Talk:Humanism

message: Hi , I feel that this edit too,  just adds trivial info to the article. Etymology does not mean "history of usage". You are citing a primary source, a book published more than three centuries ago. This looks to me as Original Research. Maybe I am wrong and suffering from "article ownership". I dont know. So, if you insist on the edit, I will request a comment from another editor or add a note at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard , whatever you wish. Maybe other editors can help us navigate this.Cinadon36 15:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @Cinadon36. Again, I disagree that it's trivial. As for citing a book published more than three centuries ago, what's the problem? The whole article is about tracing humanism back to the Greeks. As for OR, Johnson's book is cited by Davies (1997): "According to Johnson's dictionary, a humanist is a grammarian; a philologer'... " (p. 3), to which I added it was derived from the French word. Hardly deep research. As you say, maybe a bit of 'article ownership' behaviour here. I feel my edit is relevant, but consult another editor if you must. Manbooferie (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Johnson's dictionary is also mentioned by Copson in his "What is Humanism?" Handbook chapter (Note 2). Manbooferie (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I really don't think we need a full RfC for one single line. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Alyo, Agree. Maybe WP:3O (third opinion) would be better. Cinadon36 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make more sense, I agree. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

text: So @Manbooferie, Johnson's Dictionary is used as a footnote in a long chapter of a long book. Here, at WP, we have to summarize all these chapters, not add bites from here and there. This is what I am trying to convey. Your addition is not a summary. Actually, Copson's book uses less words than WP's article to explain the same thing. Here is note2 pg 28, for those interested:  "In Samuel Johnson’s dictionary of 1755, for example, ‘humanist’ was defined narrowly  as,  ‘a  philologer;  a  grammarian’.  (Samuel  Johnson,  A  Dictionary  of  the  English Language [London, 1755])" Cinadon36 16:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your input @Rublamb, I really appreciate it. I know it is not an easy job. Just a few points, dictionaries are per definition tertiary sources, when used as a source of knowledge. But in this case, it was not used in such a manner. It was used as a historical fact. Anyways, I think there are 100s of dictionaries around the world, some of them being very old. Should we include them all? What is our criterion? Again, thanks for jumping in. Cinadon36 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions. What kind of dictionariy to use depends on whether the topic is specialized or general, as well as whether you are reviewing the lexicon of a term used by the general public, scholars, or want a mixture of both..Another consideration is English dictionaries vs. those of other language--again the topic dictates what is most appropriate. Each editor has the authority to use their best judgement in selecting a source. As long as ithe selcted source meets Wikipedia standard for reliability, it is fine to use.  When writing an historical overview, a dictionary or encyclopedia that was popular when it was published reflects contemporary viewpoint and/or helped shape a word's meaning in its era--thus, it is correct to say that a word was defined as xyz in the 19th century when using a 19th century source (although it is always best to mention the name of the dictionary in the text). Wikipedia has articles about the most common ad most popular dictionaries; many can easily be found through :Category:English dictionaries. This is a great resource when determining whether or not a given dictionary is mainstream. How many sources to include really depends on the topic, specifically whether or not the term (such as humanism) has few changes vs. many changes in meaning. If someone adds three obscue dictionaries to support one meaning, it would probably fall under undue weight. If they add three different definitions that represent change over time, from three different sources that were popular in their era, it would be correct. Of course, another option is to find a reliable source that sumarizes an overview of this topic, meaning that dictionaries would not be needed. Rublamb (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Rublamb " Of course, another option is to find a reliable source that sumarizes an overview of this topic, meaning that dictionaries would not be needed." That was the case before adding info based on dictionaries. Cinadon36 10:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I would like to add the below text to the "Varieties of Humanism" section:
Secular Humanistic Judaism prioritizes human values, ethics, and cultural identity over religious dogma. It embraces a secular perspective, encouraging personal autonomy, inclusivity, while celebrating life's milestones with Jewish ritual. Aligned with social justice, it reflects a commitment to reason and individual responsibility, and defines Jewish identity as a rich cultural heritage rather than solely a religious affiliation.
Source:  https://sherwinwine.com/the-philosophy-of-humanistic-judaism-part-i/ Michaelwitkin (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Source fails WP:RS. Cinadon36 18:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Not done: The content you provided has a promotional tone which goes against a neutral-style policy and, as Cinadon36 said, the source you provided can't be considered reliable.  Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023