution, nor is a disinterested editor like myself able to fix the problem without knowing what it is. Since you apparently claim to know what the problem is and how to fix it, then please do so. Otherwise , please explain it so that others can fix it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The standing objection was explained above (search for 16 February 2010, or "Wilson Delgado"). I have tried to correct the opening many, many times over the years, only to have my edits erased. Time for another try, I see. Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing with that date or information "above". Perhaps you mean that your discussion was archived? Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Under Description you should find:

Honeyspider edited the opening to read:

Humanism is a rationalistic outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Although the word has many senses, its current philosophical meaning comes into focus when contrasted to the supernatural or to appeals to higher authority

This is still POV and misleading: Christian humanism does not fail to attach prime importance to the divine. Honeyspider's opening might imply to some readers that it does. Ancient Greek humanism did not fail to make an important point of respecting the ultimacy of the divine. The breadth of usage of the word humanism should therefore be suggested in the opening. Secondly, the compact OED is the reference, but even this gives another meaning to humanism that is not necessarily less important or widespread than the first. If the article were appropriately titled Humanism (Philosophy), this would not be such a problem. Wilson Delgado (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And there is even more explanation further above. Just look. Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You reverted him here. User:Honeyspider ej has three edits to his credits since he last edited more than a year ago. What's the problem? Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What don't you understand about my several explanations of what is wrong? How can I make it any clearer? Wilson Delgado (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What I understand isn't the problem. You're saying that we should add a POV tag because you removed disputed edits by an editor who isn't active? The lead section should follow WP:LEAD and that's all that matters. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The POV tag should remain because the POV bias remains. I am not the only one who says this. Cf. "I agree that the neutrality of this article is still very questionable." above. Just because one edit was made does not mean the POV problem is removed. How can you assume that it is? Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So fix it if there's a problem, but stop fixating on a tag that has no meaning. The lead section should summarize the article. Can you do that? Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If the discussion comes to an impasse, then it comes to an impasse. That is why the POV tag remained up. You can't just remove the problem by taking the tag away. The point is whether my fix is accepted as such. To this date none of my fixes prevailed, and the problem still remains, so I was not fixating, but hoping that some other person would understand and fix the problem. In the meantime I can only point out the obvious: it is still there, misleading people. Wilson Delgado (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please implement your fix right now so I can see it live. If none of your fixes in the past "prevailed", then that says something other than the need for a POV tag. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell, you are a SPA editing in good faith from a Catholic POV. It is my understanding that you feel that your POV is not well represented in this article, and I would encourage you to try once again to represent that POV to the best of your ability. However, adding a permanent POV tag is not a solution. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree: I'm not SPA at all, but I am deeply concerned about this biased error in a major article that is misleading hundreds and thousands of people every day. As for Catholic viewpoint: note that I agree with the OED's and Encyclopedia Britannica article's approaches, which cannot be called Catholic. As for an immediate fix, I am not ready to do that now, but perhaps soon. By the way, I offered to go to arbitration more than once, but the opposition never took me up on it. And if you add up all the people who have expressed the idea that the article is biased, the number will exceed 15. I do not think that this in any way is just my problem. To do me justice, you should read the entire history of the argumentation, but that might be cruel and unusual punishment for you. Wilson Delgado (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

By SPA, I mean this; There's nothing wrong with it, but the fact remains, this article has been and continues to be your primary focus here. I would be happy to read the entire argument, but it would be better if you would just change the article to your preferred version and let others respond. Based on your replies above, that has already happened, but you still aren't happy with the outcome. Please understand, I am only trying to resolve this ongoing problem. But, I can't do it without your help. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, SPA is not as bad as the "vandal" tag the opposition was trying to pin on me (though I still reject it). Please note: I am against the narrow advocacy usage of the term humanism. I support the broad and inclusive understanding, in line with major reference works that have been cited in the argument time and again. I have nothing against a properly-named article that deals with the narrower type of humanism (e.g., that of the British Humanist Association). I pulled back from editing the article precisely to let others take over from my contentious debate-circle, but your invitation makes me consider trying once again. Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, the problem with your wanting to call humanism "a philosophy" is that first-rate Renaissance scholars such as P. O. Kristeller vehemently deny that renaissance humanism ever was a "philosophy". Humanism begins to be a "philosophy" in the nineteenth century, and as such, it is the very same "secular" non-theistic philosophy that you take issue with.

Scholars today call Renaissance humanism an "activity" (of keeping alive and restoring the legacy of classicism, according Jill Kraye and others in the Cambridge companion); or an "educational program"(Kristeller) ; as a "philosophy" it has nothing to distinguish it from Medieval or Classical philosophy -- and what it does have in common with the the latter is confined strictly to the ethical branches of philosophy and is completely separate from epistomology or logic or natural science or any other thing that philosophy, properly so called, is concerned with. (This is actually a potential weakness of humanism, which can be prone to a fatal superficiality). With all the greatest due respect, I recommend you hit the books: the Cambridge Companion, Davies, and Nauert to bring yourself up to date on the latest research (and preferably Kristeller and Burkhardt, too). Go to the library or spend the money, and take the time to do a little study, pencil in hand (humanist style), especially since you have already invested so much time and frustration on this issue. The fact is, that I am quite sympathetic to your point of view: and, if you read and study carefully the aforementioned books, you will have no trouble composing a re-write that will be acceptable to all. Reliance on the Catholic Encyclopedia, now 100 years old, simply won't do. How Renaissance and Ciceronian humanism were transmuted into a secular philosophy is a fascinating topic, but the inter-relations are far from obvious.173.77.14.210 (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, 173. The first sentence now reads "Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, or practice that focuses on human values and concerns." So room is given to a non-philosophical approach. Even when it comes to philosophy, the very term can be broadened by Hadot's work on philosophy as spiritual / cultural exercises and therefore humanism as an outlook that informs praxis and as a praxis that informs outlook can be legitimately brought into the philosophical sphere. If Erasmus and others could talk of a "philosophia Christi" then why not allow "philosophia humanistica"? Philosophy itself has a wider range of application than you seem willing to permit. It applies to Herclitus, Pythagoras, Kant, Diogenes, Seneca, Bertrand Russell, Pascal, Socrates, Montaigne, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Epicurus, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Marcus Aurelius, et al., et al., et al. Some have even said that existentialism is a humanism. If you want the article to be about a purely disciplinary academic type of enterprise, then open a page called Humanism (Philosophy). I have absolutely no objection to that. But a page simpy called Humanism has to have wide and inclusive scope. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC) P.S. Having said all that, let me add that I was not the one pushing for humanism as "human-centered philosophy." I follow the Encyclopedia Britannica for my base-meaning, and I agree that Renaissance humanists were more of a literary, educational, cultural, civic tradition -- even though certain world-view-implications of a philosophical or quasi-philosophical nature cannot be excluded therefrom. If you take a stand on what is the most appropriate education for the young, you are suggesting a certain philosophical anthropology. Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that is your own opinion. I don't think I have made myself clear to you at all. A wikipedia article is supposed to give an accurate description of the opinions (and disputes) of experts in the field, not adduce our own reasoning, however solid it may be. Renaissance humanism excluded Theology (in addition to logic, epistomology, science, etc.) and only included one category of philosophy: ethical philosophy, which at the time was not in conflict with and indeed was identical to, Christian ethical philosophy, and those parts of classical Greek and Roman philosophy that were felt by the Church fathers, particularly Saints Jerome, Augustine, and Lactantius, to be compatible with Christian ethical philosophy. This can be shown with evidence and is not a matter of dispute. I repeat. Please consult the books of experts in this field. It is not a matter of what you and I believe or think is logical. We can only say that today some Christians call themselves humanists (on such and such grounds) and that at least one faction of those calling themselves secular humanists dispute this (with source), while others wish to be more inclusive (source) and that it is a big controversy in humanist circles. That's my reading of the situation, at any rate.173.77.14.210 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hadot = expert. Encyclopedia Britannica author = expert. Kristeller = expert. Everything I've learned about humanism comes from experts or is represented in experts' works. What do you want???? The point is also about what should go into an encyclopedia article on Humanism. The opening is supposed to be a summary view, not a description of one stream of usage only. What are you after???? What expert do you want to follow? Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Having read your edit, Wilson, I do think you are pushing Christian humanism at the expense of secular humanism and therefore I must reluctantly and with disappointment regard your edit as POV and your response as inadequate. It is a fact that Christian humanism is not the main meaning of humanism today, even though there are Christians who are now trying to reclaim humanism after a long schism. Your article gives the impression that it is already the main meaning. For my part, I think an encyclopedia article must reflect the true situation as it stands today and not what we hope will be the truth tomorrow. And it should not give offense by taking sides. Therefore, I don't think your change can stand as it is, though I am willing to leave it there for a while and see what happens.173.77.14.210 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have not made your case at all. The opening now reads:

Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, or practice that focuses on human values and concerns. The term can mean several things, for example (1) an historical movement associated especially with the Italian Renaissance; (2) an approach to education (in any period of history) that uses literary means or a focus on the humanities to form students; or (3) a philosophical approach that sometimes stands over and against traditional religious modes of thought, but that may also be fully integrated into them (e.g. Christian humanism). For many today, humanism is a worldview and a moral philosophy that considers humans to be of primary importance. It is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality. Although the word has many senses, its current philosophical meaning comes into focus when contrasted with appeals to the supernatural or to some higher authority.[1][2] Since the 19th century, one developing strand of the meaning of humanism has come to be associated with an anti-clericalism inherited from the 18th-century Enlightenment philosophes. This particular use of the term covers organized non-theistic religions, secular humanism, and a humanistic life stance.[3] Such interpretations can be compared and contrasted with other prominent and repeated uses of the term in traditional religious circles.[4] It should also be noted that humanist, humanism, and humanistic can very frequently refer to literary culture.[5]

Precisely WHERE is Christian humanism being "pushed"? To mention that Christian humanism exists is not to "push" it. The paragraph as written is very inclusive, as it must be, in order to be anything like an adequate summary of the concept. Again, tell us, where is Christian humanism being "pushed." Identify the sentence that you might want to change. And remember, literary humanism is not necessarily Christian humanism. Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is Christian humanism being pushed? Ans: I find this disingenuous:

an approach to education (in any period of history) that uses literary means or a focus on the humanities to form students; or (3) a philosophical approach that sometimes stands over and against traditional religious modes of thought, but that may also be fully integrated into them (e.g. Christian humanism).

Disingenous? It is a fact! There is an entire article on Christian humanism already available in Wikipedia. How can I not mention it? The term "old-fashioned humanism" I have seen to refer to the reading of classic books (NOT just Greek and Roman works), and I've referred to this source in the talk pages. You seem to want humanism to be reduced to one sub-species. Reality is more complex than that. Wilson Delgado (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The previous definition was a careful distillation (under the supervision of a Wikipedia mediator) from a close examination of five side-by-side definitions culled from encylopedias of philosophy and the history of ideas. You have now modified this to read "for some". Last year at some point the introduction had a sentence referring to the religious history of humanism, in 1969 a mischeivous ideologue deleted it. Now, coming in from the other side, you have constructed your own idiosyncratic definition based on your own original thoughts.

Idiosyncratic? I learned it from experts! Everything I believe is also "out there." My sourcing throughout testifies to that. Wilson Delgado (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Historic humanism and scholarly and educational humanism are one and the same and are not separate as you have defined them. Philosophical humanism is the ideological kind, advocating human rights and equality (it had its origins in the historic kind, I believe, however). You mention the specific example of Christian humanism (now a minority position) but omit to mention examples of humanism which have been secular and rational from the the 1750s through the 1960s at least. That won't do. I have no objection to mentioning Christian humanism in the article, or Pierre Hadot's idiosyncratic vision of ancient philosophy although he is a distinguished but relatively unknown figure who doesn't belong in the introduction. He is a humanist all right, but so were Heidegger and Nietzsche. Let's do things right.173.77.14.210 (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Historic is not always educational humanism. The Greeks had a humanism, but that was not the historical movement of the Renaissance. Wilson Delgado (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, "omit to mention" secular and rational humanism? It is right there in the opening paragraph: the part that mentions anti-clerical strand and enlightenment philsophes.

I've tried to remain neutral, but I think Wilson Delgado's latest edits show that he isn't fully aware of Wikipedia's policy against original research. I would suggest at this time that Mr. Delgado read the policy and/or find better sources for his proposed additions. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you were ever neutral, but you may be gaming the system to get things to come out with a particular POV. Why not take the more inclusive, less POV route? Wilson Delgado (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything is sourced in the article or in the history of the discussion. (For example, is it a fact or not that the term humanism is used in high-profile, prominent documents like the encyclicals cited?) If you want to revert to the Encyclopdia Britannica's understanding of humanism, that would be acceptable. But come up with an intro that is at least as balanced and inclusive and as recapitulative of the other major items and forms of humanism that are mentioned in the article, as WP policy directs for lead paragraphs. I still don't see any place where Christian humanism is being "pushed." The more inclusive path that I propose is the less POV path. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

We can't cherry pick from primary source documents. If you have good secondary or tertiary sources discussing how humanism is used in those documents or elsewhere, then we can consider it. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here are four big leads that I cited last year:

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy : "Humanism is the philosophical and literary movement which originated in Italy in the second half of the fourteenth century and diffused into the other countries of Europe, coming to constitute one of the factors of modern culture."

Oxford English Dictionary: 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.

Encyclopedia Britannica: 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.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Humanism is the name given to the intellectual, literary, and scientific movement of the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries, a movement which aimed at basing every branch of learning on the literature and culture of classical antiquity. (This is an old encyclopedia, but the more recent one follows its approach.)

Wilson Delgado (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, Wilson, why are you mentioning the references that YOU, and only you cited? Have you forgotten this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Humanism/Definitions ??

Frankly, the Catholic Encyclopedia is flaming POV and the Britanica is dated. The dictionary is interesting for describing word history and usage, but is not a reliable source for an opening paragraph definition.

Talk to us about why are you omitting to consider the really relevant and up-to-date reference works, Wilson.Mballen (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Mballen (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have another question for Wilson Delgado, I gather Pierre Hadot thought that Greek and Roman philosophy was a meditative activity comparable to Buddhism, but was Hadot a Christian humanist?

Looking at the August 2009 definitions page (helpfully set up by a neutral observer) I linked to before , I see that I had remembered it a little differently, I'd go with the light blue, myself, but not as presently phrased by Wilson. And by the way, I have no interest in establishing an "absolute" definition of humanism, I see it as a rather fluid concept.Mballen (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about Hadot personally, and it doesn't matter for the argument. Catholic Encyclopedia is not manifestly POV -- just look at the definition and compare it with others. Encyc Brit has a pre-eminence of authority, and that's why I quote it. Later is not necessarily better. What precisely is wrong with the intro I've written. It incorporates material from the opposition and rescues it from POV. Do better if you can, but don't fall back to POV. Admit the prominent usages that are not narrowly limited to one stream of humanism. The encyclicals I cite are extremely up-to-date sample of prominent usage. Lanham's book is 1983 but it is not really dated. The widespread contrast of "scientists" and "humanists" is as fresh as the morning dew. You can handle the truth, can't you? Why don't you co-operate and overcome the long-standing often-noticed POV problem of the Humanism article? That is what the consensus has been, after all. Wilson Delgado (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay folks, I will bow out for now. I may check in occasionally to see what you're doing, and I may react if I feel I'm being slandered or having my argument twisted unfairly. I've done my honest best at what I think is the best possible intro to the article. Now you can have at it. I don't want things just to be adversarial all the time. Aren't we trying to create something of lasting value and validity for the future? Good luck. Wilson Delgado (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will miss Wilson Delgado, if he truly bows out. I regret that before he left, he didn't seem eager to engage with my questions. I would like to know if he agrees with the "light blue" definition of humanism on the definition page, as I do? Or if not not, does he agree with the dark blue? And, when the page was brought to his attention, why did he not acknowledge it? Furthermore, how can he deny that the Catholic Encyclopedia, useful and worthy as it sometimes is, is unabashedly POV?

Looking at his talk page I find Wilson wrote this, A:

Humanism as an organized contemporary philosophical movement does indeed seem to exclude religious belief

And this, B:

I am operating from an educational / historical / cultural horizon in which humanism is basically the educational cultivation of ethos and society through Letters.

In the first sentence, A, Wilson describes contemporary philosophical humanism as it has evolved today. Wilson's second sentence, B, contains a pretty accurate description of s historical humanism (from which contemporary humanism evolved). This shows to me that Wilson Delgado understands the issues. The problem is that Wilson admits to be "operating" from a prescriptive rather than a descriptive basis. I see it, this is contrary to Wikipedia's mission to describe the conflict without taking sides, so that readers are left free to make their own decisions.Mballen (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

One good thing is that the POV tag has been removed, however, I feel that the introduction as it now stands, though it now meets the requirements of one person, who is approaching the topic from a peculiar "horizon", does not adequately cover the topic. There is still a lot of room for improvement here.Mballen (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not happy with Wilson Delgado's "improvement" because in my opinion it is misleading to give current Roman Catholic attempts to construct a revived humanism equal weight with the major current of secular or modern humanism. I don't mean to affirm that humanism and Catholicism are theoretically incompatible. However liberal Catholics are criticizing the current Pope (who has proclaimed a new Catholic Humanism) for failing to recognize what they see as the legitimate appeal of the "inherent spirituality" of secular humanism. In particular, the recent restoration of passages in the Mass blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus and the Pope's alienation of Muslims and Anglicans seem to them incompatible with humanistic ideals of tolerance and equality, as as a letter writer to the New York Review of Books last month averred:

[Excerpt]:

Anthony Grafton respectfully dances around Benedict XVI’s manners and abilities with undue reverence [“The Pope and the Hedgehog,” NYR, May 27]. He fails to read in Benedict’s deliberations the disastrous effects on the Catholic communion in the midst of this century’s increasing embrace of secular humanism.

In the meanwhile the Pope has succeeded in offending the world of Islam, he has reintroduced into the Good Friday Liturgy a prayer identifying the Jewish people as culpable in the death of Jesus, he has insulted the Anglican communion with an invitation to the disaffected to join the Roman Church, and he has demoralized the Catholic community in his divisive attempts to undermine the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Counci — despite Grafton’s adulatory comment on Benedict’s beautifully performed Mass, as if performance were the intent of liturgical worship!

The priest sex abuse crisis is not an isolated concern of the Catholic faithful. Both Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II, despite the Vatican Council’s clear call for regional episcopal self-governance, have recentralized authoritative administration in the Vatican. Further, and perhaps more devastating, has been their condemnation of the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America, a proven dynamic catechesis for Gospel renewal among the Latino faithful.

Only when Benedict passes on his miter and staff to another will we Catholics not “despair.” Only when the new pope is elected by the voice of the universal church will we not despair. Only when a person of contemporary intelligence cognizant of the inherent spirituality of secular humanism consequently works with and not against the universal concerns of all peoples, believers and not—only then will we not despair. Benedict may be “a great scholar,” but the Catholic Church is crying out for an arch pastor with generous human sensibilities capable of healing the divide into which we Catholics have descended.—Reverend John B. Giuliani, The Benedictine Grange,Redding, Connecticut

Mballen (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, it strikes me as highly disingenuous to attempt to assert the neutrality of the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908, useful as it may be in some respects. Particularly when the Latin writings of many of the major would not be translated, edited, and published for another fifty years!

I believe I have adjusted and tightened the intro so that it incorporates Wilson Delgado's additions and still summarizes the article that follows, changing the order of the paragraphs so that like concepts are presented together and alluding to some modern discussions of humanism and anti-humanism by Lyotard and Foucault. I believe that substituting the word "interpretation" for "definition" or "meaning", is unhelpful and obscures rather than clarifies the issues here. I have tried to maintain a neutral point of view and do not regard Wilson Delgado as "the opposition" (which would be an unacceptable stance for a wikipedia editor), and I hope he doesn't regard me as such. I will add that looking at the book by Lehan online, he does not in the least appear to regard humanism as referring primarily to literary culture in general rather than the classical tradition. As I see it, he is a traditional-type humanist and classics scholar. Looks like a good book.Mballen (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Secular Humanism should always be presented in capitals

As I mentioned on the Secular Humanism talk page, the specific belief system should be in capitals, as opposed to other theoretical/philosophical humanisms (eg. Rousseau's humanism).

The obvious reason for this is that Secular Humanism refers to a specific organisation and belief system, and should therefore be capitalised just like Catholicism or Buddhism.

The more interesting reason for this is because in terms of deeper social theory and philosophy it is at once possible to reject various types of humanism -- in fact even to be a theoretical anti-humanist -- whilst at the same time being a practical Secular Humanist with respect to secular political ideals.--Tomsega (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have answered on Talk:Secular humanism with some concerns about that. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I did a fair bit of work on the introduction a few months ago, and though not to say it was perfect, the length at least was appropriate. Coming back the introduction has been hugely expanded. At the moment the intro presents these multiple types of humanism and then presents critiques of just the one form (the type postmodernist philosophers dealt with). Bit contradictory. If we're to state humanism refers to a disparate array of positions with different contexts, we can't present all the criticisms that are here in the intro. They should be moved down.--Tomsega (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To solve this problem I have taken the newly added paragraph - which I reiterate is great - and moved it down to a 'polemics' section. Please don't overcomplicate an already-overcomplicated topic by giving the article a 1000 word intro!! --Tomsega (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I take your point and will work on shortening it over the next month or so. I think there are really two main strains of humanism, and both are related to one another through their derivation from humanus, and humanitas, which in Latin connoted several things about the nature of man: civilization (education) and kindness (fellow feeling). The polemics are really very old and date back to antiquity. It is a challenge but I believe it is possible to trace the relationship between the two.Mballen (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think that the modern polemics are really only about the philanthropic or "modern" kind of humanism, since Heidegger, for example, used the term humanismus strictly in a sense of an educational program based on the classics (though he felt that only Germans were qualified to have the benefit of this "improving" education). It was attitudes such as this, which restricted the potential of humanism to one superior group, that brought the whole concept into disrepute. However, I will give this some more thought, and perhaps others can too. There are a fair number of reliable sources that people can refer to if they are so inclined. Renato Oniga's, essay "Humanitas" in Tulliana (2009) is particularly good, and I see that he has also written an article on the relationship between Paideia and Humanitas.

Somewhere in the article it should give a nod to the fact that, in a forshadowing of modern polemics on the topic of humanism, Aulus Gellius (ca. 125 AD—after 180 AD), a late Roman writer, tried in a famous passage to restrict the Latin meaning of humanitas to education (paideia) only, not philanthropy, but subsequent scholars all agree that Cicero and other classical writers had always used it to mean kindness and fellow feeling, as well. Gellius was rediscovered and became almost a patron saint of Renaissance scholars, however, who downplayed the philanthropy aspect.

A Japanese scholar writing in Tulliana (a magazine dedicated to Cicero studies) remarks, by the way, that the critical spirit of Western Humanism, which originated in Greece, is no where to be found in any of the Asian varieties. This seems an opinion worth including, I believe, if the article is to cover Asian varieties of humanismMballen (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Is reffered to in the present tense under 'Knowledge', despite having passsed away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.47.35 (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In this context it refers to his body of work rather than the person and seems a legitamate usage. To change it would be clumsy.--Charles (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Humanism|p00547bk}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

This is superb. Thanks for the head's up. Mballen (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

humanism in the islamic world

Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Evidence. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. --Knight1993 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight1993 (talk • contribs)

I understand, but you need more than that to argue for deletion. I'm considering restoring the material unless you can show something wrong with it. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing an entire referenced section that has taken months and possibly years to compile is unacceptable especially when you haven't suggested an adequate replacement or even provided a reasonable criticism of the section. Also note that users other than the one you mention have made contributions to that section. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The editing history of a section should be immaterial; if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. What matters is whether or not the text in the section is consistent with what reliable sources say. If it is, then keep it and do a little happy dance; if it isn't then the section should be either fixed or removed. That should apply regardless of whether one person or an army edited it, regardless of whether it was a single click or a life's labour.

At first glance I don't see a discrepancy; but has somebody actually gone through the sources in detail to see how accurate the text is? It might be a good idea to try that before hammering the "delete" or "restore" button again. bobrayner (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

humanism v "militant atheism"

Setting aside the question of the reliability and verifiability of the sources, the sources that are cited to say that militant atheism is incompatible with humanism, if you actually read the quoted sections of those texts at the bottom of the page, say nothing of the sort. They are very clearly talking about communism, not militant atheism. The changes I am making make the Wikipedia article more consistent with the cited sources.

Further, the assertion that militant atheism is incompatible with humanism is pure prejudice; no different than saying that jews drink the blood of Christian infants or that homosexuals are pedophiles. Humanism isn't much more than the idea that a person can be moral without belief in a supernatural diety, and is often defined as no more than that, so saying that militant atheisn is incompatible with humanism is just a fancy way of calling militant atheists immoral. Militant atheists can be good people just like anyone else. If some of the editors of Wikipedia think otherwise, that is their opinion, but it has no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.48.236.226 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Humanism (ideology) (may 2011)

The descriptiom "A secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making." Seems POV to me. "Reason" "ethics" and "justice" are terms which believers of any belief system would likely wish to associate with their belief, as they are positive terms. By listing these terms specifically, the lede reads as being promotional of humanism. As far as I am concerned, cutting those terms while leaving "specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making." perfectly describes humanism without promoting it. 46.7.29.75 (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Per my edit comment, these points are already discussed and sourced in the article text that the lede is summarizing. Feel free to continue this discussion, but your dispute appears to be with the general article text rather than this particular instance of it. (Also, please avoid edit warring and note the three-revert rule, thanks.) Rostz (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rostz and oppose the IP's deletion. See WP:LEDE. This is a fair summary of the article's content. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps better wording would be:

A secular ideology which places reason, ethics, and justice in the forefront, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked the source in the article, and it makes no mention of humanism espousing reason ethics and justice. Hence why I removed it from the article body, and consequently from the lede. 46.7.29.75 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy with this introductory paragraph as it now stands at all. Someone has taken out the phrase "reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making." on the grounds that it "Seems POV" in that it allegedly "promotes" humanism. The introduction now seems impoverished to me. I admit it is not clear, but what the now missing information really meant to say is that humanism believes that "reason, ethics, and justice" can be arrived at by humans independently without the need for supernatural revelation. Some religious people may think that this smacks of Pelagianism -- Pelagianism, being the notion that men and women can improve themselves and their condition without divine intervention. This was or is considered by some theists to be a terrible heresy. Other theists accept a degree of Pelagianism and are called semi-Pelagianist and others have yet other rationalizations for this emphasis on worldly concerns. But all that is neither here nor there. To describe what Humanism is, or aspires, rightly or wrongly, to be, is not POV. Even Christian and Jewish or other religious versions of humanism -- give weight to humanity improving itself on this earth through their own efforts, through education, etc. -- though they may make room for the assistance of God in the process to a greater or lesser extent. Theologians have argued about this for two millennia, and we are not going to solve this problem, but we can at least describe it accurately, hopefully in a way that will satisfy most factions. Secular, means having to do with this world, the world of time rather than the next (eternity) and does not really clarify anything. Likewise "religious humanism", as used by Humanist organizations means taking on the social function of a church but not the metaphysical. This is also less than clear. Finally, I think the introduction needs to connect all the different humanisms by mentioning their origin in the ancient Roman concept of Humanitas, which roughly meant "not beastly", in other words "civilized." There is a reason all these humanisms share the same name, they did not spring up independently but contain a common strain, namely the use of reason and knowledge rather than violence, tradition, or dogma.Mballen (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Humanistic vs. Christian Worldview

It appeared that a citation was wanted to contrast Humanism too. So I have provided one.

On the other hand I realized after the fact that the citation requested was for an article on "anti-humanism"

The contrast I provided is a valid and central contrast - Man-centered vs. God-cenetered.

I will leave it to others to decide the value added to the overall article.

However, if you remove it could you please explain your justification. CCeducator 19:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCeducator (talk • contribs)

So apparently Steven J. Anderson decided it was too "soapboxy" and removed it. Interesting term. Did not replace it with a citation.

For any one interested here it is

Basically humanism puts man at the center versus a Christian Worldview which puts God at the center. Thus, a Humanistic Worldview is often contrasted to a Christian Worldview. The heart of a Christian Worldview is the ultimacy of God in reality, knowledge and ethics. "Repairing the Ruins: The Classical & Christian Challenge to Modern Education, Chapter 4: Scriptual Worldview Thinking, editor=Wilson, Douglas, author=Chris Schlect, publisher=Cannon Press, 1996 |isbn=1885767145 CCeducator 19:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCeducator (talk • contribs)

CCeducator, did you actually read the article and citations? Your source is not a scholarly, but rather a polemical (POV) work, and therefore is inadmissible. (Furthermore, your citation is incorrect, the author of the book under question is Douglas Wilson and you do not give page numbers.) The opening paragraph is supposed to define humanism and is not concerned with a "Christian worldview". Over the years, hundreds of pages of discussion have been devoted, right here on this discussion page (and now archived), to the question of whether humanism is opposed to Christianity. The first paragraph was submitted to arbitration and a definition was arrived at based on various philosophical and scholarly reference works.. This all now seems to have gone by the board. The consensus was that, historically, humanism is not opposed by definition to "a Christian world view" (or if it is, that it irrelevant, especially for non-Christians) but rather that humanism concerned with life in this world and is based on human reason rather than divine revelation, tradition and/ or priestly or Biblical authority. Christianity, at least the Roman Catholic variety, which was dominant in Europe for two thousand years, is not opposed to human reason (considered a gift of God). This is and always has been the official position of the Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant denominations, as well (It is also the position of most other major, non-Christian religions, as it just so happens). Humanism (the concept if not the word) antedates Christianity and is rooted in aspects of Greek and Roman (classical) thought that were incorporated into Christianity by the Fathers of the Church, who looked with favor on the writings of Cicero, Plato, and Aristotle. The article and its introductory paragraph should reflect, or at least not contradict, that historical reality.173.77.111.82 (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

CCeducator, here is a source you probably won't object to: http://books.google.com/books?id=WtnR-6_PlJAC&pg=PA667&dq=niethammer+neohumanism&hl=en&ei=s37ETsmfEeXx0gHr8PGFDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.111.82 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Humanism - Lifestance section

This section begins:

Humanism (capital 'H', no adjective such as "secular")[56] is a comprehensive life stance that ...Italic text

The citation is an article by a Mr Doerr. Is the opinion of one man enough to base a section on? Speaking as a long-time adherent of Humanism, I'd say that spelling Humanism with or without a capital is a matter of personal taste and/or organisational policy, and should be stated as such unless the citation is a dictionary or encyclopaedia.

Furthermore, I tend to equate what we in Britain refer to as (the lifestance of) "Humanism" with what is generally referred to in the USA as "secular humanism", so this section is - to my mind - to a large extent tautological and unnecessary. Dadge (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 8 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead restructuring/rewriting

I just restructured the lead a little to make it more proper and conforming to MOS. It still needs work but it is better. My thoughts and reasoning:

• It is arguably questionable whether this should even be an article. As the lead points out, the term humanism refers to a lot of very loosely related topics. One could argue that this should instead be a disambig page that leads to the real articles.
• Assuming that this is going to be kept as a real article, there has to be a clearly described topic. The previous lead started out saying essentially that there is no topic because the term has no clear definition. That is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article.
• I changed it to describe Humanism as a sort of collection of philosophies related by some basic common threads. My crude attempt may not be the best so feel free to improve or come at it from a different angle.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.1 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on opening paragraph and the Lead structure

The opening paragraph of the lead currently gives a broad definition, then a quick outline of Renaissance humanism, then of "modern" Humanism, then notes that the term can be ambiguous. The next paragraph defines humanism in a philosophy/social science context. Then in the third paragraph we return to the historical interplay between religious and secular humanism. This seems a bit over-complicated. Could the scattered content about the historical development within the lead not be recombined into one development-themed paragraph? So for example the lead paragraphs would be: Very broad definition of the common themes today; Humanism in philosophy and social sciences; Consolidated historical development between Renaissance, religious, and secular humanism; which would bring us nicely into the final content on organised Humanism?

Doesn't it also feel like the lead is getting rather long, and risks repeating (rather than summarising) information that it is in the main content? As an example, I earlier removed two qualifying sentences from the opening paragraph and put them into the Renaissance section below. The sentences were "It should not be said that the Renaissance humanists were not religious; rather, they simply sought secular activities and thought in addition to religious ones. Nor should it be that they accepted classical thought where the Medieval scholastics did not, given that that many scholastics, for example, Dante, deeply valued Greco-Roman influences." These seemed to me unnecessary qualifications to make in the opening paragraph of the lead, where we're trying to give a quick summary which also includes modern views etc; there are many qualifications which equally could be made about modern Humanism so why the detail on Renaissane Humanism? However my transfer of the sentences to the Renaissance section was rolled back by johnbod. Is it really necessary to qualify Renaissance humanism as not necessarily not theistic(!) etc at this stage? Especially when the text immediately goes on to explain that only in modern times is humanism "strongly aligned with atheism". [See my user page for disclosure on this topic] --Bob.Churchill (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent reverts

User:Beloki has repeatedly removed sourced content from the page claiming variously that the page is biased and that atheist sources and opinions are invalid. This is obviously incorrect. We don't bar sources or opinions from articles based on the author's religious beliefs in any circumstances. I understand that Beloki is new to wikipedia, so I'm going to revert his removal one last time and ask that he take his concerns here to the talk page. We can certainly discuss changes and improvements to the text, and if an area is biased, we can discuss improving upon it. However, edit warring to get a change inserted is not generally constructive. Beloki, if you could, please elaborate here on what problems you see with the article, and if you have sources to back your opinions up, it would be helpful to present them so they can be considered for inclusion in the article. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The Inclusive humanism section

Obviously I understand what "Inclusive humanism" might be, in the same way I understand what "Inclusive politics" might be, but it is not, that I'm aware, a distinctive movement either within modern humanism or as a tangent of humanism overall. The section has the feel of being written by an individual trying to append their particular view on the end of the page, and it's not even clear what that view is. This distinct section cites no sources for its description of "inclusive humanism" and the definition ("inclusive Humanism enlarges its constituency within homo sapiens to consider humans' broadening powers and obligations") scans badly, is without citation, and it's unclear how it differs from modern humanism overall. Surely general humanism already demands that (to give a tidier version of it) we should all responsibly consider our "powers and obligations". Some humanists do advocate for "species governance" - or a global government etc - but again there's not a distinct "Inclusive humanist" movement which does this, and which also stresses inclusion of the religious in such governance. The section says "it [inclusive humanism] can be said to be a container for undeclared Humanism" which seems to tacitly accept that no one is using this term in this way.

Googling for "inclusive humanism" references I can't find a major proposal, organisation, philosopher, etc, which advocates for a distinct "inclusive humanist" position. I find a page from Harvard Humanists (who are well-known in organised Humanism) on "creating a more inclusive humanism"; it's about correcting ableist attitudes. This is not a problem specific to Humanism, and anyway it is not the broader concept hinted at within this section.

At the very least I think the section needs some serious re-working from someone who knows that it's meant to be about, and it should be moved into the end of the History section or the end of the Types of Humanism section to de-emphasise it. But I'm really suggesting it should be removed altogether because it appears to be an individual's idiosyncratic take. [Do see my user page for disclosure on the subject of Humanism, not particularly relevant to this section.] --Bob.Churchill (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Poor quality

This article is of rather poor quality, especially if compared to articles on humanism in other languages, e.g. German. The introduction was basically a puff piece to promote one modern organization (even outrageously featuring their logo as the primary illustration) and their particular use of a much broader philosophical and historical term, as if they are more humanist than others, and it was way too long per WP:LEAD. Long discussions of one organization's bylaws, and one organization in particular and their attempt to hijack a term, in the lead section of an article on such a broad historical and philosophical term, whose original and primary meaning has nothing to do with that organization and that is used in many other modern and historical contexts, is WP:UNDUE and POV. Just as the article on Christianity deals broadly with Christianity and the introduction is not a detailed description of the Latter Day Saint movement, their bylaws, and strange claim that they are the only Christians and Christianity capitalized only refers to their ideology/religion, an article on humanism cannot give a small modern organization that is just one of many organizations that use the term undue weight.

A lead section should not consist of more than 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD, and the first section should be a brief summary and not too long. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This article has always suffered from the promotional edits of people connected to specific (usually American) modern "humanist" organizations, who have to be repelled. You were absolutely right to do so firmly. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But equally, the use of terms like "secular humanism", which is deprecated by many Humanist organisations, needs to be fully explained if not avoided altogether. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "the Humanism". But we can explain in the section on the relevant organization and in the article on that organization/movement that they call themselves such things as "the Humanism"/"the Humanists", something which others don't agree on. In the lead section of this article, this is undue weight however, especially as it portrayed their claim as the accepted truth and the entire lead section was written to portray them as the only humanists. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Where did I refer to "the Humanism"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead section gave an impression that there was a "the Humanism", i.e. the beliefs of one organization. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. It referred to "Humanism", which is the preferred term of the main international "secular" humanist organisation and its constituent bodies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Humanism alone doesn't refer to any particular modern ideology/belief, irrespective of what one modern organization claims. That's just a claim from their part, on par with the Latter Day Saints' claim that they are the only Christians. We can discuss this claim in their article of course, but not base the lead section on the general article on that very broad term on their claim. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. No-one in the secular humanist movement would seriously claim that they are the only 'humanists'. However, they object to the use of the term "secular humanism" to describe themselves, particularly because the term is used in a hostile and derogatory way by opponents such as religious Christians. Such people use the term Humanism - not 'humanism', or 'the Humanism', or 'secular humanism'. They might claim that they are true Humanists (capital H), but certainly not that they are the only humanists (small h). The position is quite different to that of other groups you mention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Humanists with capital H referring specifically or exclusively to secular humanists is not something that is recognized outside of their own movement, and is obviously an attempt to hijack the term from that organization's part. For encyclopedic purposes, secular humanism, Christian humanism, Jewish humanism are the descriptive terms for various modern schools of thought, and humanism and humanists (whether capitalized or not) are terms that should not be used to refer to a particular modern belief without explaining what is meant, e.g. secular humanism, which is also the title of the article on that movement. Also, IHEU is not the only secular humanist organization in existence and certainly not all secular humanists agree on this strange idea that secular humanists should be called only "Humanists". Such usage will only create confusion and be unencyclopedic as this term doesn't have one meaning. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Humanists with capital H referring specifically or exclusively to secular humanists is not something that is recognized outside of their own movement..." - possibly true, but it should be respected and not dismissed, as with any set of views. "...obviously an attempt to hijack the term from that organization's part" - no evidence adduced, and, so far as I'm aware, completely untrue. "For encyclopedic purposes, secular humanism, Christian humanism, Jewish humanism are the descriptive terms for various modern schools of thought, and humanism and humanists (whether capitalized or not) are terms that should not be used to refer to a particular modern belief without explaining what is meant...." - I agree. "IHEU is not the only secular humanist organization in existence..." - no, but it is the main if not the only global secular humanist organisation. "...this strange idea that secular humanists should be called only "Humanists"... - the use of "strange" betrays a non-neutral perspective; the fact is that the people you call secular humanists describe themselves as Humanists, and this should be acknowledged. "Such usage will only create confusion and be unencyclopedic as this term doesn't have one meaning." - the wording which you removed explained this usage, in summary form with more information at the secular humanism article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, humanism refers primarily to renaissance humanism from an historical and scholarly point of view, and then secondarily to a multitude of later movements, e.g. the German new humanism from the age of Goethe, and then to to a variety of modern uses of the term. The term is used today within Catholic thought, within marxism, within Anthroposophy, within an atheist movement (IHEU), and in many many other contexts, some of which unrelated to religion and beliefs including secularism/atheism. A long discussion of each of these modern uses would make the lead section into a long article in itself. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, it is somewhat provocative for any editor to claim that: "Of course, humanism refers primarily to...." anything, without sources to back that claim up. Apparently, I come from a background in which the common meaning of the word is significantly different to yours. We need to take an unbiased, neutral position, not one that is for or against any particular viewpoint - for example, not solely or primarily from a Western, Christian, viewpoint. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is against providing a proper historical context in this article. I think there are definitely areas where we focus too much on modern groups, and that should absolutely be trimmed or moved. I also agree that the focus (and emphasis) on capitals is weird, and should be toned down; one mention is fine. However, I do not think the proposed version is the right step forward. I'd appreciate it if we could discuss it a bit without trying to force the edit through. Here are a few of the proposed changes to the lead, in order:

• Addition of "secular or religious" to the definition. This only adds complexity to the sentence. It's unnecessary. Of course it's either religious or secular.
• Removal of "and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism)". I don't see how this removal is an improvement. The new version, absent this sentence, fails to fully define the topic before jumping into a description of the Renaissance. We should distinguish what is significant and different about humanism before describing its history.
• Removal of "However, as the Ethical movement began using the word in the 1930s, the term "humanism" became increasingly associated with philosophical naturalism... and with secularism and the secularization of society." This is sourced content, relevant to the concept (and particularly to the "religious humanism" label being discussed). I don't see why it was removed. We should document the concept in the 1930s just like we do in the Renaissance, after all.
• Removal entirely of any description of Secular Humanism from the lead. Its only mention is now grouped in the paragraph on "religious humanism". This leaves a false impression that SH is a type of RH. SH is a significant part of "humanism", in that its a popular contemporary subset, and because it has hijacked the "Humanism" label due to controversy. It should be described adequately in the lead.
• Addition of numerous religious categories. We already use the category Philosophy of religion, which is a subcat of Religion. We should only use the Islam category (for example) if the article is directly relevant to Islam beyond being relevant to religion... for example, if humanism was a sect of Islam.

There are other changes, but those are the ones which most stood out to me. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I endorse Jess's comments, unreservedly. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, your proposed text gives the history of one single organization grossly undue weight (also, it's too long and doesn't conform to WP:LEAD, with a wall-of-text-like first paragraph). It's irrelevant whether undue material is sourced or not. The other modern uses of the term are also only mentioned briefly, and IHEU is not entitled to have a ten times longer description in the lead section of the general article on humanism than any other humanistic movements. I notice that you remove (the brief mentions of) Christian humanism and other humanistic movements while insisting on using this article lead section more or less as the website of the IHEU. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead section should not focus on single organizations, but the broader picture. The lead section of the German article de:Humanismus (which describes humanism as a worldview, whether religious or secular) doesn't mention any particular organization in the lead section. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "We should document the concept in the 1930s" : That is relevant to secular humanism which has its own article, and even articles on its organizations. This is the general article on humanism, and such a details are not appropriate for this lead section. Secular humanism is not "the concept" at the time as far the article humanism is concerned, just one of many, many uses of the term at the time, none of which are given such weight here. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be focused solely on what you judge to be the undue weight given to IHEU in the lead. I agree to some extent with that criticism. But you have reverted back to your own version without apparently considering any of Jess's other changes to the wording - which are ones that I support. Please take this exercise seriously rather than starting an edit war, and consider the views of other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Jean, I haven't said anything about IHEU. It does seem odd to me that they are granted a whole paragraph in the lead. We probably don't need that. I left it in during my copyediting only because it details the Humanist manifesto I and II, and because it is the only text documenting the migration to secular humanism in the 30s. Frankly though, we could probably discuss substantial improvements to that section. We can't push everything regarding secular humanism into its article; this is a parent article, and must adequately summarize its children. That is even more important here because SH is sometimes referred to as "Humanism", the title of this article. Readers will search for "Humanism" and come to this article, so we need to clearly and prominently disambiguate in addition to summarizing. I'm happy to discuss, but I'd ask that you do that here calmly before reinstating your changes, per WP:BRD. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at shortening and merging the last two paragraphs, as I agree that - in this article - the weight given in the lede to the position of IHEU and the Humanist Manifestos was undue. Otherwise, I agree that the established wording (to which Jess reverted) is substantially preferable to that suggested by Jeannedeba. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think this edit] by Ghmyrtle is a good step in reducing the weight given to IHEU. Jean, does that solve your concerns about that section?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It still gives the IHEU undue prominence. Most humanists have never felt the need to join any organized body, and it is misleading to imply that that they have. "Secular humanism developed after the first Humanist Manifesto was formalized at the University of Chicago in 1933..." Oh really?!? Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it's in the article only because they (and others) refer to SH as "Humanism". We could say "Some organizations refer to SH as Humanism" instead, but that's weaselly. I made a copyedit to that section which I think flows a little better. It also decreases the prominence of the IHEU a bit. Does that work, or do you have any other ideas?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your edit (and final comment): I was having some trouble coming up with just the right wording there. The term SH seems to have originated in the 30s, though the idea is obviously much older. The concept also became more prominent around that time. Should we say "popularized" there instead? Maybe that would work better. I made that change, let me know what you think.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Mann jess has removed any mention of Christian humanism (and other humanistic movements) from the lead. At the same time, there are 86 words to address the history of the IHEU only or about 20% of the entire lead section. That is what is called undue weight. Other language versions don't even mention specific organizations. We don't need the IHEU's history in any great detail in this lead section because both secular humanism and IHEU as an organization have their own articles. If IHEU is given that much weight, we should give equal weight to Christian humanism, and to Anthroposophy, and to various other humanistic movements, who are just as much humanists as IHEU. There is also the problem of POV; the entire lead is written to make IHEU look like the culmination of humanism. Additionally, there is the problem of the lead not adhering to WP:LEAD, with a wall-of-text-like first paragraph that needs to be split in two.

Also, why is he constantly changing Thomas More to Thomas Moore? Jeannedeba (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC) 

Jean, I don't know where you've gotten your information, but I'd suggest checking the article history again. The IHEU is given 1 sentence in the lead (it was given more, but I and Ghmyrtle reduced it), I haven't touched anything regarding Christian humanism, nor have I touched any information about Thomas More. I can't collaborate with you if your replies are accusations such as this. Please calm down, and respond directly to the specific input I provided above.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the history of the organization is given 3 (long) sentences. The Ethical movement counts as part of the IHEU's history, it's one of the founders of the IHEU. Mentioning them also contributes to US centrism. You have changed (as documented in the article history) Thomas More to Thomas Moore multiple times, and also multiple times removed the mentions of the other modern uses of the term, namely the sentence "Contemporary humanistic movements include Christian humanism, Jewish humanism, Buddhist humanism, secular humanism [...] and Anthroposophy." If we were to give any of these other varieties 3 such sentences too, the lead section would be too long. Jeannedeba (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The ethical movement is a distinct concept to the IHEU, and so is secular humanism, which must be documented in the lead. Furthermore, I made no such changes. I reverted you, reduced the IEHU's prominence, moved the Humanism template a bit, moved the image around, fixed the Thomas More link (per your suggestion!), and did some basic copyediting (mostly moving and shortening a few sentences you never even mentioned). I'm not going to debate this further. I've done everything I can to work with you on making changes and to incorporate your input, but your sole contribution to this talk page now is to make baseless accusations against other editors. That's a waste of my time. If you want to collaborate in the future, then provide specific suggestions for changes to the article, and provide links to reliable sources which back up those suggestions. Responding to my lengthy change-by-change comments above (which I devoted quite a bit of time to writing for you) would be helpful too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The edits that are mentioend are documented in the article history and I'm not going to debate this matter further. You need to make yourself familiar with WP:OWN, it's not you who decide which edits that stay. I'm going to have a new look at the lead section when I have the time. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Jean, don't make changes to the lead without discussing them here first. Edit warring on the article will not help, and continued warring could result in sanctions, which is no good for anyone. You were reverted, so now it's time to discuss. See WP:BRD.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Still not read WP:OWN, I take it? It's not like you are the only one who has the right to make changes to the lead (without prior consensus too). So just drop your edit-warring and WP:OWN behaviour. Jeannedeba (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the introduction, in an attempt to make it shorter and less discursive, to remove what seemed to me to be duplication, and to give it a better flow. I have not intended to make any substantive changes to the weight given to different definitions of the term. I would prefer others to discuss the changes here, rather than simply reverting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Glancing it over, that looks like a good improvement. I like your change to my "popularized" wording; it doesn't get across the idea I was trying for, but my wording didn't get across that idea either! :P Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I can live with this, though I still think it gives somewhat too much weight to organized humanism, which only seems to claim 5 million members worldwide (IHEU member organizations, though it is understandably not a number they trumpet about). It certainly needs copy-editing:

• "In modern times, many humanist movements have become strongly aligned with secularism, " is a bit of a train wreck- was this not in fact the case for Renaissance humanism also? You don't actually mean secularism, a political concept implying no philosophical position, you mean rejection of religion etc. Who and where are the "many humanist movements"? Movements is not the right word, implying organization, which is a tiny and belated factor in humanism.
• is "byword" the right word here? Why not just say "synonym"?
• "... non-theistic beliefs about ideas such as meaning and purpose" ends rather limply; better to just stop at "beliefs".
• "During the Renaissance period in Western Europe, humanist movements" should just be replaced by an unpiped link to Renaissance Humanism - what were these "movements" - this is OR.

I don't see why the paasage lower down about the Norweigian constitution was cut. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm okay with the specific proposals you've made. As for the first bullet, is there specific wording you could recommend to improve that sentence? Regarding bullet 3, I don't know how I feel about just "non theistic beliefs", which seems vague; how about "In modern times, many humanist movements have become increasingly secular, with the term Humanism often used as a synonym for secular humanism." Ghmyrtle, I know you were trying to avoid using the term SH, so I'm interested to know what you think about this proposal. Do you have a better idea here?   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, that's really redundant. We could say "many humanist organizations", or "organizations such as the IHEU". Perhaps that bit would be best combined with the section on secular humanism below? I don't know... maybe I'll have some better ideas in the morning!   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• • How about (from what was "In modern times"): "In the 20th century the term humanism came to be widely used for actively non-theistic beliefs.

Before the word was associated with a rejection of religious belief, German historian and philologist Georg Voigt used humanism in 1856 to describe the movement that flourished in the Renaissance to revive classical learning; this definition won wide acceptance. Renaissance humanism, as this movement is now called, attempted to demonstrate the benefit of gaining learning from classical, pre-Christian sources in and of themselves, or for secular ends such as political science and rhetoric."

"promoted" or "advocated" would do for "attempted to demonstrate the benefit of".

The long note after the old second sentence would be better mostly in the text lower down: "ref name="See 1877"As J. A. Symonds remarked, "the word humanism has a German sound and is in fact modern" (See The Renaissance in Italy Vol. 2:71n, 1877). Vito Giustiniani writes that in the German-speaking world "Humanist" while keeping its specific meaning (as scholar of Classical literature) "gave birth to further derivatives, such as humanistisch for those schools which later were to be called humanistische Gymnasien, with Latin and Greek as the main subjects of teaching (1784). Finally, Humanismus was introduced to denote 'classical education in general' (1808) and still later for the epoch and the achievements of the Italian humanists of the fifteenth century (1841). This is to say that 'humanism' for 'classical learning' appeared first in Germany, where it was once and for all sanctioned in this meaning by Georg Voigt (1859)", Vito Giustiniani, "Homo, Humanus, and the Meanings of Humanism", Journal of the History of Ideas 46 (vol. 2, April–June, 1985): 172./ref" Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to that sort of proposal, although I'm not sure that '"actively" non-theistic' is the most appropriate word - '"explicitly"' perhaps? The IHEU does need to be mentioned - though not at length - because it is the global organisation coordinating those bodies that reject the term "secular humanism" in favour of "Humanism", which itself needs a brief explanation in the lede, whether or not anyone considers it to be a "hijacking" of the word. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading these last two replies, I don't have any objections. Thanks for the input! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A more balanced lead section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The current lead section is not a balanced or encyclopedic lead section. Per WP:LEAD, a lead section should not include more than four paragraphs. In the case of a very broad term that originally referred to renaissance humanism and then had multiple religious and secular uses, one particular modern usage cannot be given ten times more sentences than other movements. Currently "secular humanism" is given undue weight both in the first parapgrah ("In modern times, many humanist movements have become strongly aligned with secularism, with the term Humanism often used as a byword for non-theistic beliefs about ideas such as meaning and purpose.") with no similar mention of other modern humanistic movements, and then given the entire fourth paragraph, while other modern humanistic movements are not mentioned at all, a blatant case of WP:UNDUE and POV.

In the case of such a broad term that refers to renaissance humanism, to a worldview, whether religious or not, a philosophical position, and many modern movements, the first paragraph needs to be a concise summary (no undue weight given to any modern variety), the second and third paragraph should discuss renaissance humanism and other uses of the term before the 20th century, and the fourth paragraph should be a brief summary of all modern uses, including secular humanism, Christian humanism, Jewish humanism, Anthroposophy and possibly other humanistic movements. Jeannedeba (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

After various minor additions and edits by myself, the main issue remains, i.e. secular humanism given much more weight in the fourth paragraph than any other form of humanism, with the unncessary detail that one organization claims their ideology is 'Humanism' without qualification. Jeannedeba (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The common usage of the word today is substantially if not overwhelmingly related to secular humanism. It is, I'm afraid, your POV that is out of line. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are totally incorrect. Humanism doesn't primarily refer to your organization, as pointed out by multiple editors, who have also pointed out the promotional edits by one organization (IHEU) here. Jeannedeba (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Jean, you need to assume good faith; it is not "Ghmyrtle's organization". They are here, just like the rest of us, to build a neutral encyclopedia. From reading the literature we have, I have to agree with Ghmyrtle that the word "humanism" is currently most often related to secular humanism. If that's true, then we need to represent it in the article. We also need to represent the history of the concept, and any other contemporary adaptations of it. I think we do that now, but I would be open to discussing how to better represent other views as well. You appear to want to all but expunge mention of secular humanism from this article, and I'm afraid our sourcing does not allow us to do that. Please don't edit war. Calm down and discuss these issues collaboratively.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one edit-warring, you two are the only ones edit-warring and generally being disruptive by trying to WP:OWN the article, although two users agree your version is POV and unencyclopedic. Jeannedeba (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:EW? I gave you an edit warring warning on the 28th and you removed it, so I trust that it was read. If you persist, you are going to end up blocked. You need to stop, and calmly discuss. Take a breather, and come back with a level head later.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are going to get blocked if you continue edit warring. I have been threatened by disruptive users before, and they always ended up blocked or banned, some of them permanently. You abused a warning tag on my talk page, which is an offence in itself. Actually, you are the one edit-warring on multiple articles by blanket reverting all edits by anyone but yourself and insisting that you alone decide which material that should be part of the articles. You need to make yourself familiar with various policies here, including WP:OWN. Jeannedeba (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.