Talk:Humanism
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Humanism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
| Humanism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 23, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"The Philosophy of Humanism" by Corliss Lamont
[edit]This book was first published in 1949 (not 1997 as this article suggests). MarcCountry (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Religion in Humanism
[edit]Oklopfer, could you please explain your deletion of the material I added? I wrote the text I added, not ChatGPT. Thank you. Airborne84 (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Airborne84 nearly all of the sources in the material you added were tagged with
?utm_source=chatgpt.com, which is a major flag. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oklopfer, that's because I used ChatGPT to search for sources. I used some of the ones it found. However, the text itself is mine. It's the same way I would use a web search, which I also did. Is there some restriction against using ChatGPT in that way? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Airborne84 Not necessarily, but it is still often indication that text is written with LLMs, and then imposes the necessity for other editors to check that what was provided as a source actually matches the text being attributed to it. Many times that I have checked sources tagged with the UTM, they in fact do not align with any of the written text. If you have manually checked all of them, you are welcome to restore, but please be sure to format the cites properly. ~ oklopfer (💬) 04:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oklopfer, yes, I checked that the sources supported what I was writing in the text.
- Unless something has changed in recent years, the URL is sufficient as a source. But since this is a GA, I'll format the sources accordingly. Airborne84 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Airborne84 Not necessarily, but it is still often indication that text is written with LLMs, and then imposes the necessity for other editors to check that what was provided as a source actually matches the text being attributed to it. Many times that I have checked sources tagged with the UTM, they in fact do not align with any of the written text. If you have manually checked all of them, you are welcome to restore, but please be sure to format the cites properly. ~ oklopfer (💬) 04:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oklopfer, that's because I used ChatGPT to search for sources. I used some of the ones it found. However, the text itself is mine. It's the same way I would use a web search, which I also did. Is there some restriction against using ChatGPT in that way? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- GA-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- GA-Class Atheism articles
- Mid-importance Atheism articles
- GA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- GA-Class epistemology articles
- Mid-importance epistemology articles
- Epistemology task force articles
