Talk:Brights movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disambiguation 1

"bright" needs disambiguation - there is John Bright for example, arguably an important historical figure more worthy of appearing first when searching for "bright", rather than some elitist neologism coined to describe "people who are not as clever as we are". Orelstrigo 08:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing elitist about the bright movement. Memenen 00:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so there's nothing elitist about the bright movement. I was in a bad mood when I wrote my comment, for which I apologise. And anyway, in my comment I was not particularly bright myself, when what I really meant to say was "people lke us who are cleverer than you are". Or something like it. Be that as it may, my request for some sort of disambiguation still stands:, E.g. tha aforementioned John Bright - not knowing his first name, on searching for him, this, and only this, page came up. Also, what abougt Bright's disease? Or indeed the town of Bright, Indiana, or the many other "Brights" found in the title pages of this wiki? My problem is essentially that a search took me directly here, as opposed to, at least, a list of relevant pages. Perhaps this page should be entitled "Bright movement" or something similar? Orelstrigo 02:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The way to do this is to have a separate page, Bright (disambiguation), linked from the top line of this article and linking to those other topics like John Bright and Bright's disease, all of which have naturally disambiguated names. GrahamN 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone oppose moving this to Brights?

This should be at Brights, and we should have a disambiguation page here pointing to something like luminance, something like intelligence, and also all of the various proper names that may need to be disambiguated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSchutte (talk • contribs) 21 July 2005

I think it should stay here. This is the singular noun form as required by naming policy, when you talk about luminance or intelligence the noun is "brightness". We have a disambiguation header for other uses. -- Tim Starling 00:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave it as is, at least for now. Metamagician3000 02:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Talk-sections #1 to #10 appear to be before this article was changed to "Brights movement" from "Bright". From talk-section #11 onwards appears to be discussion relevant right now. — Донама 01:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation 2

Two possible ways to disambiguate "bright":

• Do what has been done for gay. I'm not sure that the meaning of "bright" within the context of the Brights' Movement (a very new neologism) qualifies as the obvious choice to dominate the Wikipedia page called "bright", but this may change in the furture, so should we plan ahead?
• Have the Wikipedia "bright" page be a regular disambiguation page with links to pages for Bright's Disease, people named Bright, places named Bright, and the Brights' Movement (new page to replace the current "bright" page). Memenen 18:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've put in your suggestion regarding people called Bright, à la gay article, which solves 33% of my original objection. Probably my reasoning on Bright's disease is wrong, because the phrase "Bright's disease" would surely be the obvious one to look for if you were interested in the disease - I've never heard of anyone suffering from "Bright" (or "Crohn" or "Parkinson" for that matter). So far that's 66% gone leaving 33% for the town(s) called Bright. Now, certainly, world-famous towns like "Paris" or "London" should stand alone, as single-word articles (or redirects to "London, England", "Paris, France", etc) - but lesser known towns such as "Bright, Texas", "Hicksberg, Germany", etc don't really justify articles under their name alone. So, thats another 33% objection gone, leaving just 1% unease about the article heading being just "Bright". The word "gay", meaning "homosexual" has, IMO, overtaken its original meanings, and represents a sizeable number of people, not just a movement and so justifies its inclusion as it is. The Brights' movement currently represents very few people, and the job of an encyclopaedia is surely not to aid (or hinder) propagation of a "meme" according to the vision of any particular movement. So, until the word "Bright" acquires the meaning expressed in this article, then "Brights' movement" seems to me to be a better title. However I'm not sure. My tired brain can't think of anything else that would require the simple title Bright. So, maybe leave things as they are, for now. Orelstrigo 03:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (a closet bright, perhaps?)

Actually, the bright movement is in fact of a elitist movement, to suggest that the word 'bright,' whose connotation is "intelligent" when applied to humans, should be engineered to refer to those who reject belief in the divine or supernatural. I would go as far as to say as the bright movement has arrogance in believing it can label itself this way, and perhaps even prejudice to everyone else who does not share their views.

It is obviously not an elitist movement, as it welcomes anyone to adopt their beliefs and join. If you define elitist as people of one belief, most groups are so elitist. Again, every group centered around a belief believes itself to hold the truth, and that people that don't agree are misled, foolish, stupid, in league with Satan, liers, or some other negative modifier. If that's prejudice, then every group is prejudiced. Yes, they are trying to co-op a commonly used word with positive associations; it's a commonly used and sometimes successful strategy. Do you really think the Democrats are more democratic than the Republicans, and the Republicans more for the republic? --Prosfilaes 10:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The name of the movement is at the root of the problem - if I take the founders of The Brights at face value, they come off as amazingly clueless. They don't seem to have realised the problems with misinterpretation that they face. If I take them as being disingenuous, then they're just being obnoxious. I tend to take the former view, but it astounds me how intelligent folks (e.g. Dawkins and Dennett) don't realise how arrogant the name sounds. There are other problems - how is this movement different from secular humanism, for example. That makes it even more bizarre. It surely doesn't take a lot of work to find various atheist and/or humanist groups today using the Internet, does it? This movement just sounds redundant. Autarch 16:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it no more problematic than the word 'Gay'. After all if you aren't Gay then you must be a sad. How depressing it is to be straight these days!Godfinger 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"There are other problems - how is this movement different from secular humanism, for example. That makes it even more bizarre. It surely doesn't take a lot of work to find various atheist and/or humanist groups today using the Internet, does it? This movement just sounds redundant."

• Whether or not you think the movement is reduntant is really beside the point. It is a movement that is taking place, and that is the subject of the article, not the movement's merrit.
• The question of how this movement is "different" from secular humanism is answered in the definition of the term. It's not really different as such. It is an {i]umbrella term[/i] that includes but is not limited to secular humanist. You don't have to be a secular humanist to be a bright. That question is like asking, how is "religious" different from Christian. Religious is an umbrella term that covers a lot of other beliefs which are more specific.
• Creating an umbrella term and trying to get it into standard usage doesn't make it's founders unintellegent. Nor is it bizzarre. (obviosly all POV "observations") Even if it did, being bizzare or even illitist doesn't bar it from being covered in wikipedia. Wikipedia has many topics that could be classified as bizzar. Wikipeida also talks about plenty of movements, subcultures ect who's adherants could (and probably are) be considered by some to be "less than intellegent."
• Although "bright" does carry a conotation of intellegence, it's not the ONLY conotation that it carries, and is not the intended connotation anyway. As the man who coined the term for use this way said, you can always coin a term that YOU like to cover your belief system. By the same logic, you could say that the conservatives are elitist because they claim to be "right." After all, "right" carries connotations of being the only one's who are correct. But we all know that the intended meaning for "right-wing" isn't the correct wing but right of center.

amyanda 06:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000

What's wrong with thinking that you are correct? This can be said of the adherents to almost any philosophical or religious worldview. If that's elitist or arrogant, then I don't see what is wrong with elitism or arrogance. Of course if being elitist means excluding people on some ground relating to wealth or social class, or if arrogance means being a pain in the arse (loudmouthed and boastful in style), then these are bad things. But I don't see why anyone would assume that people involved in the movement are like that. Metamagician3000 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Does the link in the criticism section really belong? It gives no information on Brights other than that they exist, and then offers propaganda, which may belong on the topics that it argues for, but I don't think on this one. - Mixipixistix

I know nothing of these folks, but I agree with the above comment - the criticism section is more prominent than seems reasonable, and the arguments don't really help one understand anything more about this movement than that people are irritated that they have appropriated and "branded" a normal english word. if not delete the section, then move it down. I'm never comfortable with criticism sections though. Other points of view should be, in my POV, integrated into an article more organically. --Christian Edward Gruber 02:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section includes references to criticism by atheists and other non-believers, who the movement is aimed at - surely that is significant in itself; that a reasonable number of people the movement is aimed at reject it. Autarch 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"meme" or "usage"

Repeated use of the term "meme" in the "Bright" article is appropriate. Two of the most vocal advocates for the Bright movement are the originator of "meme" (Dawkins) and one of its most vocal advocates (Dennett). The term "Bright" was explicitly selected as part of an attempt to create a successful meme. Memenen 01:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the notion of a meme is (at best) controversial. It's OK to say that the founders thought in terms of memes, but not for Wikipedia to use the term as though it represented any sort of true account of the nature of the world. I, like most philosophers (and, I believe, most scientists; certainly the ones woth whom I've spoken), consider the notion of memes to be without merit, and to have neither scientific nor philosophical justification. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like memes, but that's just your POV. As it happens, memes are not widely regarded at contorversial or without merit. Even if they were as unpopular as you make them out to be, this doesn't make them irrelevant to this article. Alienus 19:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside of the Dawkins quote, both usages in this article talk about the "potential to be a meme", which is meaningless (even bad, abandoned ideas are still "memes"). Given that both sentences already mention what Geisert was really getting at, it'd be pointless repetition even if rewritten as "successful meme". --McGeddon 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Bright (noun)" is not the right name for this page

It's an article about brights, not about the word 'bright'. (We already have an article about the word 'bright', here, in the Wiktionary). The article should be moved back to bright and the disambiguation for Bright (band) added at the top, alongside the other disambiguators - brightness and people whose name is Bright. I'd make this change myself but I can't work out how I could do it without losing the page history. Admins please? GrahamN 17:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'd prefer to leave it as it is for the moment. The article is as much about a neologism as a group of people. If the word catches on, maybe the emphasis should change and with it the heading, but it's early days. Metamagician3000 02:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

How can any of the following be "free of supernatural and mystical elements"?

"Pantheists, Buddhists, Yogis, Wiccans"

?

--Paul Moloney 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

By lying to themselves, of course. By the same logic, Christian beliefs aren't necessarily "supernatural" or "mystical" if they're true. :) -Silence 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer is "with difficulty". However, I don't think it's all that difficult for Buddhists. Buddhism was originally a philosophical school, not a religion as we normally understand it in the West. Some people who claim to be Buddhists probably just mean that they deny the existence of any metaphysical self, and deprecate the importance of the self/other boundary. That's a reputable philosophical position. Also, a lot of people are, e.g. cultural Christians, wiccans, etc. They don't necessarily take any supernaturalist claims literally. I make no comment about whether that is an intellectually attractive position for them to be in, but it seems quite common. Metamagician3000 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A philosophical school more than a religion, yes. But certainly nonetheless a spiritual and even mystical one by today's usage of the words "spiritual" and "mystical"; philosophies need not be secular, either (Buddhism is often described as a "religious philosophy" (not to be confused with philosophy of religion).). Other than that, as I said, there are always interesting ways to twist the meaning of the words "supernatural", etc. to suit just about any ideology, regardless of the actual content and practical application of those beliefs. For example, you could say that vampires aren't "supernatural" because they're real, physical, actual beings, and therefore a bright can believe in vampires.

I think that this is a direct result of the vagueness of the "bright" concept, and I also think that it's to a large extent deliberate; by becoming open and inviting to a large group of people, rather than just to a certain set of people who identify as being a specific thing (like "atheists" or "materialists"), brights gain in numbers and political power what they lose in clarity and specificity; they gain in use while losing in usefulness. That's one of the reasons I don't self-identify as "bright" myself, despite sharing a common (or similar) view with many, many brights; it doesn't tell enough, in itself, about the people who go by the term to make it worth the trouble. -Silence 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Brights and Tweens?

"Where a Bright can lead, a Tween can follow" is presumably a literary (or at least SFnal) reference.

Does it antedate the acquisition of the term for th use described in this article? Midgley 13:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a reference to the 1952 Mark Clifton story "Star, Bright", not sure what it has to do with this article. I'm also reminded of "Reverend Bright", a Friendly cultist from the Dorsai series if I remember correctly. 67.117.130.181 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The article Bright (movement) should be moved to bright. The word "bright" describes a particular group of people, not just those who subscribe to any supposed "movement". (Cf. "gay" or "alcoholic" - these are not "movements".) Other articles that use of the word "bright" in the title are not very numerous (John Bright, Bright's disease, Bright, Victoria and Bright (band) seems to be about it), and apart from Bright (band) they all have naturally disambiguated titles. — GrahamN 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

---

• Support We should move this page back to bright (where it was originally) and have a suitable link to bright (disambiguation) at the top of the page that people can follow if they arrived here when searching for places or people called Bright. GrahamN 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think I ever heard of the Bright movement outside of Wikipedia. It's better to have it at Bright (movement) then move it to the place of a common, heavily overloaded, noun.--Prosfilaes 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • • But it's not principally a "movement". The word "bright" describes any person who has a naturalistic worldview, whether or not they have ever heard the word and whether or not they subscribe to the ideals propagated by self-appointed spokesmen for any supposed "movement". Is "gay" a movement? Is "alcoholic" a movement? No. Those words describe groups of people who would exist regardless of whether those words were in common currency. Bright (movement) is the wrong title for this page. It should be just bright. GrahamN 19:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The word "bright" is used by some people to describe any such person, but most people have never heard of it. The article is about the movement for the word "bright", not about the concept it describes.--Prosfilaes 23:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, bright makes much more sense than Bright (movement). Mikker ^... 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. In much of the English-speaking world, bright carries only its dictionary meanings. AjaxSmack 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I oppose moving the article to bright, but I would support moving it to something that better describes the concept than "movement". Perhaps Bright (person) or Bright (worldview) or something along those lines. Oh, look... the latter is already there! --Ds13 02:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose wikilinks that do go to bright on the Wikipedia do refer to brightness. If there is concern about the disambiguation parentheses, then I would recommend a vote on that, like what Ds13 said. —Fitch 00:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Should we have separate articles for bright and brights movement?

Currently there is a majority of 4 to 2 against moving this article to "bright", so why was the bright page just effectively turned into a link to Brights movement? If not literally, isn't this against the spirit of the 4 to 2 majority here right now? GrahamN, care to comment? --Ds13 15:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The most convincing reason given above for not transferring this article to "bright" is that this article is no longer about the concept of brights but about the "movement" (actually more of a lobbying organisation) that calls itself "The Brights". The prominence in the article of their "sun-shines-out-of-our-behinds" logo rather proves the point. This means that there is currently no article about "brights", only one about the "brights movement". The difference between bright and the brights movement is the difference between "gay" and "Stonewall". I don't think anybody would suggest those two articles should be merged. You are wrong to say that the article "bright" was turned effectively into a link here - it was turned into a stub article about the concept of brights, rather than the brights movement. Some of the material in this article should be removed from here and transferred there, because it is about brights in general rather than the purported "movement". If I find time I'll get on try to do this myself. GrahamN 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bright is a common English word denoting intelligence and light intensity, among other things. It is also a rare word pushed by the group described by Brights movement. The article Bright should be a disambiguation page about the various concepts denoted by Bright; the concept of brights should be under naturalistic worldview or even bright (worldview) if people insist on using the neologism.--Prosfilaes 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but WP:NOT a dictionary, so why disambiguate for dictionary terms? (Are we going to have an article Bright (intelligent person), Bright (optics), Bright (personality type) etc. etc.?) Which articles (and not dictionary terms) require disambiguation at Bright (disambiguation)? Mikker ^... 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it more likely that someone is going to enter bright looking for the article on light or intelligence then they're going to enter bright looking for this neologism. I think that's what's important.--Prosfilaes 21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Assume what you've said is true. What are the consequences? Well, nothing as far as I can see because we can't very well have an article on Bright (intelligence) can we? WP:NOT a dictionary, so that article would never survive AfD. I'll put a link to the disamb page at top of bright, does that help? Mikker ^... 22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We can and do have an article on Brightness, and we can and do have Bright (disambiguation). We should not have an obscure meaning in the space of a common term.--Prosfilaes 22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it terribly important to you to have no article whatsover at bright (i.e. a redirect to bright (disambiguation)) then let's move bright to bright (philosophy) and get it over with. Frankly, I don't think this is terribly important, so feel free to implement a naming solution on these lines if you want. Mikker ^... 22:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that conclusion. Although it would be preferable to have an article about brights at bright (something or other) than to have no article about brights at all (which is what would happen if we implement the proposal that's currently leading the poll at at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright), there is a very good, logical reason why the article should be named bright rather than bright (pointless qualifier): It is the natural name for the article, and it is not the natural name for any other article, (except perhaps Bright (band)). On this basis alone it is clearly the correct title. If you want me to get all procedural on you I'm sure, if I could be bothered to read it, Wikipedia:Disambiguation would back me up. Prosfilaes says "I think it more likely that someone is going to enter bright looking for the article on light or intelligence then they're going to enter bright looking for this neologism. Well let's see, shall we? Currently there are 44 direct links to "bright", of which I could find only three (Traffic (2000 film), Super Sentai and traffic cone) that refer to the word in the sense of "light", and none at all in the sense of "intelligent". All three of those links result from arbritarily and inappropriately wikified words, for example in the sentence "The story is bright, shiny, and saturated in primary colors". Except for Bright (band), I really can't think of any occasion when it would be useful or appropriate to wikify the word "bright" from any article to link to anywhere other than the article about the philosophical outlook. Can you? GrahamN 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that there's already links to bright that need to be disambiguated. I wasn't talking about internal links; I was talking about external people putting Bright in. It's too common a word to devote to too narrow a usage.

I don't really understand why we need an article about brights. Write an article on naturalistic worldview, an ancient concept with many cites, not an article on a modern neologistic conception of the matter.--Prosfilaes 00:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There are three links to bright that need to be removed, not disambiguated, since they are examples of arbritary and unhelpful wikification. I'd have removed them already except I thought you might think I was destroying evidence. Please give me an example of an occasion when you feel it would be useful or appropriate to wikify the word "bright" to link to anywhere other than the article about the philosophical outlook (or the band). As for external people searching for "bright" in the sense of clever or light, I can't see that happening. This isn't a dictionary, and if you know enough about those words to know what they mean, I can't think of any fact that you might need to look up in an encylopaedia about them. Can you? Please suggest a realistic scenario where a serious user of this encyclopaedia would type "bright" into the search box, when they were looking for an article about anything other than the philosophocal outlook (or the band).

We could have an article about "naturalistic worldview", but that wouldn't be the same as an article about brights. The only way to have an article about brights without calling it bright would be to name it People whose worldview is naturalistic - free of supernatural and mystical elements - and whose ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview. That would be legitimate, I suppose, but somewhat clumsy. And also ridiculous, seeing as there is a simple six-letter word that has the same meaning.

GrahamN 01:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But they shouldn't go to something completely absurd. If someone was looking for information about brightness, they might type bright into the search box. Your strawman of an article name is absurd. --Prosfilaes 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone was looking for information about brightness they would type in "brightness". If someone was searching for information about brights they would type in "bright". They would not type in "bright (anything)", nor would they type in "naturalistic worldview". If they knew enough about the subject to type in "naturalistic worldview" they wouldn't have to look it up! Not sure where you think I've set up a straw man. Maybe I've misunderstood somethng you said? You've not yet given me an example of an occasion when you feel it would be useful or appropriate to wikify the word "bright" to link to anywhere other than the article about the philosophical outlook (or the band). GrahamN 02:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And if they typed in Bright, they would get the disambiguation page. If they don't know that bright means a naturalistic worldview, maybe they should use a dictionary. If they don't know that a naturalist worldview is sometimes called bright, they haven't been reading a small group of people that have been using the word for a few years. It's a terribly uncommon, neologistic word, and should not displace all the other concepts that bright is attached to, including the band. People whose worldview is naturalistic - free of supernatural and mystical elements - and whose ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview is a strawman; there's no need to include "free of supernatural and mystical elements", for one small thing.--Prosfilaes 02:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The clause "free of supernatural and mystical elements" is an essential part of the definition. Pagans, for example, have a naturalistic world view - they worship nature - but they are the exact opposite of brights. It's not as obscure a thing as you are making out - some very influential thinkers, such as Daniel Dennett, Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins and Ian McEwan [I think] have taken to using the word. Nobody looks up things they already know about, (such as bright in the sense of "light" or "clever"). People use an encyclopaedia to look things up that they haven't come across before, such as "bright" in this sense. The fact that it is a bit uncommon makes it more likely that people will look it up in wikipedia when they come across it, not less. GrahamN 03:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Neopagans do not have a naturalistic world view. Please read Naturalism (philosophy). Naturalism means that one does not recognize the existence of the supernatural (a reasonable viewpoint, as "natural" can specifically refer to what exists) or does not recognize a distinction between the supernatural and natural. Pagans can be naturalists (just like Christians can), by believing that things like gods and magic are completely natural and physical phenomena, but the vast majority of Pagans are not. Worshiping nature and being a philosophical naturalist couldn't be more distinct; one refers to nature as contrasted with technology and civilization ("worshiping nature" refers to woodlands and streams and all that nonsense, not to all physical phenomena!), and the other refers to nature as contrasted with the supernatural. -Silence 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Bad example. So let's choose naturalistic panthism then, instead. According to the article, that is a naturalistic worldview that does have supernatural and/or mystical elements. So the point still stands. That clause is an essential part of the definition. GrahamN 04:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a basic misunderstanding here. The Brights Movement and the definition of "bright" are not based upon 'philosophical naturalism'. The definition states only that a bright has a "naturalistic worldview, free from supernatural and mystical elements". All of that phrase must be used to complete the definition. This is using naturalistic in the sense of "conforming to reality" and nothing more, and no connection with naturalism is intended. The movement itself is a civic action organisation registered as an educational organisation under US law, and has no philosophical or ideological intent. The correct category for the page would therefore be with other civic action organisations.

On the subject of the Brights Movement and the term bright being limited to a small number of people, there are currently between 20,000 and 25,000 registered Brights, across the world, which puts it on equal footing with many of the existing atheist groups currently in existance. As the numbers are growing rapidly, it's likely that an increasing number of people will want to look for Brights and Brights Movement. ProfM 16:15 24 Aug 2006 (UTC)

What's the point?

Is this another "religious movement" for the non-religious?! --MacRusgail 10:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be treated like any other intellectual or religious movement. As such the introduction should talk about the movement, not the fact that they use this word bright. — Донама 01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a relevant question for this page. But for the record it's clearly not a ""religious movement" for the non-religious". It merely provides a possible way of uniting the many disparate naturalistic worldviews at that most basic level of commonality. But I agree with Донама in as much as the movement should be treated as such; it's a "civic justice" movement. --ExiguusNemesis 14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

There's a problem with a criticism section which is 3:1 response to the criticism. Gabrielthursday 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1

One attribution was lacking: Mynga Futrell was co-founder (with Paul Geisert) of the Brights movement.

The prior statement yielded an incomplete statement of purpose for the movement. The introduction of the neologism as an umbrella term must be seen in light of the founders' overall desire to raise consciousness and induce civic engagement. The founders' intent was and remains social action (to facilitate a diverse array of persons in better addressing their social and civic circumstance).

Paragraph 2

Paul Geisert coined the umbrella term, Mynga Futrell created the definition, and both formed The Brights' Net.

Paragraph 3

The noun form of bright should not be interpreted through the use of "isms." To introduce any is to imply a philosophy or belief system or ideology rather than the generic categorization of individual perspectives. The sentence may accurately reflect that philosophical considerations may underly some persons' interpretations.

65.78.134.68 20:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert

Is the Dinesh D'Souza WSJ opinion piece the best criticism available? The whole argument is a non-sequitur. Kant's Critique may be right in that there are truths not accessible by reason, but that doesn't mean they're accessible by anything else. Does anyone find his argument anything more than whining? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.216.237 (talk • contribs) 15 January 2007

Bad link godless march on Washington

In the History section there is a link "Godless March on Washington", clicking on that link yeilds results similar to praying to God.

There is a page Godless_Americans_March_on_Washington and at least two redirect links point to that page namely; Godless_March and Godless_American_March_on_Washington (no "s" in American(s)). I suppose "Godless March on Washington" would also be a useful redirect or should the link be changed? As an aside the Atheism page also has a link to "Godless March on Washington". Vamptoo 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is fixed now by Urania3, thanks.Vamptoo 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Shermer

Shermer is currently listed under "Notable Brights." In fact, he is on record as saying "I don't call myself a Bright." He apparently doesn't like the pretentiousness inherent in the term. And, I can provide a link to a video of him stating this if anyone needs it. (It Will just take me a little bit to find it.) This statement of his is from around 3 or 4 years ago however. Perhaps he has since changed his stance? But, if so, can anyone povide reference? 74.104.100.186 16:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the video... it didn't take as long as i thought it would. :)

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1410330225420430733&q=shermer

At 1:02:18 in the video Shermer states: "As for the Brights, I don't call myself a Bright. Mainly because, I guess, the natural implication is that if you weren't a Bright, you'd be a Dim." 74.104.100.186 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think there might be some subtle wordplay going on here between the concept that "bright" is meant to stand for, which is "a person whose worldview is naturalistic—free of supernatural and mystical elements" and the use/advocacy of the term. First of all, the brights net website lists him as an "enthusiastic bright". [1] Second, and far more telling, are his own comments, talking about his book Science Friction, which dedicates an entire chapter to the brights movement, in which he says:

"The movement began at the Atheist Alliance International convention in 2003, and I was the first to sign the petition. The “Bright” movement gained momentum when myself and such luminaries as the evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins and the philosopher Daniel Dennett came out of the skeptical closet through opinion editorials. The reaction was swift and merciless—almost no one, including and especially nonbelievers, agnostics, atheists, humanists, and free thinkers, liked the name, insisting that its elitist implications, along with the natural antonym “dim,” would doom us as a movement." [2]

There are four things I would like to highlight here.

1. Shermer states clearly he was the first to sign the petition. That shows that he is in agreement with the aims of the movement, and since he was the first, he must be pretty enthusiastic.
2. Shermer states that the movement gained momentum when he, along with others, "came out of the skeptical closet."
3. Shermer notes that many people responded badly to the name, commenting again on the proposed antonym (Dan Dennett, on the other hand has suggested "supers" for people whose world view includes supernatural elements).
4. Shermer suggests that such concerns about the name would doom "us" as a movement, which suggests that he still counts himself as part of the movement, even if he thinks that "all such attempts will ultimately fail"

The important point to note here, and in the quote above is that Shermer states "I don't call myself a bright" not that he isn't one. Clearly based on the above, he feels perhaps uncomfortable with the term, but not with the movement and its goals. To borrow from the founding analogy with the brights movement, there were probably plenty of people that were homosexual that were uncomfortable with the term "gay". Shermer's writings and actions speak clearly, if even he would prefer a different word to describe them. Edhubbard 18:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Excellent. Thanks for supplying this info. I had known of Shermer's early involvement with the movement, but upon hearing his statement in that video thought it likely that he had since disassociated himself from it. But, I wasn't sure and was waiting for someone else to provide further info. - which is why I waited before going ahead with the edit. So, I'm guessing from the info. provided, that Shermer does indeed consider himself an active member of the movement... just one who is of the opinion that the movement didn't exactly pick the best of possible names for itself. The confusion arose due Shermer not being very clear in the video. In the context it is offered it sounds as if he's saying "I don't call myself a bright" as in "I don't call myself a member of the group that calls itself brights." But, in light of other available information, it becomes clear his meaning is "While I am associated with the group, I don't agree with the term 'bright' and so I choose not to use it to refer to myself."74.104.100.186 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's about right... I count myself as a bright, too (although my name isn't as famous as Shermer's) but I tend to agree with him that the name might not be the best one. Unlike Shermer, I have decided to live with it. Thanks for posting to the talk page first, it's nice to be able to develop things... In fact, this might make for an interesting addition on the criticism section, noting that even people that are "enthusiastic brights" are not always sold on the name. It will just take a little thinking to make it into a sentence or two, instead of the paragraphs we have here. Edhubbard 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not calling yourself something, like "gay" when you are homosexual, because of the pejorative connotations received by society today, is not an appropriate analogy. By this logic, any atheist scholar is a "bright," where Shermer clearly dissociates himself with the Brights. The analogy fails because "gay" is something that you can be called based on something that you are, while a bright, is not something that you can be called, based on who you are, but on which organization you classify yourself in. If Shermer says he is not a bright, he is not a bright.GravityExNihilo 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

'Bright' or 'bright'?

I thought this needed capitals, but in fact the article varies between 'Bright' and 'bright'. Which should it be?

Bright when proper (talking about the group), bright when descriptive (adjective quality of the group, or any noun for that matter).GravityExNihilo 07:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Brights UK external link

Can I question the inclusion of the external link to Brights UK? This takes you to a Google Groups sign-up page, rather than a web site viewable to all. I would suggest deleting it, or at least making it clear what you are linking to. Rushey Platt 13:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit done Rushey Platt 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)