Template talk:Humanism

comments

Feel free to improve this template mercilessly. Antihumanism and Neo-humanism are in such bad shape that I wouldn't care if someonen decided to remove them from the template, for example. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, a double small tag was being generated around the first item in the second indentation level. It seems to be fixed by adding an explicit closing tag on the preceding item.

Removed antihumanism as suggested above. --Transhumanist 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why has antihumanism been removed? Almost every subject with its own portal has a page of criticisms. The antihumanism page has improved immeasurably in the last year (although there are still problems with sources), so if there is no controversy here over the next week I will put it back. Additionally, I struck Marxist humanism from the "religious" subheading; even a hardline Althusserian such as myself would consider that unfair, and I can only assume it is the result of vandalism or an honest cock-up (or rank POV ignorance). Commander deathguts 09:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of... series, ... Portal

The template stated at top 'Part of the Politics series on Humanism', and 'Politics Portal' at the end. Quote from the latter's header (with my emphasis in italics):

"Politics is the process and method of gaining or maintaining support for public or common action: the conduct of decision-making for groups. (...). Political science is the field devoted to studying political behavior and examining the acquisition and application of power, or the ability to impose one's will on another."

There is no such 'Politics' flag for religions, thus the above makes flagging Humanism as political highly POV. Though I first suspected vandalism, committing the bottom line on 2006-04-30 20:55 (UTC) seems to have been caused by thinking from a personal interest as User:Electionworld's page shows. I'm surprised it remained for more than three months. Later on, User:Silence beautifully and usefully redesigned the template and obviously in good faith put the 'Part of...' on top. Far more suitable is the term 'Philosophy' and the Philosophy Portal. — SomeHuman 2006-08-11 17:40 (UTC)

Secular humanism

Why isn't secular humanism included in the Humanism nav box? Christian humanism is included, so secular humanism's exclusion seems awkward. --Tjss(Talk) 00:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see on your user page, that you focus on articles related to politics, foreign policy, international law, and the United Nations. Perhaps you should now focus your eyes. 'Secular humanism' is at the top, just underneath the Happy Human figure. Several of the titles in the coloured baulks are indeed links, including 'Humanism' in the baulk above the figure. ;-) — SomeHuman 20 Sep2006 23:35 (UTC)

Idem, Secular_humanism is missing (I did not find the proper syntax to add it)User67QH (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Transhumanism

Why is this included in the template? It's related by name alone, focusing on human technological augmentation rather than a philosophy. If no one minds, I'll remove this in 10 days. 144.32.196.3 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. Transhumanism IS a philosophy. In fact that is the context of book "The Transhumanist Reader", it's a compendium of essay's on Transhumanist philosophy. JanderVK (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverting unexplained deletions

User:Lennim appears to have deleted several links to various forms of humanism without comment. It doesn't look like this account is given to vandalism, but since all the removed links look relevant to humanism to me, I'm going to revert them. If they really don't belong, can you please make edit summaries or give an explanation on the talk page so we can all understand the justification for such removals? Thanks! OldMan (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian Humanism and the Happy Human

While I do think there is a good reason to keep Christian Humanism in the category since it's discussed on the main page, I can't help but feel that it's inappropriate that the Happy Human symbol is at the top of the box. The Happy Human is the symbol of the IHEU, an organization that in its own bylaws says, "It [Humanism] is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality". Some might say that its just a symbol and its not a big deal, but I really think it is. If I changed the Happy Human to the the Jesuit Emblem since the Jesuits promoted (and still promote) many of the ideals of Renaissance Humanism, I can't imagine it would last 20 seconds. Thus, if the Humanism being defined in this category encompasses viewpoints outside of Secular Humanism, the symbol ought to be changed. Personally, I would suggest using the Vitruvian Man. Corbmobile (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is perfectly reasonable to me. It also gives a nod to Renaissance concepts and doesn't limit humanism to one specific organization, religion, god or no god, or type. I've made the change. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Tried a new design out

Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot; I thought it was very fitting. --^{[ باد است هرآنچه گفته‌اند اى ساقى ]} stellamaris 08:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

3D humanist logo

I recently replaced the black and white logo with a colored 3d logo I made a while back. It has come to my attention that I should start a discussion here where we can compare the pros and cons of the new 3d "gold" logo and the basic "black" and white logo. For my part, I thought the change was a good idea because:

• to get the obvious out of the way, I like it. I would - because I made it, and so I could make sure the edges were sharp and the figure was smooth and lit. For example, I made a shadow to suggest the figure's influence is bigger than the figure itself...But to avoid having this discussion become only "WP:ILIKEIT"...
• also, many of the other religion or worldview templates have very nice, colorful images (e.g. Template:Christianity, Template:Buddhism, Template:Islam). I thought that secular humanism deserved a more colorful image too/
• I think there are now enough secular humanists that an absolutely basic, black and white version of their/our logo does insufficient justice to the role that the values can play in people's lives, or the positive change that the movement has effected in certain areas
• The basic shape of the logo itself, even for those who have never seen it before but are looking to reproduce it, is still very clearly visible

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesseract2 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 December 2011‎

Although the change surprised me, and my initial response was quite negative, I don't dislike the image itself, and I fully endorse some of Tesseract2's explanatory comments above. If others are content with the change, I have no objection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent removals

An editor recently removed a large number of links, and eliminated the image altogether in this edit. I don't see these changes as an improvement. An image is important for this template, I believe, since it is presented at the top of related articles. AFAIK, this is the most iconic image for humanism, so it makes sense why it was chosen. I'd be open to discussing other image options, or the removal of content generally. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The logo of one secular humanist organization does not represent the topic, such as renaissance humanism, German new humanism, or religious humanism(s), and is thus both POV and irrelevant (as has already been pointed out by other users on this talk page), it's like having a Christian symbol as the image which would also be non-neutral. Also, the various modern secular humanist organizations don't belong in the top of the template. The articles that naturally belong in the top, and also the central articles relating to the topic, are articles providing the overview of the history of humanism, not articles on specific modern organizations. As far as the sections for religious and secular humanism are concerned, whether they are sorted chronologically or alphabetically, religious humanism comes first (chronology is really the most important reason). Template:Humanism is not the IHEU template, if you want to have a template with the logo of that organization, you can make an IHEU template. Finding a neutral image for this template should hardly be a problem, how about Erasmus of Rotterdam or the Utopia (book) image? Jeannedeba (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Or this image of Petrarch, one of the first humanists? (the "father of Humanism") Jeannedeba (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Corbmobile suggested above the Vitruvian Man, which is also a very good suggestion. Jeannedeba (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• 
  Petrarch, the "Father of Humanism"
• 
  The Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci

The "other users" you refer to are actually one user, Corbmobile, who mentioned it once more than 2 years ago. It was changed since then, new consensus arose, and a variety of other images were discussed instead. We can certainly have a discussion about the correct image to use, but whatever we decide, it should be an iconic image for the concept of humanism; something which readers will identify and associate with the topic. I don't think readers are likely to identify Petrarca, and the Vitruvian Man is significant far beyond humanism. I know you find it insulting that secular humanism is so largely represented within humanism today, but our sources indicate that it is, and we would be failing our duties as an encyclopedia to not describe that. The happy human logo is an iconic image of humanism. Yes, it is also associated with secular humanism, but I don't know if that's a serious problem. Choosing an image for such a divergent set of philosophies is difficult. Petrarca, for instance, was a Christian humanist. Would adding him as an image be a slight against secular humanism or transhumanism? It appears that the happy human logo is the iconic contemporary image for humanism generally, beyond being simply the logo of a specific organization, as you've alleged. I think it makes sense to keep it as that for now. If other users have any thoughts, I'd definitely be open to hearing them!   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see a good reason for changing it. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The template takes up too much space. Renaissance humanism graced by a huge purple template with a 1960s symbol of secular humanism at the top? People need to make up their mind if this template is supposed to be about humanism in general, or about secular humanism, aka "Humanism" in particular. In the latter case, fine, the logo is adequate, but then it shouldnt be plastered on historical articles. As always in these cases, remember that navigation templates are not an end unto themselves, and they tend to attract cruft. The natural lifecycle of such a template is then to be collapsed and forgotten alongside half a dozen other collapsed templates.

Or else you can trim it down to make it relevant, and get rid of the clip-art and the screaming colour scheme. --dab (𒁳) 21:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The image is too big and unnecessary. I suggest the removal of Vitruvian Man. --Thi (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The current image, which represents the Indian village man, doesn't represent all of humanity, so it should be changed to include various people, not just only one specific man. - DualPlay (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Outdated syntax

The template syntax should be updated/converted to Template:Sidebar. Jeannedeba (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)