Talk:Humanism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Revision of Renaissance Humanism: A Fine Line between NPOV and Copyright Violation

I've removed a lot of unsourced sentences with fact tags from the Renaissance humanism section, and put in a lot of material that I thought better represented our current understanding of Renaissance humanism as it pertains to the arts, philosophy, and the church. I was careful to make sure I didn't inject any of my own opinion, but only reflected the statements of the sources I cited. Johnbod, I very much appreciated many of your edits, as you've added additional information and cleaned up some of my rather terse language. I just want to let you know that I welcome and appreciate a good number of those.

However, my goal was to bring this article from "B-grade" by many standards to "A-grade," and I was surprised to see that you thought many of my statements were not from a neutral point of view. As I said, my goal was to inject as little of my own opinion as possible into this article. However, many of your edits are a radical departure from what I was taught about Renaissance humanism, and in fact some of them directly change the language of the sources I've cited. All of your edits to my revision, it alarmed me to see, were completely unsourced. This is what takes a "B-grade" article right back down to a "C-grade" article.

As examples:

1. I tried to make sure I did not give Wikipedia a voice when describing opposing views on Renaissance humanism. Some sources see it only as a course of education that focused on ancient language and arts, without permitting the content of the ancient language and arts to influence the philosophy of the Renaissance. I cited the Catholic Encyclopedia directly as an example of this. You removed my reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, and made the paragraph read as if Wikipedia was itself expressing this opinion. I think this had the opposite effect of what you intended. Please read WP:SUBSTANTIATE to understand what I was attempting to do, and what you've undone.
2. I tried to show two sides of Erasmus: how he both contributed to the church using his knowledge of Latin and Greek, and how the church came to revile him after his death. This is a good illustration of the tricky relationship between the church and humanists, and yet, you completely deleted the fact about his excommunication, and a direct citation to the book from which I had taken this fact. Deleting well-sourced facts is commonly considered vandalism on Wikipedia, but I don't think this was your intention. In making your edit, you commented, "Shortly before he died he was offered to be a cardinal - you might mention that." I would indeed like to mention that, so could you please cite a source for this so that I might include it as part of my contrast of how humanists were first beloved, and came to be reviled by the church over time? Providing more facts and more citations is the correct way to deal with POV. Please help me build and improve, rather than simply deleting and destroying.
3. The source I cited that described the widening schism between the church and humanists says, "in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, a few humanists thought they could use their skills as scholars to reanimate the church. Humanist theologians insisted that the formal theology of the universities was far less valuable than a direct knowledge of the biblical text, and that the documents that supported the church's priveleges should be subjected to critical scrutiny, like any others. But even in the early Renaissance, these men came under fire from the professionals they criticized. And in the later sixteenth century, as the Protestants mounted their radical challenge to papal supremacy and Catholic orthodoxy, the Roman church became a center not only of scholarly inquiry but of systematic censorship." I reworded this some to avoid a copyright violation, but I tried to keep the meaning of the words conveying similar ideas. I changed the words "a few" in the source to "some of the humanists used their scholarship in the service of the church," but you edited that to read, "Though many humanists continued to use their scholarship in the service of the church." Your edit has actually changed this article to say something quite different from what the source cited actually says. Since you did not cite a source of your own, I am going to stay true to the source and use their exact term instead, so there can be no question of either of us imposing our biased point of view on this article.
4. The same is true for the words "systematic censorship," which you also deleted, again without citing a source. These words are not mine; their point of view is not mine. These are historians from the Library of Congress. Please do not change the substance or meaning of the sentence without citing a better source to replace the one you change or delete.

Again, I want to make it clear that I appreciate several of your cleanups and improved language throughout this revision. With citation of more and better sources, we can bring this article out of "B-grade" status and make it more reliable together. OldMan (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I won't have time to finish all points here this time.

1. (different sequence - not your points) On Erasmus, you will find his being offered a cardinalcy in your favourite Catholic Encyclopedia & plenty of other sources. I don't think it belongs here, any more than the fact that a hard-line Pope excommunicated him (rather against Catholic theology, I would have thought - by then he was in the hands of a higher authority). In fact I have never seen this mentioned elsewhere, & frankly wonder if Manchester got it right - he is hardly an expert on this period, and I note from our bio that (on what was his specialist period) "Scholars generally disliked the biographies by Manchester. They were deemed superficial, anecdotal, hyperbolic, and hagiographic." Eugene L. Rasor, Winston S. Churchill, 1874-1965. If you want an excommunicated humanist there are many - I recommend Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stake as well, although his strong interest in astrology etc may not suit your line.
2. To mention in the text the CE on humanist Popes clearly implies this is a partial source - in fact the CE is best avoided whether other sources can be found. But that all these Popes were humanist comes under Subject-specific common knowledge, which does not need sourcing, indeed in the case of 3/4 of those named it is the big thing about them - what they are mainly known for. 2/4 were in the top flight of humanists of their day, and all can certainly be called notable humanists.
3. I will find some sources for what I freely admit I have written from general knowledge of the period - but trust me, all those points can be substantiated. I suggest you add fact tags if you really doubt any.
4. In general the earlier versions seemed to me to go into unnecessary detail for an article on humanism, and much of that detail was to emphasize a divergence between humanism and the Catholic church specifically, when in fact the Protestant churches were just as opposed, in pretty much the same ways, though in many places they lacked the apparatus the Catholics had. This was a distortion I have tried to remove, partly by adding, but also by subtracting. I removed "systematic censorship" because the link was not relevant - few Renaissance artists spoke Latin, still mostly the language of humanism, and the involvement of artists in humanism, with a few exceptions, was surprisingly tenuous. I have no objection to the words being restored, but it should be made clear that they cover Protestant countries as well; they censored just as systematically. Both sides of Europe had vent-holes like Venice and Amsterdam, where censorship was much less. That your LoC source only covers Italy, Rome in fact, is no reason to distort the history. But it is a reason to be very cautious in using it for unqualified statements that purport to cover all of Europe.
5. "Modern scholars of history and philosophy portray different aspects ..." implies older ones saw things differently, which they did not, though as I said in an edit summary, the big scholarly movement in recent decades has been to re-emphasize the "mystical/religious/pagan" side of RH, which older scholars tended to pass quickly over with a shudder. Frances Yates has been the big figure here, followed by many others. It also seems to say that all "modern scholars" just each look at a particular slice of the salami, which is not the case either.
6. One area not covered, that should be, is the gradual move to the use of vernacular languages by humanist writers (like everyone else, but they were in the lead). This was important in massively widening the readership, and also in stiffening church, and often political, censorship. Things that were allowed in Latin might not be in the vernacular.
7. "Some sources see it only as a course of education that focused on ancient language and arts, without permitting the content of the ancient language and arts to influence the philosophy of the Renaissance. I cited the Catholic Encyclopedia directly as an example of this." I very much doubt any source says anything like this - certainly not the CE, in its various articles - see their articles on any of the Hermeticists etc. Nor do I really see how you cited it "as an example of this".

Now I must stop for today. I agree the section is improving greatly, which is obviously a good thing. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any of these arguments as being entirely revert-worthy. You are still materially changing the content of sources cited to say things they don't say, and you are still attributing an opinion to the voice of Wikipedia, where no other major encyclopedias seem to agree. (Encyclopedia Americana, Encarta, and Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion are three sources I have at my fingertips that don't number popes among humanists, and emphasize instead the journey of humanists away from the authoritarianism of the church.) To borrow a phrase from the 2008 US Presidential election debates, "you need a scalpel to make these edits, not an ax." Therefore I am reverting it back, but to show you the right way to make concessions to other viewpoints, I will incorporate your point about "modern scholars of history and philosophy" by deleting the word "modern." Please make your future edits in this fashion, and acquaint yourself carefully with the predominant views of historians so you don't end up changing their words or substance. Thanks! OldMan (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly you have some nerve talking about the "predominant views of historians" given the very limited number of general reference works you seem to rely on, plus google. Have you looked up any of the 4 popes mentioned in those works? No - then I suggest you do so, or try this google search. If I feel in need of any lessons on editing properly from you I will be sure to let you know. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• The section in this article now goes into far more detail on RH & religion than the equivalent section at Renaissance Humanism, which is obviously wrong. I shall be expanding that section, before eventually returning here to restore a balanced and accurate view in a concise form. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed, as I see you've put the contentious issue back in Wikipedia's voice again, which I think you've been around long enough to know is not how Wikipedia operates. Also, you've removed the section about Erasmus again, saying that "he doesn't represent a schism." As explained above, it isn't Erasmus that represents the schism, but what the church did to him after he was already dead. Again, deleting sourced facts that you simply dislike is a powerful way to destroy a neutral point of view. I know, however, that you are editing in good faith so I know if we give you some time you will correct these oversights and restore facts you've deleted even though you may dislike them. If only we could simply delete things from the Encyclopædia Britannica, which dedicates a whole webpage to the difficult relationship between the church and Renaissance humanists, undoubtedly presenting things in a different light would be much easier for us on Wikipedia, wouldn't they? In what time frame should we expect your good-faith restoral of neutral point of view? OldMan (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What contentious issue? Of the 50 important things to say about Erasmus, the nadir of his "posthumous relationship" with the church, and especially one particular Pope, in the 1550s is in the low 40s, but it was the main thrust of the coverage here - a classic case of WP:UNDUE. In any case the reason that he fell out of favour was only because his theology was thought later to come too close to Protestantism. Better to have nothing on him; he is already mentioned above. The relationship between the church and the humanists changed very considerably over the 250-odd years of the movement, and was very complex, which the section now at least mentions. Indeed we don't have all the space in the world - this section is already longer than the "modern" one, and can't be much longer until that is expanded. The section, unlike before, now has a neutral POV as far as I'm concerned, with coverage of both the close links and the divergence between RH & Xtianity, whereas your version covered only one - but I'm willing to discuss specific issues. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally thought the "contentious issues" were spelled out very clearly in the comments to which you responded above, but in following your lead, I've taken the liberty of deleting a few additional sentences in which NPOV phrasing seems to be too elusive. This is fun! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see anything at all POV about "Several popes, notably Nicholas V, Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Leo X were humanists,[11][12] and there was often patronage of humanists by senior church figures.[ " - these are merely basic & very well-known facts, indeed understatements, and were supported by 3 refs. I have reverted. Hale was not talking "of these churchmen" but of Renaissance Humanism as a whole. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted more POV edits - the persistent efforts to remove simple and heavily referenced factual statements (one of which Old Man was happy to have if it was presented as a dubious claim by a source that could be partisan in this context) show how relevant it is that these points are included. I will add more context to the Hale quote. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What you've done is to re-impose your own point of view. I'm going to delete those citations by those historians, because what you've quoted is a statement of OPINION by them. The obvious counterexample is Machiavelli; obviously all the statements of opinion by many published historians can't rectify the fact that he was not a supporter of the Catholic church. Your comments above that they're applicable to ALL humanists is therefore obviously wrong and contradicted by demonstrable fact, and your insistence on restoring the heavily-slanted verbiage that gives opinions as "assumed to be true" betrays your intention to make Wikipedia take a side. As you've just deleted several cited facts that you find "irrelevant," I'm going to continue to delete your cited facts until you restore even those that you dislike. Fair's fair, after all. We'll know that you're ready to have an honest, adult discussion about Renaissance humanism when you are willing to confront the church's eventual ostracization of Erasmus, among others. Until then, won't this continued back-and-forth be fun?!? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is clearly failing. Any general statement on a complicated matter by a historian, like Cambridge history the one just below (neatly balancing Hale's one) can be described as "a statement of OPINION by them", though you have also removed simple facts. You have been edit-warring on this article (and barely editing any others) for months. I don't share your enjoyment of this pursuit, and will be reporting you. The passage by Hale uses "mostly" and does not assert that it applies to each and every humanist. The only "side" I want WP to take is that of all serious historians of the subject, namely that Renaissance Humanism was not the same as modern secular humanism, the POV you and Old man have been trying to force on the article against all-comers for months. The old passage on Erasmus was quite simply misleading, and not relevant here - he was never ostracised while alive, though briefly in serious disfavour under one Pope twenty years after his death. We have gone through all this before. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[Unindenting so formatting of the following will be more legible] "I don't share your enjoyment of this pursuit" appears to be a blatant lie, in light of your continued edit-warring to restore ONLY the wording you prefer. I'm not quite sure why you think it's suddenly going to be accepted without argument on the basis of your childish insistence alone. Your edits have all been suspect and subjected to great scrutiny since your 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC) proclamation of what you WILL "accept" and WON'T "accept," based not on reliable sources but on your opinion alone. True to my suspicion, you continue to demonstrate a woeful misunderstanding of such terms as "a few," "some," "many," and "all."

• 13:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC): you changed the phrase "though some of the humanists used their scholarship in the service of the church" to "though many humanists..." without changing the source cited to reflect the change in content.

We haven't seen the original wording of that source so far. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• 02:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC): OldMan pointed out to you on this talk page that you had altered the meaning of the source cited by doing so.
• 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC): The original phrasing of the sentence, "A FEW," was restored to the article.
• 02:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC): you engage in edit-warring, again to change the actual phrasing of the source to "many."
• 13:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC): OldMan had to revert your edit to restore the original wording of the cited source again: "a few."
• 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC): You removed the quantitative qualifier entirely, leaving the implication that ALL humanists used their scholarship in the service of the church!
• 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC): I had to remove the entire sentence to keep you from continuing to make the Wikipedia article read something that the cited source did not say or imply!

And now you are doing it again: your quotation of Hale implied that ALL humanists fit his generalization about support for the church and work within its context.

• 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC): I edited the article to qualify Hale's statement so that it applied specifically to humanists who ATTEMPTED to keep their scholarship in the good graces of the church.

Exactly, a blatent POV falsification; there is nothing like this in Hale. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC): You deleted the quantifying qualification of Hale's statement, in an effort to make him read like his generalization is, in fact, applicable to ALL humanists.

Which it was, with his qualification. Johnbod (talk)

• 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC): I pointed out to you on this talk page counterexamples to Hale's obviously over-broad generalization, such as Machiavelli.
• 20:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC): Following your lead of simply deleting sentences you don't like, I removed the Hale statement, stating that I would permit replacement when you could figure out how to do it fairly.
• 22:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC): You've added the Hale quote back. To your credit, you included more context that includes qualifying words like "in the main," but it's still an opinion that is contradicted by the later facts of the church's disrespect for even those humanists that supported it.

There is no contradiction at all, except with your over-simplified POV - see below. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's important for you to note what it's going to take to get me on your side, to establish a consensus:

• 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC): I made an edit that said I was following YOUR lead on deleting statements that are not NPOV.
• 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC): On this talk page, I pointed out that I was following YOUR lead in deleting sentences where NPOV was too elusive.
• 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC): On this talk page, I said we'll know that YOU are ready to have an honest, adult discussion about Renaissance humanism when YOU are willing to confront the church's eventual ostracization of Erasmus, among others.
• 20:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC): I deleted some of your POV commentary from the article, pointing out that I WILL PERMIT IT, as long as you are also willing to replace the cited facts that YOU deleted.

It's your questionable changing of others' wording that makes your edits unworthy of trust. I'm deleting the addition of the assertions you want to present as uncontested facts, until such time as I get to check your sources, because you've established for yourself a reputation as a vandal who alters the wording of your sources and unrepentantly peddles a point of view that is at odds with other major reference works. These works highlight difficult relationships between the church and the humanists. When your edits look less suspicious of altering your source material's content, or of attempting to "right great wrongs," you'll find a lot less opposition here, okay? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is in fact very little if any contradiction between the all the statements in my last version; a basic point about the period you still seem unwilling or unable to grasp. Most humanists were still Christians who saw their studies and writings as developing Christianity, but the overall trend of the movement, especially by the end of the period, was to deemphasize religion. The Hale & Cambridge quotes together made these points quite well - I have never tried to remove the Cambridge quote. It was you who tried to wrench the Hale quote to a false context it did not have, & then removed it altogether after I extended it to make the full context clear. I can't access the Cambridge History of Philosophy, but I would be very surprised if it did not say something similar to Hale also - any good work on the period will, & I could quote Davies making similar pairs of points. I'm afraid as far as I am concerned, you & Old Man are the ones trying to cherry-pick points and sources to set up a POV narrative that fundamentally misrepresents the facts, and, almost certainly, your sources too. Very many humanists in the 16th century continued to study almost exclusively Christian texts, and often found themselves, willingly or not, transformed into Catholic or Protestant controversialists after the divisions of the Reformation hardened; that, very large, side of humanist activity is in fact the one that has continued without much alteration into modern Biblical scholarship. On Erasmus, if we were going to have him in at length, the most important points to make are probably: a) he remained a Catholic priest to the end of his life, b) he spent his last years working unsuccessfully to reconcile the RC church and Lutheranism, c)he was always listened to and in favour with the top of the church while alive, d) he was offered a cardinalcy near the end of his life. It might then be worth adding that 20 years after he died, at the height of the Counter-Reformation, one particular hard-line Pope thought he had gone too far in his writings to meet Lutheranism, and placed all his works on the Index, from which most were removed by his successor about five years later. At the same time he remained a figure respected by the Protestant Churches. But this is too much detail for this article, surely? I note that when I added most of this section to Renaissance Humanism itself, a rather better & more knowledgeably patrolled page than this one, the only objection was from an editor who felt the anti-magic POV, refenced but not quoted directly, was too strong ("intellectual dead-end" etc). Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Update - The silly OR just reverted shows the shallowness of the arguments here - Bruno is exactly the sort of figure Hale meant, who "wished to supplement, not contradict [Christianity], through their patient excavation of the sources of ancient God-inspired wisdom" I suggest you read his article. What exactly is the problem with the Humanist Popes, & senior clerics? You'll have to spell it out. Obviously they have inspired dogged resistance, but they are heavily referenced, & in the real world, this is a wholly uncontroversial pair of sentences. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree, that probably IS too much detail for this article, but that just prompts one to ask, "what is the point of the history section of this article, anyway?" That would tell us which details ARE important, which DO belong. For example, is this history section supposed to describe the history of the study of humanities? Is it to describe the history of all studies of latin and greek classics? Is it to describe the history of painting, architecture, and poetry after the dark ages? See, by the title of this article I'd assumed it was to describe the history of HUMANISM. From that assumption, I have indeed extrapolated that relevancy to humanism is important for inclusion in this article, whereby the contributions to the scientific method by Bacon and the dissemination of the works of Lucretius by Bruno really are more on-topic than any quantity of scholars whose only work was to rewrite the Catholic mass in a more aesthetically pleasing form of Latin. Is that not the intention of having a history section in the first place?

That's because you still can't accept the basic point that in Renaissance Humanism religion was more central than science. That is what Humanism was then, and that should represented in the History section accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense; OF COURSE I acknowledge that religion was more central than science for EVERYONE during the Renaissance. It almost goes without saying, because we're talking about the time period that involves the Spanish, Portuguese, and Roman inquisitions, and the authorization of torture for heresy by the papal bull "ad extirpanda." EVERYONE claimed to be a Christian, and did their level best to do it convincingly, on threat of having their fingernails extracted slowly with white-hot iron implements! The fuss in the Renaissance tabloids was about that muck-raker Copernicus and his heretical theory of "heliocentricity," and anyone who doubted what happened to those who challenged Catholic orthodoxy had to look no farther than the Galileo affair. These are all events that coincided with Renaissance humanism, so while the Renaissance humanists all put on their best devotion-to-the-papacy acts, the question remains: until the reformation, EVERYONE was putting on their best devotion-to-the-papacy acts, so how's any of this relevant to humanism, specifically? The historical context of Renaissance humanism is what makes those who renewed interest in not just Greek and Latin TEXTS, but Greek and Latin PHILOSOPHERS, noteworthy for this article. It looks like our primary disagreement is that you want to focus on "all bearers of the name of 'humanism' during the renaissance," only as a sort of abridgment of the Renaissance humanism article, whereas I think it should be a little more directed: Renaissance humanism is notable in the context of this article BECAUSE of the groundwork it laid for the Enlightenment, development of the scientific method, and renewal of interest in otherwise lost Greek philosophy that was not theocentric. I think we are probably agreed that there was a sort of spectrum of beliefs, or changing trends wherein challenge to the authoritarianism of the church was related to both Protestantism and the secular focus of the Enlightenment philosophers. The question is only, what should we do about it? That's what we ought to discuss here, before making additional changes to the article. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No POV there, then! According to the premise of this article, Renaissance Humanism is part of its subject, and does not need to justify being in here by any particular angle. In any case we can't have the sort of misleading POV account we used to have, and you used to defend, which in no way made the points you mention, but emphasized the divergence with Christianity almost exclusively (nothing at all about science as I recall, I think I first added that). We just need a short, concise & accurate overview with links, which I think we now have. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the applicable question is, do you go to articles about stonemasonry and attempt to point out that, prior to the reformation, most stonemasons were devout Catholics and offered their services to the church? Do you go to articles on agriculture and make a point of mentioning that, prior to the reformation, most farmers were devout Catholics and offered their services to the church? Do you go to articles on coopers, blacksmiths, goldwrights, etc. and comment on each that prior to the reformation, they were all quite pious and dedicated Catholics that offered their services to the church? I guess I'm trying to understand why that's notable enough to mention here, to bring "balance" to the accomplishments of Renaissance humanists that HAVE affected modern humanism. I've read several sources so far that make it look like many had to work hard to keep from getting declared as heretics, so their achievements were accomplished IN SPITE of the church. Your efforts to impose your point of view on this history thus far alter this rather broadly-accepted view of renaissance humanism: yes, they were members, but sometimes despite their best efforts, they were unable to stay in the good graces of the authoritarian religious and civic leaders of the day. I don't see that removing such mentions is justified, other than by your loudly-declared taste or opinion. Could you please try your hand at a little better-reasoned explanation? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It is partly because of the modern meaning of humanism; it is necessary to stress they are not the same animal, though there is a relationship. Your mason example is an excellent one; an article on medieval stonemasons probably should point out they were not Freemasons, although there are some who like to claim they were, and the origins of freemasonry do involve stuff elaborated from aspects of the medieval guilds. There is stuff on the increasing tensions between R humanism & religion, though some has been lost in the recent changes, & I don't think we ever quite had enough on the differences between the 3 centuries involved, which were very considerable. At the same time this was given much too much emphasis in still earlier versions. Generally speaking, those, like Bruno, who were in danger of accusations of heresy were so because they were theologians or Biblical scholars, or interested in esoteric religion, not because they were commenting on Lucretius etc - obviously there are exceptions, like Galileo, though as Charles Matthews points out below, a "human-centred" view of the universe is exactly what he was getting away from. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I UNDERSTAND that your opinion is that "this was given much too much emphasis in still earlier versions;" you made your intention to impose your POV on this article crystal-clear back in your comment of 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC). Restating this opinion, however, is not the same as providing a justification by which another might be convinced to share that opinion. Consequently, I still don't agree with you, and intend to change some of the wording back to the original statements with which you disagree, if my research doesn't support the current wording. For example, I've been googling and reading other encyclopedias and reference works to see if they list the popes among their prominent Renaissance humanists too, and in fact the easily-accessible ones DO NOT. Petrarch is nearly universally agreed upon. Erasmus IS universally agreed upon. Machiavelli, Bruno, and Valla are mentioned frequently. The popes? Nearly universally ABSENT. So please: give me something more concrete than your sternly-worded, strongly-held opinion: give me a reason to agree with you. Care to try your hand at presenting a JUSTIFICATION for your opinion, rather than a mere restatement of it? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of reading here, or you could try researching the 4 popes named. The sources you are looking at probably don't mention Pietro Candido Decembrio either (to pick a name at random), but he was certainly a significant figure also, if not able to exert the influence a Pope could. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's it? You have a link to a page of Google search results for a combination of words specific to your POV? Now, with you being a literate person and all, it seems reasonable for me to assume that you could read the discussions I had with Wilson Delgado, above on this very same talk page, and see that such a lazy cop-out is not found compelling by those who wish to determine the prominence of a viewpoint or the quality of scholarship of those who hold such a viewpoint. You are a literate person, are you not? If that's the best you've got, I think I'll go ahead and revert the wording about the popes to the qualified version that first appeared in this article, over which you've been edit-warring so determinedly. AS A FAVOR TO YOU, not because you deserve it but because I am a fair person, I will refrain from doing so until I've gone to the library and checked some additional citations. This will also give you a chance to be a bit less lazy in your editorship, and state a justification of importance TO THIS ARTICLE, that Wikipedia should attribute humanism to popes as an uncontested statement of fact rather than as the claim of a third party. I mean, come on now Wilson, we've been over this ground before. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You wanted to find out about Humanist Popes; a list of links to mostly high-quality or scholarly books on the subject is a very good start, since you don't seem to have any books touching on Renaissance Humanism except general encyclopedias (and for some reason don't want to look up the figures named even in those). The incredulity and hostility with which this these two sentences have persistently been met demonstrates the importance of including these facts - other readers may very likely share the ignorance of Old man and youself. The passage was re-added by Charles Matthews, who knows a good deal more about this area than either of us, & I'd advise you not to remove it without far more justification than the torrent of illogical pique above. Of course if you can find any references denying there were any Humanist Popes, that would be interesting. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I assumed your literacy. Apparently, you do not understand what I meant when I wrote, "I'll go ahead and revert the wording about the popes to the qualified version that first appeared in this article," because you seem to be arguing against my REMOVING the sentence entirely from the article. I won't do that again; I had only done that (AS I WROTE AT THE TIME IN MY EDIT SUMMARY) to show you what bad faith you were demonstrating by YOUR blatant removal of other sentences. Therefore your "advice not to remove it" is utterly useless and shows that you aren't paying attention to this conversation, and don't understand the issue of contention. "Illogical pique" is a great term; I think I'll be sure to reuse it to describe the edit-warring you've perpetrated, and I've described in detail, above. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you really do look like you're having a lot of fun in this process. After all, you've accused me above of misrepresenting my sources, as your only defense of my proof of you having done so. In addition to being a "tu quoque" logical fallacy, I think your participation in this game is undermined by the fact that I carefully dug up DATES and TIMES when you misrepresented sources, and presented them in a BULLETED LIST, whereas all you've done is make the bare accusation. Well, here's another, since it's my turn: I don't like your Hale quote because you use too much ellipsis to cut words out of Hale's quote. When you do this, it prevents me from judging the quality of your quotation, the implications of the original author, and whether you've repented from your hobby of misquoting sources or not. Could you please at least give the entire quote here on this talk page, so we can determine whether it's warranted or not? Can you at least do me the favor of permitting me to see how you're editing Hale in context, so I can assure myself that any faith in your edits will not be misplaced? Thanks! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• No. I assure you I find this really boring. The expanded Hale quotes are - added bits bolded:

"[Start of article]Humanism is a 19thC coinage, invented to describe the programme of studies, and its conditioning of thought and expression ...[details subjects] Such a programme was secular, concerned with man, his nature and gifts, but Renaissance humanism must be kept free from any hint of either 'humanitarianism' or 'humanism' in its modern sense of rational, non-religious approach to life. [then long gap] unless the word 'humanism' retains the smell of the scholar's lamp it will mislead - as it will if it is seen in opposition to a Christianity its students in the main wished to supplement, not contradict, through their patient excavation of the sources of ancient God-inspired wisdom."[end of article] I now await a clear statement of your objections to the Popoes and senior clerics. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is your attempt to restore a NPOV? He gets the source of the term wrong; it first meant "the mere humanity, not divinity, of Christ," when coined in English in the 19th century. That's as heretical (according to Catholicism) today as it was in the Renaissance, so for him to avoid this doesn't look good for Hale. The Italian term from which it was taken far predates the 19th century, so it looks like Hale is actually quite inexpert himself. Phrasing like "unless the word retains the smell of the scholar's lamp it will mislead," and "their patient excavation of the sources of ancient God-inspired wisdom" are not only severely POV, but downright wrong: the ancient Greek texts studied by many of the humanists were often the polytheistic histories of Greek mythology or nontheistic philosophies of Epicurus, all of which far exceed the limits of "god-inspired wisdom" Hale prefers to focus on. It's very clear that Hale's opinion is really only applicable to a narrow view of Renaissance humanism, and if I were you, I'd have omitted those phrases in quoting him, too. (Correction: if I were you, I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to use Hale in the first place.) As for the popes, I'm no expert, but I promise I'll give it a fair shot: I'll look at some of the sources you and OldMan have cited and try to be impartial in figuring out whether it belongs in the voice of Wikipedia or as a citation of another source. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add that though some humanists were "secular" in that they were the Chancellors of Italian cities, Renaissance humanism could be described as predominantly clerical, since the majority of humanists were in clerical orders and many were cardinals and popes. It was the scholastics (whom they opposed) who were secular. The scholastics were the secular teachers of logic, law, and jurisprudence in universities, who clung to their old ways of doing things (though ultimately they too were influenced by the discoveries of the humanists -- i.e, the collection, editing, and transcription of ancient manuscripts.) The notion that Renaissance humanism was secular was popular at one time and perhaps still prevails in books published by the Humanist Association, but it is no longer accepted by historians and scholars. On the other hand, modern humanists like Corliss Lamont wish to claim the Zeitgeist of the Renaissance -- in short the creative energy of the period -- as a precursor of his own modern humanist philosophy of man. Indeed, it can be said that the zeitgeist of the Renaissance that inspired the humanists to comb monastery libraries in a quest for ancient manuscripts (the sacred writings of Church Fathers equally with Pagan authors) also inspired other non-humanist achievements of the era: linear perspective, maps with grids, double entry book keeping, modern banking, Brunelleschi's dome, the discovery of America, and so on. Ironically, one reason we have had a mistaken idea of Renaissance humanism is that the hundreds and hundreds of treatises written by the humanists themselves lay forgotten, unprinted, and unedited for 500 years in various archives. The scholar who has done the most to track them down was P.O. Kristeller, author of Iter Italicum, available online [1], which is a master list of previously uncatalogued Renaissance manuscripts and their locations. These have just now, only in the last few years, begun to be edited and published in facing translation by the Warburg Institute, so that we now have a more authentic idea of what humanism really was -- ad fontes! Kristeller has flatly maintained that the humanists were not philosophers and that there was no Renaissance philosophy of man!Mballen (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod is correct. 151 and Oldman are sadly off base. The word "Humanism" never ever referred to the humanity of Christ. This erroneous notion is a mere supposition on their part, grounded in fantasy. "Humanists" were teachers of the humanities, a program of studies designed to prepare lawyers and clergy for the study of rhetoric and which was based on the writings of Cicero and Seneca (or what was thought to be Seneca). Bruno and Erasmus are important figures in the history of free thought, but that does not change the fact that humanism arose in church circles and that its main figures were predominantly clerics, including Petrarch, who was in minor orders. Alberti (ordained as a priest and canon of the cathedral of Florence), Valla, and Poggio, were all three secretaries to the Vatican (or Lateran as it was then called). Scientist, polymath, and mystic, Nicholas of Cusa was a Roman Catholic Cardinal. As was Bembo. Another celebrated humanist was the great book collector and translator Cardinal Basilius Bessarion, Dean of the College of Cardinals: wikipedia writes:

In 1463, his fellow humanist Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, then [Pope] Pius II, gave him the purely ceremonial title of Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. As Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals (from April 1463), he [Bessarion] presided over the Papal conclave, 1464 and Papal conclave, 1471. For five years (1450-1455), he was [Papal] legate at Bologna, and he was engaged on embassies to many foreign princes, among others to Louis XI of France in 1471. Vexation at an insult offered him by Louis is said to have hastened his death, which took place on November 19, 1472, at Ravenna

The greatest modern scholar and authority on the Renaissance, the German-born scholar P. O. Kristeller, thought that Saint Augustine, unquestionably a great influence on Petrarch, was the also the key religious influence on the Renaissance humanism as a whole. Any implication that these priests, popes, and cardinals did not accept the divinity of Christ is risible.24.105.152.153 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A big problem with this article is that it appears to be based on Norman Davies' History of Europe as a source of information on the Renaissance. Norman Davies is not a specialist in the Renaissance, but rather on the history of Poland. Moreover he has a general reputation as a maverick, who is generally rather opinionated and contentious (according to wikipedia). I was wondering what his book was doing in the bibliography. Looking it up on Google Books I see that Davies draws on Jacob Burckhardt's Civilization of the Renaissance (1878) for his ideas about the period (Burckhardt's dates were 1818--1897). Needless to say, Burckhardt's book, while a classic, is 130 years old and its thesis about the Renaissance as the cradle of individualism has long been superseded. An article in Wikipedia ought rather to reference the specialists in the field (like Garin, Kristeller, and Cassirer) who are familiar and have worked extensively with the primary sources.24.105.152.153 (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. In three sentences, you've used the terms "off base," "erroneous notion," "mere supposition," and "grounded in fantasy" to describe a fact that originates from the Oxford English Dictionary itself, as noted in footnote 29 of this Wikipedia article. Nonetheless, I'm always happy to see new contributors try their hand at Wikipedia, and strongly suggest you read the following Wikipedia policy pages to make sure your contributions improve, rather than hinder, our progress at building a useful encyclopedia: WP:VERIFY and WP:TIGERS. Thanks! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many sources, including Hale & Plumb, who are certainly specialists. Davies is only a minor source. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"In the century and a half since Burckhardt wrote, his notion of the individualism of the Renaissance has been rejected, rethought, and revised along several lines. Medieval historians have asserted that the individual was important in learned philosophy, theology, and political theory . . . since at least the tenth century, or perhaps far earlier. Conversely, scholars of the Renaissance and early modern periods have emphasized that . . even among the subjects of Burckhardt’s study- upper class Italian men living in cities – corporate groups remained central to their understanding of themselves and their place in the world."(Cambridge history of Modern Europe, p. 73 and 77 and passim).

Well, if the main thing about humanism (the nineteenth and twentieth century versions, probably the ones referenced in the Oxford Dictionary) is that it rejects the divinity of Christ, how does it differ from Unitarianism, or even Arian Chrisitanity? I see that the British Humanistic Religious Association was founded in 1853 and the American Humanist Association about 100 years later. What I object to is associating these, no doubt very worthy, organizations (whose positions I agree with), with the humanism of the Renaissance, which is a very different animal. It is not in keeping with the principles of humanism, which I imagine include faithfulness to historical truth, to suggest otherwise. You are confusing humanism with free thought.24.105.152.153 (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying the "main thing about humanism" is that it rejects the divinity of Christ; in fact, if you read your OED more carefully, you'll see that definition is obsolete. The "main thing about humanism" is stated in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on it; it's just that rejecting the divinity of Christ was the FIRST use of the term in English. As for how it differs from Unitarianism, why should it? Some Universalist Unitarians have even created an organization for themselves called "hUUmanists," which is humanist according to the definitions given by footnotes 1 and 2 in the article.

The topic of this article is humanism in its most common form today. If you prefer to think, write, and teach about Renaissance humanism, just click this link, enjoy, be well, have fun! Talking about renaissance humanism in THIS article is really only useful if you want to relate it to modern humanism somehow, and it is useful to show how it contributed to enlightenment philosophy, which gave rise to the current common use of the term, as the sources cited in the main article show. Considering the number of mainstream general reference works that document this relationship, I think it's fair to include it here.

As for "humanism" and "free thought," I am not CONFUSING them, though I may be CONFLATING them a little. That's okay, since humanists and free-thought advocates seem to recognize the large overlap between such philosophies, too. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, fine, conflate them. But don't suggest that the humanism of the previous 2,000 years should be conflated with the secularism of post-1800s. The humanism inherited from Classical antiquity is quite interesting in its own right, was vastly more influential than the later incarnation that you are concerned with, and deserves to be represented accurately. Humanists like St. Thomas More and Calvin were perfectly comfortable with burning heretics like the Unitarian Servetus or the translator of the Bible Tyndale And did More's good friend, the Catholic priest Erasmus protest the execution of Tyndale? I don't think so. I can't even remember if the humanist Papal secretaries present at the burning of Jan Huss at Constance were particularly upset by it when they described it in their letters. You should make that clear. To say that "some" Renaissance humanists were members of the clergy fudges the issue. 24.105.152.153 (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A modern historian has this to say:

Humanism was not an ideological programme but a body of literary knowledge and linguistic skill based on the “revival of good letters”, which was a revival of a late-antique philology and grammar, This is how the word “humanist" was understood by contemporaries, and if scholars would agree to accept the word in this sense rather than in the sense in which it was used in the nineteenth century we might be spared a good deal of useless argument. That humanism had profound social and even political consequences of the life of Italian courts is not to be doubted. But the idea that as a movement it was in some way inimical to the Church, or to the conservative social order in general is one that has been put forward of a century and more without any substantial proof being offered.

The nineteenth-century historian Jacob Burckhardt, in his classic work The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, noted as a “curious fact” that some men of the new culture were “men of the strictest piety, or even ascetics.” If he had meditated more deeply on the meaning of the careers of such humanists as Abrogio Traversari (1386-1439), the General of the Camaldolese Order, perhaps he would not have gone on to describe humanism in unqualified terms as “pagan”, and thus helped precipitate a century of infertile debate about the possible existence of something called “Christian humanism” which ought to be opposed to “pagan humanism”. --Peter Partner, Renaissance Rome, Portrait of a Society 1500-1559 (University of California Press 1979) pp. 14-15.

Machiavelli may have been against the abuses of the church, but he supported Cesare Borgia, the Pope's son, in his attempt to conquer all of Italy for the Vatican. He was no Voltaire.173.77.110.110 (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaissance humanism

I have tidied up the section, removing some stray pieces of anachronistic language and comment ("agnostic" is a coinage of the nineteenth century). There is now a reasonable flow (what was humanism in the Renaissance sense? - religion - science) which basically works outwards from the literary central point. And I think it is reasonably descriptive (and not trying to argue too many points). The para on science is still a bit too vague for comfort - after all we think of Copernicus as removing the human-centred aspect in astronomy, so what exactly is the point here? Civic humanism and Christian humanism might be mentioned as topics in their own right, but I suppose there are significant definitional issues (certainly with the first). Charles Matthews (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these edits, but I think in the context of this article it is necessary to spell out clearly that Renaissance Humanism was not an early version of modern secular humanism, which earlier versions of this article tried to claim. For this purpose the following passage was included, and can be worked in to the new version:

Several popes, notably Nicholas V, Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Leo X were humanists, and there was often patronage of humanists by senior church figures. The historian of the Renaissance Sir John Hale emphasizes that though

the programme of studies, and its conditioning of thought and expression ... was secular, concerned with man, his nature and gifts, ... Renaissance humanism must be kept free from any hint of either 'humanitarianism' or 'humanism' in its modern sense of rational, non-religious approach to life. ... the word 'humanism' will mislead ... if it is seen in opposition to a Christianity its students in the main wished to supplement, not contradict, through their patient excavation of the sources of ancient God-inspired wisdom."

The Hale quote is very apposite, and balances the Cambridge one below nicely. The amazing fierceness with which this passage has been resisted shows I think the importance of including these points, which should be uncontroversial. This is not a subtle article, and one likely to be used by the full range of WP readers, and some things need to be spelled out. For example, the new text says: "No one religious position covers the diversity of Renaissance humanism, however. It includes: a secular world-view, in writers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Francesco Guicciardini; the skeptical approach of Francis Bacon and Michel Montaigne; and the satire of François Rabelais." - which does not mention Christianity as one of the range of options, though this implication can be picked up from the surrounding text. But I think clearer statements are necessary. What do you think? Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've placed your text in the article, and will consider how to move on from here. There may of course be people who disagree with Hale. It would be good to keep that section concise. (By the way, I'm tempted to archive this talk page somewhat fiercely, as we approach half a megabyte.) Charles Matthews (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have a go - the misplaced top section, on the lead & very long, dates to February 09, but below that we go back to 2006, & that can be archived. I will leave anything from this year. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I have respect for the "Humanism" consider myself a humanist in most respects, I find the depiction of Renaissance humanism here misses the point somewhat. I don't believe that Renaissance humanism has much to do at all with the modern quasi-religious "humanism" movement that dates from the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. It is very dated and anachronistic to connect the supposedly secular outlooks of Machiavelli to the modern secular movement. (Francois Rabelais was a priest who said Mass every day. His outlook has nothing whatever to do with modern secularism and the same is true of Montaigne. If they are to be classed as humanists, it is assuredly because of the huge amount of quotations from ancient authors to be found in their works, not because of their secular outlooks.) The omission of mention of Italian humanists here is incredibly odd. Prominent Italian Renaissance humanists ought to include besides Petrarch (the first modern humanist), Lorenzo Valla (incredibly important), Poggio Bracciolini, Alberti, and Ficino, at the very least. Virtually all of these were clerical humanists. Many (like Petrarch) were in clerical orders (Valla, Alberti, and Poggio worked for the Pope). The most authoritative secondary sources on Renaissance humanism are the scholars, P.O. Kristeller and Eugenio Garin. Renaissance humanism was an educational program:

Paul Oskar Kristeller emphasized strongly that humanism was not only a classical revival, but a fundamental educational movement. Humanists were often educators, and humanism flourished in schools and universities. . . “By the first half of the fifteenth century, the studia humanitatis came to stand for a clearly defined cycle of scholarly disciplines, namely grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry, and moral philosophy, and the study of each of these subjects was understood to include the reading and interpretation of its standard ancient authors in Latin, and to a lesser extent, Greek. . . . Thus Renaissance humanism was not . . . a philosophical tendency or system, but rather a cultural and educational program that emphasized an important but limited area of studies". --[Kristeller quoted in] Paul F Grendler Renaissance Education between Religion and politics (Ashgate, 2006 ISBN 086078989), p. 1

According to Eugenio Garin:

Humanistic education sought to form the whole man, the good citizen, and the man of culture who embraced life in this world but did not forget God. The means for creating this new man was the studia humanitatis, ‘the ideal instrument for forming the complete man.” Italian humanist pedagogues did not intend that ancient works should be studied as grammatical or rhethorical ends in themselves, but to develop the human being open to all possibilities. -- Paul F Grendler, Renaissance Education between Religion and politics, p. 3.

Quentin Skinner reminds us that the most important influence on Renaissance humanism were the writings of Cicero and the Roman Stoic philosophers. Cicero's political and educational ideals had never been forgotten but in the Renaissance there was a revival of emphasis on the philosophy behind them. For Cicero the aim of civil government was justice and harmony under a rule of law, to which men were to be led, not by violence and tyranny, but of their own free will by reason and rhetoric. Skinner contends that for Renaissance civic humanists, particularly the early Italian ones, the purpose of humanistic education was to inculcate the virtues: Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, and Justice, which (along with the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity) would form the quality of onestas (honesty) a prerequisite for citizenship. The studia humanitatis (inherited from Classical Rome) were to be the means to this moral education. As Cicero had written of literature (the most humanizing of them all):

Si ex his studiis delectatio sola peteretur, tamen, ut opinor, hanc animi remissionem humanissimam ac liberalissimam iudicaretis. Nam ceterae neque temporum sunt neque aetatum omnium neque locorum; at haec studia adulescentiam alunt, senectutem oblectant, res secundas ornant, adversis perfugium ac solacium praebent, delectant domi, non impediunt foris, pernoctant nobiscum, peregrinantur, rusticantur.

Even if mere entertainment were our only objective in the study of letters, you would still, in my opinion, regard this pursuit as the most humanizing and liberating of intellectual activities. For no other pursuit is appropriate to all times, all ages, all situations; but these studies [i.e., the humanities] nurture our youth, delight our old age, brighten the good times, and provide a refuge and comfort in bad times; literature brings us pleasure at home, does not hamper us at work, and is the companion of our nights, our travels, our country retreats. --Cicero,Pro Archia Archia Poeta 7.16

Mballen (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but you will see from here, the archives, and the page history that the current version is something of a compromise, after some sharp debate. Obviously the main article is Renaissance Humanism. You will also see at the bottom of the page here a revived debate about what, if anything, this page is for. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion to say that the older definition of humanism "smells of the scholar's lamp" is anti-intellectual and violates the spirit of humanism, which is based on reason and evidence. As I see it, modern usage of the term is just a blip -- and a relatively unimportant one in the scheme of history, considering that the older version lasted over 2,000 years. Even the coverage of modern humanism, as personified, say, by Irving Babbit, founder of something called "The New Humanism" in the 1920s, lacking here. For my part, I'll take the scholar's lamp over miasma and hot air.

On second reading I see I think I may have misunderstood the quotation about the scholar's lamp. In any case, one can be a modern agnostic and even a critic of religion and intolerance and still strive not to project one's own attitudes and opinions onto the people of the past. As Johnbod says, this is not a field that ought to be controversial.74.72.190.219 (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that at least some Renaissance scholars today take a dim view of the modern American incarnation of humanism, regarding it as an "odd brew of Enlightenment rationalism, utilitarianism, scientific positivism, evolutionary biologyand pragmatism concocted by the American Humanist Association". It seems to me that negative or lukewarm views of modern American humanism ought to be mentioned in any article that purports to be objective:

Humanism in [the modern philosophical] sense reduced the divine to the human, was opposed to any sort of religious dogma or revelation, and based philosophical reflection on a conception of the human being as a purely biological entity formed as the result of an evolutionary process, without an immaterial or spiritual nature. This philosophical sense of humanism begins essentially in the “humanistic realism” of Ludwig Feuerback (1804-71), but later included Marxist humanism (Antonio Gramsci), existentialist humanism (Jean Paul Sartre), humanist pragmatism (F.C.S. Schiller, following William James), ethical humanism (Irving Babbit), as well as the odd brew of Enlightenment rationalism, utilitarianism, scientific positivism, evolutionary biology, and pragmatism concocted by the American Humanist Association. In twentieth-century scholarship on Renaissance humanism a great deal of confusion was caused by mixing up these two broad meanings of humanism. Thus a “humanist philosophy of man” was imposed upon Latin writers from Petraca to Castiglione by means of selective quotation, hermeneutical forzatura, and by adding professional philosophers like Marsilio Ficino and even Pietro Pompanazzi to the ranks of “humanists.” The confusion of terminology has now largely subsided, at least in the Anglo-Saxon academic universe, thanks to the influence of the great Renaissance scholar P. O. Kristeller (1905-99). Kristeller argued cogently and with immense learning that the humanism of the Renaissance could not be construed as a “philosophy of man” but was rather best seen as a movement, rooted in the medieval rhetorical tradition, to revive the language and literature of classical antiquity. Humanists were not philosophers, but men and women of letters.--James Hankins, Humanism, Scholarship, and Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, 2007) P. 31.

173.56.192.79 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Further editing (Renaissance section)

I'm certainly not happy with the unilateral deletion of one point from the Columbia Encyclopedia. We can try this section structure, but the logic is as of yet unconvincing: perhaps it can be sorted out with some further minor alterations. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Pletho, that was moved by Old man, but is still there, more or less. Or was there another? Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was the other point, namely that the majority of humanists were sincere Christians, and Pletho stands out as an exception. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Plethon was an adviser to the Greek Emperor about the feasibility of a reunion between the Greek and Latin Churches and attended the Coucil of Florence with the Greek and Latin prelates (including the Pope). Wouldn't he have been burnt as a heretic if he had proclaimed non-belief in Chritianity? Plethon's later teachings were "mysteries" meant for the very few. In any case Plethon was certainly not secular in outlook: he was a Platonist and mystic (as were some Renaisssance Catholics prelates, such as Cardinal Bembo, who wrote a Platonic dialog, Gli Asolani whose depiction of Platonic love is memorialized in Castiglione's The Courtier).Mballen (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Wind, author of the Pagan Mysteries of the Renaissance (1958) writes that Plethon really was a sincere Christian and that the rites at Mistra involving the Greek Gods were purely secular. (Wind notes that several other scholars have observed that similar ones were practiced in Rome itself at the time, although at least one of the Popes, Paul II, was disturbed by them). According to Wind, Plethon celebrated feasts "devoted to a spiritual communion with the ancients, on the pious and not unreasonable assumption (cf. Augustine, Retractiones I, xiii) that if the truths of Christianity were fundamental, they could not have been withheld completely from the sages of antiquity. The classic revival was thus bound up with utopian hopes for a universal creed that would transcend sectarian differences. Una religio in rituum varietate ["One religion with various rites"] was the formula proposed for that doctrine by [Nicholas] Cusanus" [later a Cardinal] (See De pace seu concordiantia fidei; also the earlier Concordantia catholica, written for the Council of Basle during the presidency of [Cardinal] Cesarini). Pagan Mysteries p. 245. I. In other words, it was boilerplate Catholic doctrine that at least some of the truths of Christianity had been revealed to the great pagan sages and philosophers (as well as to the Jewish ones of the Old Testament). The pagan Sibyls. for example (painted by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel), are also supposed to have prophesized Christian truths and are even mentioned in the Catholic Mass for the dead: Dies irae, dies illa/ Solvet saeclum in favilla / Teste David cum Sibylla. ("Day of wrath, that day, when the world will dissolve in ashes, as David and the Sibyl have foretold.")Mballen (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch For POV Editing

[Personal attack removed]

[Blatant lie removed]

[personal attack removed]

Not sure what your point is here - I was referring to yesterday's edit, as linked. Original was perhaps not the best word, I agree. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry about it: your use of "original" to refer to your edit-warring version, rather than the ACTUAL original, has been removed also. We're all good here! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To 151.190.254.108: personal attacks on discussion pages of articles are entirely unacceptable. To be quite clear, arguments ad hominem are not permitted. Either discuss the article content, not the editors contributing here, or keep out of the discussion. Chapter and verse on this: WP:TALK, section Behaviour that is unacceptable: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. You, like anyone else, must conform to this basic norm of life here. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article and its discussion

Well, the Renaissance history now seems to me to be in better shape than the rest of the history. I have archived much more discussion. If people need to continue threads, perhaps they can be somewhat more terse and address current content. It is axiomatic that it goes better if specific improvements are addressed here, and forum-style postings on the general topic are avoided. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dante and Petrarch favored a strong centralized princely (and even imperial) government because republican civic government in their day in Italy had been mired in blood feuds and corruption. Petrarch wrote lots of letters of advice to princely families about how they ought govern and seek worldly glory in doing so. There was a whole genre called "Mirrors for Princes." Petrarch believed that the best government was one in which poets like himself were allowed to study in peace without getting involved in civil affairs. (He was influenced by St. Augustine in this as in much else.) Also, although he looked to Cicero, only a limited number of Cicero's works were available to him as yet. Petrarch himself was rather appalled what he discovered about how the historical Cicero had acted. Late in life he wrote a letter of reproach to Cicero, saying, in effect, "Cicero, how could you?"). In the next generation of humanists, however (i.e., in the 15th Century), prominently with Leonardo Bruni, the idea of Ciceronian Civic Humanism and citizen participation was revived. Machiavelli believed in civic humanism and in republican government, but he also wrote a treatise, The Prince, which Quentin Skinner believes is a throwback to the fourteenth century advice books (and also somewhat ironic). There probably should be a separate Wikipedia article about civic humanism.173.52.253.91 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To me, it still looks a bit disjointed and out of place: it doesn't mention the ways the Renaissance humanists conflicted with political leadership (especially for civic humanists) and religious leadership. Most major reference works recognize the role human-centered ethics played in both sorts of conflicts, which coincides neatly with Paul Kurtz's note that church-centered (or god-centered) ethics and ethics based on political totalitarianism (like Soviet communism) can only be considered "humanist" with irony (and is better off not being considered humanism at all). It's this connection I intended to restore when I titled one section, "The legacy of Renaissance humanism," but you were right to rename it, as I haven't written that part yet. Perhaps once I've had time to reinstate the text supporting that legacy, I'll add the word "influence" to the title to show that Renaissance thinkers are not just a footnote in the history of Latin and Greek, but have indeed been inspirational and influential to later philosophers. Hopefully I'll be able to complete such work this weekend. OldMan (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but this is supposed to be subject to Wikipedia:Summary style. Since Renaissance humanism has its own article, we hit the highlights here, and require that fuller details go to that article. I'm not saying that there is nothing to add now, but the point would be not to say "let's do the show right here". I said above that civic humanism is a possible topic, but (as you are probably aware) that is a contested definition. It may seem rather foreshortened to say "we mention Machiavelli already", but we do ... something about republican thought can be sneaked in round about there. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not really true that Renaissance humanists conflicted with political and religious leadership. They were the leadership. 24.105.152.153 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Renaissance humanists conflicted with the Scholastics, not with the political leadership (Coluccio Salutati, for example, was the Chancellor, the highest official, in Florence and his mentor Petrarch was a close friend and correspondent with some of the leading political families of his time). Some of the humanists had bitter enemies (often other humanists), but it is simply fallacious to project on them an anti-clericism of the kind that flourished among the 18th century philosophes. Unfortunately, some of the modern "humanist" associations base their ideas about the Renaissance on the tendency of John Addingtion Symonds and Jacob Burckhardt's highly influential nineteenth century popular histories to do just that. That is because these modern humanists naturally desire their organizations to be associated with the great the prestige of the creative and intellectual giants of the former ages. The fact is, however, there is virtually nothing in the values that they call "humanist" that isn't shared with most other religious and secular ethical and educational systems (except perhaps for the extreme fundamentalist ones).24.105.152.153 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Humanism

Should mention of Third Humanism be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluttermoth (talk • contribs) 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening needs work

Shouldn't the opening paragraph delineate between humanism and secular humanism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.1.2 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Over the years, several others have also noticed how deficient the intro is. But there is an entrenched consensus that will not allow change to the basic idea that is there now. See the talk archives for the fuller story. Wilson Delgado (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is still misleading. Most of what is there is correct for a given variety of humanism, but greater emphasis needs to be placed on the diversity of the word's meaning. The term Humanism applies to a broad sweep of philosophical doctrines, most of which are connected by their placing greater emphasis on human (as opposed to religious) affairs than was previously the case. To say that this necessarily renders divine or spiritual affairs unimportant is a gross distortion. Renaissance humanism (which remains the most common understanding of the word) didn't do this at all. Religion remained central.

Please can someone do a rewrite?

CharlieRCD (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not correct that Renaissance humanism remains the most common understanding of the word; this viewpoint seems to be solely held by those whose only awareness of humanism comes from very narrowly-scoped academic studies. Volumes have been written on this very talk page about how to tell which is the most frequent and common use, and those who advocate the Renaissance sense have been challenged to cite sources that show frequency of use repeatedly, with none being provided. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is quite open to verifiable evidence that Renaissance humanism is indeed the most prominent usage of the term, so I look forward to seeing the data upon which you base your viewpoint! 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with 151's stance. Accurate meaningful statistics on range of usage of the term humanism have been provided by no one. The default position should follow what leading dictionaries and reference works give as the current range of usage. (See the talk archives for what is found in the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary.) In any case, the secular humanistic usage is a subset of the more general, more abstract term, which does not carry any anti-religious bias. This is the meaning toward which CharlieRCD points. Yes, the word is rich and diverse, and the opening paragraph in an encyclopedia article on the general term should respect that. It is not sufficient to say that the rich history is taken up later on in the article. Furthermore, ample proof has been given that abundant usage of the term in its substantive adjectival form humanist occurs without reference to secularistic philosophy, e.g., in the frequent pairing of "scientists" and "humanists." Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I support Wilson's stance and would humbly suggest Sir 151 to go get a wikipedia account. There seems to be a certain modern usage of "humanism" to oppose against religion, which can be treated by the article too, but that is not, AFAIK, the main usage. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a consensus that cannot be challenged by a better version. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not the number of usages but their quality which is important. This article reads like advocacy for the modern humanist movement rather than a dispassionate and reasoned account of its history, which could have been very informative. For example, secular humanism strikes me as really a strawman set up by religious conservatives who wished to get political control of educational curriculums rather than a real entity.24.105.152.153 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I support your opinion, 24! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles, of course not, but that cannot be the major objective when trying to reach a consensus. In order to have a working evolution, there must be a state that have some quality, this quality must be as socially wide as possible, and that state must be challenged by a better version. Never reaching consensuses will simply fragment the text and make it a mess, not the kind of evolution that readers (of any kind of interest) generally wish. That change occurs, is no defense for editors not caring for a consensus, however much mental energy it requires to negotiate and compromize. If we editors aren't compromizing, we will make a bad figure! Consensus is a responsibility, not a personal option. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinking a lot of article lengths, consensuses, and evolution, I consider proposing a splitup policy – not for this article, of course, this is a short article, but for f.ex. Stellar classification that has grown beyond consensusability. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Campaign

Could anyone who is interested in improving this article, especially its introductory paragraph, demonstrate good faith by discussing it here before making changes in the real article? That would help us separate out the good-faith efforts from the vandals and tendentious editors that this article seems to draw. Thanks! Contributions/151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are unfairly casting as vandalism what is a solid improvement of the article. If you want to change what is clearly sourced and supported by external authorities, you need to give good reasons for doing so. Many people have called for a different direction in the article over the years and you know it but have done nothing to improve the article in those respects. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Wilson. Do not use those words unless really called for. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Another new beginning - invitation to open dialogue

I have made these improvements in the opening of the article, with references backing them up:

Humanism is a broad category of attitudes, approaches, philosophies, and cultural and educational traditions and practices that put emphasis on the human life-world and experience. The history of its usage shows that it is a polysemous term that must be defined in context.[1] It carries no pro- or anti-religious connotation in itself: there have been religious as well as atheistic and anti-religious humanists.[2] The word humanist or humanistic can even simply serve as a synonym for cultural.[3] One popular (but by no means exclusive) use of the term humanism today is that of certain secular philosophical circles where it means the ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without recourse to any supernatural authority.[4][5]

What do people find unacceptable and why? We need more voices than just those of a couple of intransigents who disallow needed changes in the opening. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, except it flatly defies and contradicts the following Wikipedia policy pages:

• "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."
• "The article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
• "It should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one."
• "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view."
• "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."
• "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
• "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."
• "Articles are about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness, but encyclopedia articles rarely contain multiple distinct definitions or usages of a term."
• "Wikipedia articles are not usage guides or slang and idiom guides."
• "Articles are about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth."
• "The same title for different things (homographs) are found in different articles. For example: backup (to move backwards) and backup (save computer data)."
• "Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors."
• "How disruptive editors evade detection: their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."
• "A disruptive editor is an editor who: Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research."
• "A disruptive editor is an editor who: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits."
• "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is an accepted rule when it is not."
• "Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor: You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both."
• "You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors."
• "A particular problem is to assign undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. For example, you might know that there is some controversy surrounding a particular politician’s behaviour with regard to a property dispute. You may be very interested in that dispute, and be keen to document the politician’s role in it. So you would create an article on the politician which goes into detail about that, but includes little or no other data. This is unacceptable because it gives undue weight to the controversy."
• "Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability."

Since this breaks 20 quotable Wikipedia policies, I can't support it at this time. A great place to start working on revising this paragraph would be in its compliance with WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE policies? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an entirely unfair list of accusations. Stick to the content of the article. Too many reference works give a broader range of meaning than the one that you want the article to zero in on exclusively at the beginning. I am presenting not a reductionistic meaning or a tiny-minority meaning but a wide range of meanings, hence I am not tendentious but respectful of the ambiguity of the word. It is only fair that an encyclopedia article take account of the real-world usage and ambiguity that has been verified. I would like other informed voices to contribute to a solution. 151 and Oldman and I will be forever at odds. We must look to a genuine consensus of other informed individuals for a solution. Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That first para seems to me not unreasonable, in itself. I might need to think over whether it is fulfulling the purpose of a lead section, namely summary of the article, as well as providing a defining "topic sentence". Charles Matthews (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your voice is most welcome, Charles. I hope you and several others can weigh in honestly. To all: consider the use of the word humanism in this article written about a lecture given a little over three weeks ago (Leon Kass: Jefferson Lecture of May 22, 2009):

For while the sciences have lost touch with their humanistic origins, Kass said, the humanities have forgotten their relationship "to the 'divinities' -- the inquiry into matters metaphysical and ultimately theological." ... //... In the conclusion of his lecture, Kass argued for a return to his own "old-fashioned" brand of humanism. It is best to read books, he said, "in a wisdom-seeking spirit"; that is, students and professors both should "search [for] the true, the good, and the beautiful." (from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/22/kass)

This seems to give the word humanism a flavor different from that desired by others in this discussion. It ties it to the study of the humanities, the reading of great books. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that, as with your last attempt at cleanup, is that it introduces confusion by trying to reference "religion." This is a tricky term in the context of humanism, because humanists tend to take one of three positions for themselves: 1. Humanism is a religion. Members of the "hUUmanists" organization seem to occupy this group. 2. Humanism is not a religion. Self-titled "secular humanists" are the majority of this group. 3. Humanism is like a religion, but is better termed a "life stance." Members of IHEU member organizations seem to prefer this title. Further complicating use of the term "religion" in the context of humanism are the responses of Christian evangelicals to humanism, who have historically done both of the following: 1. declared that humanism is a religion when arguing against science-based curricula to be taught in schools; 2. declared that humanism is not a religion when arguing against organizations getting the same tax-exempt status they enjoy.

Consequently, when humanists take different stances among themselves and opponents of humanism take different stances at different times, the rather flexible definition of "religion" does not clarify the concept of humanism, and is therefore better handled by being clarified with greater details in the "Religion" section below the introductory paragraph.

Furthermore, the new introductory text is still as horribly vague as that I deleted earlier, so I'm disappointed to see it's been put back without any alteration. The problem is, there isn't a single article on Wikipedia that you couldn't kick off by writing vague hand-waving introductions like, "X has meant many different things to different people over the years, and its definition must be judged in context. When defined precisely, however, X means..." and continue with the current first sentence. The problem is that, while this may be true, it does not strengthen the lead of the article, even articles that can be very contentious. For example, look at the opening sentence in the article on Christianity: it's solid, makes a clear positive assertion, and has been a featured article partly on this strength. Yet, the history of Christianity is rife with conflict, disagreement, and revision.

I think we should use this as a model. First step is to be very clear on what concept this article is supposed to be about, as Wikipedia policy is very clear: these articles are not supposed to be mere dictionary entries. Once that's defined, then we can talk about how to strengthen and make precise, rather than weaken and make vague, the introduction. I'll revert to the opening we had before, and then make proposals here, rather than unilateral edits in the article space itself. OldMan (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. After reading this paragraph I had absolutely no idea what it was even about. It seems like a bunch of vague, almost random thoughts, amalgamated together with a lot of hand waving that effectively says nothing. "There have been religious as well as atheistic and anti-religious humanists"?? It's like writing "There have been tall as well as short and midget humans" in the article describing Humans – you could achieve more by writing nothing. "...put emphasis on the human life-world and experience"? The "human life-world"? As opposed to what, the world before humans? The "animal life-world"?? The current introduction seems vastly superior. ← George ^[talk] 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To George's remarks: The statement about religious and non-religious humanists is necessary to counter misleading implications. That is a good reason to make it. See my answer to Oldman. The human life-world is different from say, the study of the geology under the North Pole or the theological speculation about circuminsessions in the Trinity. It is meaningful, even if you yourself do not understand it. There is no hand-waving, but sourced and necessary commentary introducing the article. But let others speak on this. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The "misleading implications" should be fixed or removed, not buttressed with sentences that don't really say anything. And yes, I definitely don't understand what a "human life-world" is referring to, nor will most readers. It's important for an article – especially the lead of an article – to be understandable to the reader, as well as being accurate. ← George ^[talk] 07:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To Oldman's remarks: First, the reference to religion is not a problem: humanists can be believers in God or non-believers. (The status of humanism as religion or like a religion or not a religion is not at issue.) What is a problem is implying that a person who is called a humanist must not be a religious person. That is what the lead has been implying incorrectly for years. It is contradicted time and again by usage over the years.

You say the article must be about only a single narrowly-delimited concept. Well then it must be announce what strand of meaning is being seized upon. That is precisely what my version of the intro did. It segued into the secular philosophical humanist meaning. If you want to write an article that only talks about that narrow concept of humanism, then you have to label the article appropriately. It cannot just be labeled Humanism. It has to be something like "Humanism (secular rationalistic philosophy)." (Doing this would solve many of our differences. Why not do it? Please say why you do not want this appropriate delimiter in the title of the article when this is exactly what the article goes on to be about.)

If there is any common ground to all the humanisms it is simply the idea that there is weight being given to the human realm in some sense. That is what my intro made clear. That is the core concept. It is not vague, even if it is abstract and general. These are different things, vagueness and abstractness or generality.

As for editing the article: People make edits all over Wikipedia without first establishing consensus on the talk page, particularly when they source their alterations. You wish to let the default lie with a most misleading presentation that does injustice to the concept of humanism by reducing it to one of its submeanings. That is a greater sin than insisting on an open, broad, inclusive concept under which your favored version of humanism can find a place. The error of the opening has been noticed time and again through the years, but the many people who speak up do not seem to add up to a stronger consensus in your eyes than the insistence of a couple of intransigent editors. Please let us hear other, perhaps more objective voices! Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The title should be determined by common usage. If the case can be made that the "secular rationalistic philosophy" is not the common usage, then the article should be moved, and whatever is the common usage should replace it, or it should be replaced with a disambiguation page.

Unfortunately, consensus is what people generally agree to, even if some of those people are zealots. I think the better way to reach a consensus is to tackle the lead, sentence by sentence. Identify a sentence, what you think is wrong with it, propose an alternative, and explain why it's better. Trying to change a lead en mass is almost guaranteed to be disputed by someone. You might also want to follow the dispute resolution process. ← George ^[talk] 07:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear that one way to go is simply to declare that this will be a disambiguation page. If that is not the outcome of further discussion, then the obligation of the lead section is, firstly, to support a good "topic sentence", and, secondly, to summarise for the reader the content of the rest of the article. So it is definition+executive summary we aim at. The proportionality and neutrality issues should really be dealt with by developing the body of the article, and then discussing the lead in terms of whether it is a fair, quick summary of the article as a whole. The correlation or lack of it of humanism with religious views is one aspect that the reader will expect to be covered in Wikipedia. The idea of a "negative report" - low correlation between humanism in some senses and religious views - is valid, but should not dominate the lead. Nor should it be excluded. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I favor a disambiguation page also. The common usage issue has already been debated. Who knows what the real majority usage is? It depends on how you are counting the implied correlative forms and closely related concepts: not just humanism but also humanist and humanities and humanistic. Some folks disallow the linkage and come up with a higher count for their own meaning. Furthermore, even if it could be proven that 51% think of "secular rationalistic humanism" when they hear the word humanism there is still some necessity of dealing with the other 49% in a general article on Humanism in an encyclopedia, especially when other leading reference works give the other meaning its fair due, or highlight it as the leading meaning (cf. Encyclopedia Britannica). Thus a disambiguation page is probably the best solution. Wilson Delgado (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the numbers "51%" and "49%"? Surely you didn't just make them up because they were convenient to your viewpoint, did you? In fact, when I was looking at modern-day examples of common use, I found much closer to 95%/5%, and in most sources 100%/0%, which makes the "modern study of humanities" definition a tiny minority of usage at best. I guess we'd better get back to demonstrating usage from real-world searches of books, news articles, and web pages, such that you cannot continue to misrepresent usage statistics by simply making them up. This is sad, because I thought we'd covered this territory very well several months ago. I guess I'll have to continue doing so every time this talk page gets archived, to counteract your feigned ignorance of the facts and sources that have already been presented.

For your convenience, I've created a user account at last. I'll try to do most of my edits on this article while logged in from now on. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just using those figures in a hypothetical example for the sake of making a point. I have never accepted the parameters or methods of your study and do not wish to debate your figures. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) All of this has gone several very lengthy rounds before, with the same 3 main participants, as you can see from the history. The current text is essentially there because two very determined and agressive editors have maintained versions of it over the years, against one equally persistent dissident, with others on both sides passing in and out. Further discussion between them is unlikely to produce agreement on the main issue. The disam page route is a real option, or perhaps someone else might try a lead para draft. But don't expect an easy ride. "... without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts" is the core of the disagreement. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod is right. It seems to have been so non-productive. I certainly do not feel like using another minute on this effort, except that occasionally I find it hard to accept the fact that Wikipedia should have such a misleading article on such a major topic. Almost all would be well if only the article were labeled correctly. I am happy to leave the discussion and the disambig page to competent and understanding editors. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be clarifying to point out, to those trying to write the lead section as if "secular humanism" was the only serious meaning to be entertained here, that they are really arguing for the disambiguation page solution. I note that humanist is already a dab page. The choice is really between a lead that attempts to include more than the nineteenth century relaunch of "humanism" as secular, and no lead at all. This is how Wikipedia ultimately handles these matters, if the attempt to write an umbrella article breaks down. If there is a dab page solution, there are two modes, one in which humanism is the dab page, and one in which humanism is a redirect, presumably to secular humanism, and humanism (disambiguation) is created and noted in a hatnote there. I'm mostly concerned to get the history right, myself, I have to say. It is a bit "presentist", for me, just to go to current definitions and assume they over-write past meanings of the term. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please do not confuse "secular humanism" with other forms of humanism that claim varying degrees of religiosity. Although practitioners of humanism may all claim a human-centered ethical philosophy that is not theistic, the point of this article is to be inclusive of all such humanists, not just the specifically-termed secular humanists. When you use the phrase "those trying to write the lead section as if 'secular humanism' was the only serious meaning to be entertained here," this is a red herring, as I have never seen anyone trying to make that claim here. This failure to distinguish between types of humanism, religious and secular alike, is precisely why it is not sufficient merely to link the term "humanism" to the article on secular humanism.

You make the same mistake when you talk about "the nineteenth century relaunch of 'humanism' as secular," because the very first incorporated humanist organization to use the word was the "Humanistic Religious Association." Religious, not secular. It's interesting that you would call this "presentist" and "assuming they over-write past meanings of the term" when this activity occurred over a century and a half ago. It is not a debate for us today; it is the subject of many books and essays that have become part of history over two hundred years of use in English.

On the other hand, your suggestion about a disambiguation page is a good one, though I think the two options you list present a false dichotomy. In fact the appropriate action to take is neither of your suggestions, but is the second of the three disambiguation options recommended at WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate. To this end, I have now created the disambiguation page you've suggested, and am updating our hat notes on this article to match the policy guidance on that wikipedia policy page. Thanks for pointing out the opportunity to do the right thing according to Wikipedia policy! OldMan (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, having a dab page is a step forward in that we don't have to imagine what it would look like if it existed. Thank you for the work on this. To get more technical, there is the disambiguation issue, and the "default meaning" issue. The "default meaning" you argue for is "humanism = group of human-centred philosophies". You can have this, by all means, at the cost only of proposing a topic sentence and lead section that gives a coherent summary of this topic; and getting consensus on the content and coherence. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If I type in humanism, the Wikipedia search should send me to the DAB page, but it doesn't. How do we change this? Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No it should not; the Wikipedia policy page I linked to says, "Any article which has primary usage for its title and has other uses should have a disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic." OldMan (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The primary usage is contended. No definitive, generally accepted proof of one primary usage has been given. Reference works give a variety of meanings, or even highlight usages other than the one on this page. (To take just one example: in the standard reference work The Encyclopedia of Philosophy under humanism, the first sentence reads: "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.") Therefore I propose that the dab page be used for searches on humanism. What do others think? Wilson Delgado (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, I thought this would be clarifying on the issue. Translating it into WP-specific terms means the discussion can be seen in the encyclopedic context. If we get deadlocked here, it should by rights go to Wikipedia:Requested moves or Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. If Humanism were to be redirected (as one suggestion has it) to humanism (disambiguation), then we'd be talking about splitting this article and merging it into other ones, with the possible creation of new articles from existing material. In any case there are routes to such forums where community input is sought. Since what I'm seeing is a foundational disagreement, I think this approach must now be contemplated. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Charles. I would hope to hear from more people on the solution of just using the dab page for the term humanism. It seems the simplest and fairest approach. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says this:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

We can agree that there has been extended discussion. If one takes into account (and weights appropriately) the encyclopedias, dictionaries, all the times that the term humanism is used in scholarly articles and books (though they may not become webpages), and the consensus of quite a few folks who have spoken up over the years (but then disappeared), then I think that the suggested dab-page solution is preferable. Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No Renaissance Humanists criticized Christianity. Here is the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, for example, on erroneous and anachronistic depictions of Italian Humanism:

Modern scholars, and some politicians, have added complications by applying aprioristic conceptions — Christian, liberal, or atheist —- in their evaluation of humanism. For example, there has been a wide-spread tendency among Anglo-Saxon and German Protestant historians to regard not only Erasmus (because he did not become a partisan of Luther) but even more the Italian humanists as pagan, irreligious, and immoral. But not even the most skeptical humanists undertook a general critique of Christianity, as was done by eighteenth-century philosophers. Those humanists -— from Petrarch and the Florentine Augustinians to Ambrogio Traversari, Erasmus, and Thomas More —- who took a genuine interest in theology, showed an approach to this subject similar to that of others condemning scholastic theology, i.e., the application of logic and dialectics to theology, and advocating the return to the original sources of Christian doctrine, the Bible, and the Church Fathers (especially Saint Augustine). Their intention was to harmonize humanist learning with the essentials of Christian religion based on these sources. To this end, Italian humanists like Valla and Manetti applied their newly developed method of textual criticism to the study of the Bible and the Latin Church Fathers, later to be followed by Erasmus and others. They translated the Greek Fathers, such as Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others. Furthermore, they applied textual and historical criticism to the study of church history; Valla's attack on the Donation of Constantine serving as a famous example. "Italian Humanism", Philip P. Wiener, Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas (New York Scribners, 1974)[2]

24.105.152.153 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What would be really interesting would be an article that traced the evolution of the term "humanitates" -- from its use by Cicero in Pro-Archia and its rediscovery by Petrarch in 1333 (?) to the invention of the abstract noun by German scholars (to designate Classical learning? In German it still does) to its absorption by Unitarians and other new and reforming Christian groups in the nineteenth century under the influence of the 18th Century Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The Humanist "New Man" movement of the nineteen twenties and thirties and the attacks on "Secular humanism" by religious and social conservatives in the 1950s ought to be mentioned as well. But it should be made clear that there is no direct connection between any of these meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.110.110 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have found an article by Vito Giustiniani in the Journal of the History Ideas (1985) that addresses the very subject we have been arguing about. He says that word humanism in its modern philosophical sense was used as early as c. 1750 during the French Enlightenment and then in the early nineteenth century by German Hegelians (including Marx), and by the anarchist Proudhon. In the meantime its use to designate the great figures of the Renaissance and their epoch (Renaissance Humanism) is quite as accepted and legitimate -- as famously was done by Georg Voigt. Giustiniani goes through the philosophies of the various modern humanists and points out how they conflict with each other. He also addresses the question of whether and how much the philosophical humanists are actually indebted to the Renaissance humanists, as many of them claimed to be.

Humanism as an ideal of Greek paideia, humanism as a revival of ancient culture, humanism according to Ruge, Marx, Schiller, Babbitt, the Humanist Manifesto, and Heidegger: humanism as a discovery of man's virtus, as a new vision of history and establishment of new ways of thinking: all these humanisms show how differently human beings can be and actually have been understood from one time to another, from one cultural era to another, from one language to another. It has been said that our epoch undergoes a sort of reversal of what happened when the Tower of Babel was being built and "non audivit unusquisquam vocem proximi sui". Nowadays a common vocabulary is being worked out in all languages to express the new values which continuously appear and the way the old ones are understood. The same terms occur in almost the same shape everywhere. But humanism, humanisme, Humanisimus, umanesimo or umanismo, gumanism, are doomed to be perpetual signum contradictionis. God's curse still rests on a term which should define the very essence of God's most perfect creature.--Vito R. Giustiniani, University of Freiburg im Breisgau, "Homo, Humanus, and Meanings of 'Humanism'", Journal of the History of Ideas: 46 (no. 2): 194-95.

What is not recognized is that the blow to Renaissance Humanism was dealt by the great philosophers of the 17th Century Age of Reason: Descartes, Bacon, Hobbes, and Spinoza, all of whom aimed to sweep away everything that had preceded them (although the humanistic educational ideal persisted well into the 20th century). Mballen (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on Naming Articles

According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there are three ways to determine a primary topic:

1. Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
2. Wikipedia article traffic statistics from http://stats.grok.se/
3. Google web, news, scholar, or book searches from http://www.google.com/

According to WP:NAMECON, "A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English."

• The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
• International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
• Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
• Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
• Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .
• Scientific nomenclature. Check usage by international bodies like CIPM, IUPAP, IUPAC, and other scientific bodies concerned with nomenclature; consider also the national standards agencies NIST and NPL. Consult style guides of scientific journals.

According to WP:NAME, "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail." Emphasis exists in original.

With all of this very clear guidance from Wikipedia's policy pages, I have to restore several comments to this talk page providing verifiable demonstrations of popular usage that were actually DELETED, rather than archived. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is helpful to look at the wording on the page:

Tools that may help determine a primary topic (but are not determining factors by themselves):

are the three you mention. That is not very clear guidance, it is indicative. It is unhelpful to take a one-sided view of policy. This seems to need saying: policy pages are not there to win arguments for you, but to improve the encyclopedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have further checked the policy pages you have cited, and consider that this collection of cites doesn't add up to much of relevance to this case besides the comment that other reference works may be relevant. What is controversial, in fact, is the scope of the article rather than the name. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Humanism and Science

For some reason, a misconception has persisted on this talk page that searching for "science" and "humanism" together will show a larger usage of American Heritage Dictionary definition 4 than of 1/2/3. I say "for some reason" because this has always been easily disproved with a simple Google search, but just so there's a clear record of it here on this talk page, here are the top results:

1. http://humanisteducation.com/area.html?area_id=2 - "The humanist worldview includes a commitment to rational inquiry based on verifiable evidence. In the last 500 years, this commitment has given rise to modern science. But what claims are testable, and what constitutes evidence? The Science and Humanism Study Area focuses on the scientific method, the body of scientific knowledge, the interaction between science and humanism, and the conflict between science and religion, where it exists."
2. http://humanisteducation.com/class.html?module_id=7&page=1 - "Humanists are convinced that the scientific method is the cornerstone of human knowledge. We can be sure that the inventor of the wheel did not have its schematics delivered by a fairy godmother or benign deity. The wheel was developed through trial and error, perhaps with the observation that loose logs roll and that putting a series of logs under heavy objects causes them to move. Refinement, trial, and then more refinement led to the wheel we know today; the humanist life-stance extends those strategies to all areas of human inquiry. Even those who are not scientists per se (or even interested in science, or very knowledgeable about the "body" of scientific knowledge) must have some idea what kinds of claims are testable and what constitutes actual evidence. Area II will nurture a deeper understanding of those concepts and develop the critical thinking skills so necessary to a humanist outlook on the universe."
3. http://edspencer.net/2009/06/darwin-humanism-and-science.html - "Darwin, Humanism and Science." It's about this conference by the BHA (an IHEU organization) with Dawkins as guest lecturer.
4. http://friendlyhumanist.blogspot.com/2009/05/science-chiropractic-and-libel-laws.html - A blog entry about skepticism of chiropractic practice, with focus on implementation of the scientific method. If you're unclear what "humanism" has to do with this blog, see the IHEU "happy human" logo halfway down the page.
5. http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1995/artsept95.htm - "Some understanding of the scientific method and at least a basic knowledge of the various fields of science is important to becoming an effective humanist. Atheism, the denial of a belief in god, and agnosticism, the lack of knowledge about god, are both negative philosophical attitudes based primarily on a non-belief system. Humanism is a positive philosophical attitude based on a belief in the scientific method. A humanist believes that accurate scientific research has provided convincing evidence that animate and inanimate objects exist naturally. Even humanists without a formal education in basic science believe that scientific research is a valuable tool for discovering truth and put their faith in scientific evidence."
6. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/11/26/great-scott-eugenie - Even though this Christian website questions whether humanism is a religion or not (and differs with Eugenie Scott on the answer), this Christian website very clearly associates the term with American Heritage dictionary definition 1 rather than 4!
7. http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol3/ - An entire issue of Humanism Today dedicated to science from the perspective of IHEU member organizations
8. http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol3/hoad.pdf - One article from the above issue of Humanism Today
9. http://www.amazon.com/New-Humanists-Science-Edge/dp/0760745293 - The reviews focus more on opining on SCIENCE than on humanism, so it's hard to say, but one reviewer does mention "humanities scholars" by name. I'll chalk this one up as referring to American Heritage Dictionary definition 4, even though the contributors (like Steven Pinker, a winner of the American Humanist Association Humanist of the Year Award, and Daniel Dennett, author of "Why Religion and the Promotion Of It is Harmful" for the British Humanist Association) are noted for being rationalists and not theistic. Consider this one a freebie.
10. http://www.iheu.org/darwin-humanism-and-science - IHEU website.

Of the top ten websites, it looks like ONE of them refers to study of the humanities, and that might be because the reviewer on Amazon misunderstood the usage of the term in the title, and the affiliations of the contributors to the book. By being charitable, then, we can say that as high as 10% of usage of "science" in conjunction with "humanism" refers to modern study of humanities. This means, of course, that even by being charitable, 90% of usage of "humanities" and "science" together refers to exactly what this wikipedia article says it is. 90%. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Try searching for scientists and humanists, not science and humanism. The typical usage: humanists means scholars in the humanities. Wilson Delgado (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Most common usage of "Humanist Studies?"

As above, sometimes a commenter here will mention that "humanist studies" most frequently applies to humanities. As above, this isn't actually true, and is in fact ridiculously easy to disprove with a google search. There isn't much commentary needed here; none of the top ten search results for "humanist studies" refer to humanities; all the search results are for IHEU, AHA, or BHA affiliated websites, or personal sites for people who advocate the view of humanism endorsed by these organizations. Here they are:

1. http://humaniststudies.org/ - Institute for Humanist Studies
2. http://humaniststudies.org/humphil.html - IHS :: What is humanism? Are you a humanist? (Humanist philosophy)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism - This article (Not counted among top ten, as I want a fair sampling of all webpages OUTSIDE of wikipedia)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Humanist_Studies - Also not counted among top ten, again to make sure the sampling is fair
5. http://canada.humanists.net/ - IHS :: The Institute for Humanist Studies promotes humanism
6. http://www.myspace.com/humaniststudies - MySpace.com - Humanist Studies - 29 - Female - ALBANY, NEW YORK ...
7. http://www.americanhumanist.org/hnn/podcast/ - Humanist Network News Audio Podcast
8. http://humanisteducation.com/ - COHE :: The Continuum of Humanist Education
9. http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/related_content.html?topic=Institute%20of%20Humanist%20Studies - Orlando Business Journal: Institute of Humanist Studies related ...
10. http://humanistcenter.org/ - IHS :: The Humanist Center, home of the Institute for Humanist Studies
11. http://www.iheu.org/node/1461 - Institute for Humanist Studies | International Humanist and ...
12. http://www.cmehumanistas.org/en/node/2 - World Center of Humanist Studies (WCHS). General information ...

So that's 0% referring to American Heritage Dictionary definition 4, and 100% referring to the definition given here in the current Wikipedia article. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally off-point again. The issue is the meaning of "humanISTIC studies," not humanIST studies. Wilson Delgado (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment usefully demonstrates exactly how difficult it is to find ANY usage of ANY permutation of the word "humanism" that refers to your preferred definition. If we have to be this excruciatingly cautious in order to find even a SINGLE instance of American Heritage Dictionary definition 4 in the wild, then yes, it must surely be a tiny-minority viewpoint indeed. Thus, WP:UNDUE policy is in effect. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not even close, Serpent. Search for "humanistic studies" in google: most items on the first page of results clearly refer to liberal arts types of studies. Are you just throwing out random denials with no substance at all behind them, or what? Wilson Delgado (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not just "throwing out random denials with no substance at all behind them;" I'm giving plenty of substance. I'm not only giving the search terms I use, but also showing the links themselves, identifying each result with relevance to the various definitions of humanism, and providing percentages so we can determine prominence at a glance. This is to make it easy for anyone else to come along and verify that I am not just restating an opinion over and over again. Verifiability is a key policy on Wikipedia. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it's irrelevant. We all agree that Secular humanism is the most commonly used meaning - we also agree that there are other meanings as well. Then those meanings also fall under a general definition of humanism and therefore should be included without being given undue weight. It's as simple as that really.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not sure I agree that secular humanism is the most commonly used meaning. I would direct you to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I for a good overview of what it means most commonly. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

An idea for the lead definition

I would suggest that the lead be worded likes this: "Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without necessarily resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts." The addition of the qualifier necessarily allows for the possibility of "resorting to the supernatural" when "affirming the dignitiy and worth of all people". It also to my view reflects well the Oxford definition when it says "prime importance to human rather than divine matters". This in turn allows christian renaissance humanism to come under the definition of humanism while still maintaining christianity as an ideological basis.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that would be an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of the work "necessarily". ← George ^[talk] 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Humanism (in this restricted sense) essentially "a broad category" or is it rather "a philosophical affirmation of the dignity and worth of all people." I still prefer my proposal of some weeks ago, with a little alteration:

Humanism is the position involved in any of a range of attitudes, approaches, philosophies, and cultural and educational traditions and practices that put a decisive emphasis on human experience, values, and concerns. It is a polysemous term that must be defined in context. Though it implies a contrast with the sub- and the super-human, it carries no bias against either of these realities. In secular philosophical circles, however, it means the ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without recourse to any supernatural authority.

Such a description is more inclusive and accurate. The reader realizes at once the full referential range, power, and ambiguity of the word. Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the goal of making an article a catch-all repository for all definitions of a word. In my experience, an article is supposed to be about a single topic, and then other topics with similar names but different meanings have their own articles. This was my purpose in creating the Humanism (disambiguation) page, and is in fact supported by Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Please see WP:NOT#What Wikipedia entries are not numbers 2-5, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This latter page provides us with the following guidance under the heading, "Good Definitions:"

• A good definition tries to state exactly what it is that makes a term unique and different from other terms; and is easy to understand.
• A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym, too broad or too narrow, or able to have too many meanings.

To me, it seems consistent that the numerous "Ethical Unions" and humanist organizations have published several books that try to make it very clear what is considered "humanism" and what is not, and that Wikipedia attempts to capture this precision in its articles. Trying to be all-inclusive in this article contradicts both such attempts, and is also needless because of articles that are already well-developed at Renaissance humanism and humanities, such that editors interested in those topics may focus their attention there.

Does anyone know of any guidance in Wikipedia policy that would indicate the definition should be as broad and all-inclusive as possible, or is that just idle opinion being bandied about here by inexperienced editors? Thanks! OldMan (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that when we try to make the definition of a multifaceted word too narrow we are bound to disagree about what is the most "essential" meaning. And instead of an article that tells the reader about the possible meanings and usages of a concept we have long term edit-war, which is of course what has happened here. It is simply a fact that you cannot make a precise definition of a concept that is not reducible to that - writing an article that doesn't allow humanism to mean different things when said by different persons in different times is not presenting facts, and is bound to run into problems of original research and point of view as editors fight it out to see which dictionary definition they each agree more with. Anyway OldMan - it seems that a large group of editors believe that a more inclusive definition is the way to go. Now would be a good time for you to present your compromise proposals and start building consensus instead of simply continue restating the same arguments, because that is a road that will only lead to conflict resolution processes, and I am sure we are all mature enough to be able to work together to build this article without that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My proposed compromise last year was agreed upon by Wilson Delgado, who then went back on his agreement. I took the suggestion of a different editor this year who pointed us to the disambiguation guidelines (although he misrepresented them somewhat), found the verbiage that was applicable to our situation, and implemented it on the Humanism (disambiguation) page, which has apparently been accepted by all other editors, as it's been improved upon by all. With that track record, I feel somewhat lonely being the only editor who actually reads Wikipedia's policies and quotes them here in order to establish guidance that we all ought to live by.

Lonely, and also saddened that I specifically requested "guidance in Wikipedia policy that would indicate the definition should be as broad and all-inclusive as possible," and got not Wikipedia policy guidance, but more unsupported statements of opinion, from two of you. I acknowledge your statement of opinion; thank you for sharing it. Now, could you please focus on my simple request for your next response? Thank you! OldMan (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not really being cooperative. The article is not built by you and Wilson Delgado - and he has no reason to stand by any "promises" of accepting a specific wording. If you want a wikipedia policy then how about the Good Article Criteria criteria 3 of which states that the good article is: "Broad in its coverage:(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". You can also read what wikipedia is not - under "dictionary". The alternative to having a single article describing the relations between ALL the different kinds of humanism is to have a disambiaguation page and have single articles for each. I would find this to be a bad solution because it would make it harder for the reader to find all the relevant information about the topic. Wht is not a possibility is to chose just one kind of humanism based on the preferences of one or more editors and relegate the other kinjds of humanism to other articles - such a choice cannot byut be subjective. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore the argument that "Articles should treat One topic" is a non-issue. Humanism is still one topic even if it includes the possibility of being compatible with religion. You are trying to redress the disagreement which si not whether "definitions should be as broad as possible" but whether the possibility for combinations of humanism and religion belong in the article or not. The majority of editors seem to believe that it should - adress this instead instead of ytouting irrelevant policies. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may be a bit under-informed about the history of humanism as it is commonly used today. In the nineteenth century, humanist organizations were founded AS A RELIGION, and in fact the first Humanist Manifesto referred to humanism AS A RELIGION several times. Therefore, I do not seek to debate whether humanism is compatible with religion; I AGREE that humanism is compatible with religion. Once again: humanism IS compatible with religion. The opening paragraph of this article does not say otherwise, and in fact a lot of work and discussion has been put into rewording it so it is not as unfortunately inaccurate as American Heritage Dictionary's definition 1 on this point. Please be very clear on this point when trying to frame the debate, so we can be sure to avoid straw-man argumentation. Thank you! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I should of course have been more explicit I meant specifically "theistic religion" and I think you knew that.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"The alternative to having a single article describing the relations between ALL the different kinds of humanism is to have a disambiaguation page and have single articles for each." This is incorrect; please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This article should only document the primary topic, rather than all meanings, and the disambiguation page guides readers to other definitions. Such a disambiguation page exists; I am the one who created it. You can find it at Humanism (disambiguation).

"I would find this to be a bad solution..." How you find wikipedia policies are for discussion on those policies' discussion pages, not in an individual article where you seek to contradict established wikipedia rules "just this once."

"Wht (sic) is not a possibility is to chose (sic) just one kind of humanism based on the preferences of one or more editors and relegate the other kinjds (sic) of humanism to other articles - such a choice cannot byut (sic) be subjective." While you are technically correct, this statement is only relevant in one direction. As you can see from this talk page and its archives, I've put a lot of work into making sure the topic of this article is not subjective but based on occurrences within news articles, books, web pages, and periodicals, and the popularity of each. Those seeking to impose subjectivity on the topic of this article are those insisting, over a period of years, that modern study of humanities or other uses somehow rival the human-centered philosophy meaning. Please direct your comments about subjectivity to those who do not provide verifiable evidence of their viewpoint. Thank you. OldMan (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for gratuitously inserting (sic) next to the typoes in my quotes - goes along way to show that you are interested in a civil discussion. Quoting from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"."·Maunus·ƛ· 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." Just a few lines down, that same page gives tools to determine whether there is a primary topic. I have used several of them; those who wish to give greater prominence to other meanings have used none of them. It's convenient for them that they may contravene Wikipedia rules simply by making noise, but there is no confusion in my mind between simple noise-making and substantive verifiability. Even if you present such examples of verifiability with typos, I'll be happy to respect them once you've actually presented them here. OldMan (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not "the ONLY editor" seeking guidance in Wikipedia policy. I do find it telling, however, that since I am often in agreement with you, that appeals to Wikipedia policy only seem to come from one side of the debate... as do examples from real-world usage as suggested by those Wikipedia policy pages. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize; you are correct. I was mostly focused on those who seek to dilute the topic of this article. I did not mean to downplay your efforts. OldMan (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My proposed definition hones in on the single, focused, core-meaning of the word: a position that valorizes the human. That is clear and pointed. My definition also allows a segue to the philosophical version of the term and it allows those looking for something else to go to the disambiguation page. To look to the "Ethical Unions" and humanist organizations exclusively for their take on the meaning forces the article into a POV mode. Suppose I looked to literary, historical, educational, and cultural groups' definitions of humanism and relied ONLY on them, without reference to the philosophical? That is an illegitimate move: using the meaning only as given from a particular sector... UNLESS, that is, the article is more clearly labeled not with the generic word "Humanism" but something more precise, like "Humanism (ethics)" or "Humanism (philosophy)." I still don't see why there is resistance to the proper labeling that would make the article not POV at all but a precise description of what the title advertises. Wilson Delgado (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly added the word "necessarily" into the lead of the article. It doesn't look like there was any opposition to the term, despite the derailed discussion. ← George ^[talk] 23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Maunus wrote above: "What is not a possibility is to choose just one kind of humanism based on the preferences of one or more editors and relegate the other kinds of humanism to other articles - such a choice cannot but be subjective." I agree with this statement, so we must ask: did you make this change on the basis of "the preferences of one or more editors," rendering it subjective, or did you base it on a verifiable source? If the latter, what is it? OldMan (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The point you quote me for has no bearing on this change since it makes the topic more inclusive not less. You are the one arguing that non-secular forms of humanism are of peripheral importance and should be treated elsewhere.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. If a change "cannot be but subjective" when "the preferences of one or more editors" disagree with your POV bias, then it "cannot be but subjective" when "the preferences of one or more editors" agree with your POV bias, either. OldMan (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And you apparently don't deal well with elementary logics. In this case the truth of statement A does not imply the truth of statement B. The exclusion of a topic is subjective because you cannot SHOW with sources that a certain point of view should not be part of the article but you CAN show with sources that it should. The inclusion of a subtoic in the article only needs to SHOW that SOME sources include a certain subtopic. This makes a decision to exclude a topic that has been shown in sources to be includable subjective while the decision to include the same subtopic is objective. Not so hard to understand is it? The case is that we have sources to show that Atheistic philosophies are not the only kinds of humanism includable in the general definition of the term "humanist philosphy", but that it is also in some cases be used cover theistic philosophies with a strong focus on the human aspect. You cannot show with sources that this not the case - at most you can show that there is disagreement and that some sources do not accept inclusion of theistic philosophies under the term humanist while others do. This is the reason that inclusion of the topic is made on objective criteria while exclusion is made on a subjective evaluation of which sources certain groups of editors "feel" fit best with their idea of humanist philosophy.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please cite the Wikipedia rules that say "exclusion is made on a subjective evaluation of which sources certain groups of editors 'feel' fit best with their idea of humanist philosophy?" All I can find is WP:VERIFY, which states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." When all major humanist organizations, manifestos, dictionary definitions, and Christian critiques of humanism make specific note that lack of theism is a part of humanism, the burden of verifiability falls upon you if you want to contradict all such sources. OldMan (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is exactly verifiability there are sources that include theistic forms of humanism - this means that theistic humanism exists and is sourceable there fore it is to be included. Even 100 sources saying that it doesn't exist cannot prove its non-existence - it can at most show that some people don't believe or don't want it to exist. But yes the burden of evidence is on those who would include the existence of theistic humanism and they have lifted it many times in the pages above.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, the burden of evidence is not just to demonstrate one or two examples of theistic humanism, but to show that it is a PROMINENT viewpoint, and therefore deserves PROMINENCE in this article. From WP:UNDUE: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." Please note that I do acknowledge the use of "humanism" in American Heritage Dictionary definition 4, which is why I added a link to the article on Humanities under the "Other Forms of Humanism" heading in the article. Please note that I also acknowledge the use of "humanism" in American Heritage Dictionary definition 5, which is why I think it's good to have links to the Renaissance humanism article in the history section, humanism template, and disambiguation page. Both of these definitions have articles devoted to them specifically, so I think we can all be on the same side with this issue. What remains to be shown, then, is whether American Heritage Dictionary definition 1 adherents who are also theists are common and popular enough to warrant giving them a position of prominence within this article. I would expect to see a large number of them in book search results, news search results, magazines devoted to their interest, etc. if their popularity rivaled that of IHEU and Council for Secular Humanism humanists. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

we are not arguing for prominence- We are arguing that the general definition should be broad enough to include them. We are all in agreement that secular humanism is the most commonly ocurring usage - but the definition must be broad enough to allow other kinds as well. The prominence can simply be asserted by writing that theistic humanisms are the minority, but that they exist - such as MBallen's suggestion for the lead does for example.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do not agree that secular humanism is the most commonly occurring usage; following Wikipedia's policies on determining primary topics has convinced me that the humanistic "life stance" advocated by the IHEU, BHA, AHA, and similar organizations is the most often referenced, as derived from the clearly-pronounced RELIGIOUS humanism of the Humanist Manifestos. So the umbrella statement should be inclusive of both life stance AND religious humanism, rather than just secular humanism. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

←Outside opinion based on a request at WP:EAR. (Necessary disclosure: I self-identify as a secular humanist.)

I think this entire discussion is founded on a faulty premise, which is that the lead section of the article needs to define "humanism". It does not. Word definitions belong in a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Likewise, the etymology of "humanism" belongs in a dictionary. Instead of trying to define humanism in any great detail, just move the Wiktionary link to the top of the page; let Wiktionary say what it means.

See WP:LEAD for what the lead section should really contain.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

sources for the possibility of theistic humanism

• Sartre, Jean Paul - "Existentialism is Humanism" p. 63-64[3] :"Unfortunately the term humanism is used to designate schools of thought, not only according to two meanings but according to three, four, five or six. Nowadays everybody is a humanist. Even certain Marxists who pride themselves of being classical rationalists, are humanists in a diluted sort of way, stripped of the liberal ideas of the previous century - embracing instead a liberalism infrcted through the current crisis. I Marxists can claim to be humanists, then followers of various religions - Christianity, Hindus and many others - can also claim to be humanists, as do existentialists and in general all philosophers." ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your typos are actually obscuring the meaning of this quote, which is why it is very important for you to be most conscientious about them especially when quoting sources. In fact the original quote says, "If Marxists can claim to be humanists, then followers of various religions... can also claim to be humanists." He is not granting them his permission to use the word; he is lamenting that they might! In other words, he doesn't think they should. Thus he says "unfortunately" in the first sentence of your quote. Sartre, and particularly this book, are oft-quoted sources for authors and essayists throughout multiple implementations of human-centered philosophy. He certainly is not fond of using it to describe theistic humanism. OldMan (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Sartre thought they should or not - it matters that he acknowledges that they do.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• This[4] article on aout.com shows a usage of "Humanism" that is fully compatible with theism.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Any religious belief system which incorporates humanistic beliefs and principles might be described as religious humanism — thus, Christian Humanism could be thought of us as a type of religious humanism. It might be better, however, to describe this situation as a humanistic religion (where a pre-existing religion is influenced by humanist philosophy) rather than as a religious humanism (where humanism is influenced to be religious in nature).

"Regardless, that is not the type of religious humanism being considered here. Religious humanism shares with other types of humanism the basic principles of an overriding concern with humanity — the needs of human beings, the desires of human beings, and the importance of human experiences. For religious humanists, it is the human and the humane which must be the focus of our ethical attention."

Emphasis added by me, to show that this article takes exactly the opposite viewpoint to the one you attribute to it. Didn't you read it before posting the link? OldMan (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

same goes here - the matter isn't whether the writer is sympathetic to christian humanism - only that he shows that christian and other theistic humanisms are also describable as humanism.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already a wikipedia page entitled Humanism (life stance). It is peculiar that this page doesn't link to it, given that some of the same people worked on it as worked on this one. The two pages cover much the same material, namely the beliefs of the American Humanism Organization. Since the rubric Humanism (life stance) explicitly refers to the various world-wide humanist associations and their beliefs, it seems to be that this page ought to cover the broader phenomenon of humanism.

Also some of the information here is erroneous. For example Ariosto did not "coin" the term humanist in 1540 though he did use the word. (I have seen this error elsewhere on the web). The assertion that Ariosto used "umanista" to mean "a student of human nature" -- is quite laughable. By the sixteenth century humanists (the professors of literature who had discovered all those manuscripts) were remembered rather unfavorably for their notoriously quarrelsome nature --- along with other vices. Ariosto in his Sixth satire says that anyone with a vein of poetry must be an inveterate sodomite: "so don’t turn your back if you have to share a bed with one": "Few humanists are without that vice that forced God – not that it took much persuading – to smite Gomorrah and her neighbors with sorrow".Encylopedia of Italian Literary Studies p. 94. Sometimes real facts are much more interesting than made up ones!173.52.253.91 (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)