User talk:Zappare

Hi. Please don't accuse other users of vandalism for doing edits that you don't agree with as you did here[1]. Please talk it over calmly on the talk page instead.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did not accuse anyone of vandalism because I disagreed with their edits. If you look at the discussion in the Humanism article, you can quite clearly see that it has become a victim of deliberate edit stalling (ie. people blocking clear improvements; as an example, see the message posted at 19:29, 4 March 2009) and aggressive modification to undermine its objectivity. This is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. The opening chapter of the article was clearly not up to Wikipedia's neutrality standards. Zappare (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean that it was vandalism. Please read WP:Vandalism to be able to distinguish vandalism from good faith edits.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate there is a difference of opinion here; my point was that there has quite clearly been a pattern of activity that is _not_ in good faith, that is: "change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I could well be wrong, but this was my impression. Zappare (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the word "humanism" in this sense was first used by people who called themselves Communists (Marx), and Anarchists (Proudhon). This is a historical fact. Unfortunately other people have edited the page so that this is now given undue prominence. Heidegger (arguably a Nazi) also called himself a humanist, but that was much later.Mballen (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure there are many pedophiles and tax evaders who are self-described humanists. That however does not mean that the opening chapter of a Wikipedia article on humanism should read "Humanism is the belief of pedophiles and tax evaders". That's more in the realm of Conservapedia (Hitler's picture in the atheism article, for example). Comparing humanism to communism and socialism in the first sentence implies a clear bias. Zappare (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wasn't comparing humanism to communism and socialism, I (or rather my source, Vito Giustiniani) was comparing the formation of the word, to the formation of those words. However, if you find it potentially imflamatory or objectionable, I don't particularly object to your having removed it. The comparison of communist and socialists to pedophiles and tax evaders is uncalled for, though, and silly.Mballen (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]