Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-28 The Humanist papacy

Request for cabal mediation

Request Information

Request made by: Rohirok 04:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: Several articles relating to the Humanist lifestance, including the following, but perhaps others:

Who's involved?: Mostly me (Rohirok) and Dacoutts.

What's going on?: Dacoutts makes many edits every day to these articles, usually introducing many errors based on the assumption that the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) functions as a sort of papacy for all Humanists, and all real Humanists follow everything the IHEU says. I revert and explain, then he or she reverts again. It seems endless, and is more than I can keep up with.

What would you like to change about that?: I would like others to start watching these pages for violations of NPOV, unexplained reverts, and unsourced claims. I seem to be about the only one who is on top of this right now, and it's become too much for me.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: It's ok for you to contact me on my talk page.

Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator?: Yes.

Comments by others

I'm not part of the "cabal", but I just got through making selective case changes in a few articles related to Humanism, and found my way to this page. After reading this, I anticipate I will have unintentionally stirred up renewed edit warring, based on the concerted effort that IHEU seems to be making (everywhere, not necessarily on WP) to promote the capitalized term "Humanist" in the humanism sphere. (I tried to retain the distinction between the IHEU use of the term and the generic use, which seems to be uncapitalized by existing English practice.) I guess that means I'll be commenting on these matters. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not part of the cabal either. I've been involved in the discussion at the IHEU page that is one part of what led to this mediation request. At around the time that this request went up Rohirok put notices up on a few pages looking for assistance with the problems he felt Dacoutts was causing. Yesterday, Rohirok deleted those notices, and left messages that the dispute was mostly resolved. It would not be surprising if he also intended to withdraw this mediation request.

Above, under "What's going on?", Rohirok states that Dacoutts's actions seemed to be "based on the assumption that the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) functions as a sort of papacy for all Humanists, and all real Humanists follow everything the IHEU says". When I became involved in this my concern was similar, that Dacoutts was imposing certain conventions on some Wikipedia articles vastly out of proportion to what could be supported from usual uses of the word 'humanism', and indeed possibly out of proportion to practice at the IHEU itself. I don't believe that is what is currently happening, and my impression is that Rohirok does not either. If there are issues that do need to be resolved by this mediation process, then changing the name from 'The Humanist papacy' to something that better reflects current difficulties may be a good idea. --Plover 11:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rohirok

Please continue mediation

I do not wish for this mediation case to be closed yet. I anticipate there will be other disagreements, and I believe there will be a need for other voices to come in and moderate things. As these are relatively obscure pages, I do not believe there are that many people that watch them or activly edit them. Since Dacoutts and I seem to be at odds so often over POV, relevance, facts and verifiability, and since the two of us had been the ones most active in editing (often reverting each others' changes and failing to come to agreement in discussion), the level-headedness of others not so passionate as the two of us is still greatly needed. There are still some edits that Dacoutts has restored that I believe to be inappropriate, but have not had the time to address or re-address.

I deleted my request for help on the non-humanism talk pages for three reasons: first, things had cooled down somewhat, and the biggest problems seemed to have been resolved; second, I suspected that those who watch those talk pages might not appreciate accusations or arguments being posted there that were not directly related to their respective articles; and finally, I wished to retract my highly emotional comments that suggested that Dacoutts was either incredibly dense or a sock puppet. Rohirok 17:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please keep it open. --Couttsie 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to renaming this mediation case

Dacoutts has objected to calling this mediation case "The Humanist papacy." I chose that name half tongue-in-cheek. I also chose it half seriously, since Dacoutts was insisting at the time that his or her various IHEU citations proved that "usage of lower case humanism with the adjective 'secular' is incorrect" and that my edits and reversions were "deeply offensive, and repressive of the official worldview that secular humanism is correctly known as Humanism (with a capital H and no adjective)." If it will help things move forward, please rename this case to something less charged. Rohirok 05:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will help to rename this case. This sort of humour was ill-considered and offensive. --Couttsie 23:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions re re-naming the case. Chandler75 03:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IHEU and Humanism (belief system) or IHEU and Humanism (life stance) are my preferred options --Couttsie 06:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list of concerns

Our mediator has asked if we could come up with some set of statements to which we could both agree and apply to the various articles about which I was originally concerned. I don't know if that's possible, but here are some things on which Dacoutts and I might agree that I think would help:

No more personal attacks. Work must focus on the articles, not on the persons editing them. While we can spend a lot of time demanding further retractions or apologies, let us agree to let it be, for the sake of moving on.

See "What I want" --Couttsie 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was moving on until this Cabal case was sprung on me. --Couttsie 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith on the part of other editors.

No comment (yet) --Couttsie 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IHEU is the only world-wide organization for Humanists, but not all Humanists are members of IHEU. Authentic Humanism is therefore not restricted to what is recommended by IHEU, so the views of Humanists who disagree with IHEU or are not members must also be presented as authentic.

Disagree. No evidence of any other world body for Humanism (which includes the right to identify yourself a a secular humanist). The UN, UNESCO and UNICEF all recognise the IHEU as the world body for Humanism. It is only a few Wikipedia editors who have not recognised these facts. --Couttsie 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your disagreement doesn't seem to address Rohirok's statement.

Rohirok's statement starts by saying that "IHEU is the only world-wide organization for Humanists" and your entire response seems to be about insisting on the truth of this despite the fact that the statement has already agreed to it. So, although you say you disagree, you aren't explicitly disagreeing with anything that was written. You fail to comment at all on the core assertion, that "not all Humanists are members of IHEU."

Out of curiousity, do you believe that "One cannot be a Humanist unless one is associated with a world body for Humanism"? It seems like perhaps you are taking this as an implicit assumption. If you believe this to be true, why? -Rhwentworth 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some (but not all) Humanists consider theirs to be a secular life-stance, even if they prefer not to call themselves secular humanists.

This was agreed long ago. --Couttsie 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secular humanism is an authentic expression of Humanism, and the naming preferences of those who choose to call themselves secular humanists instead of Humanists must be respected, rather than judged "incorrect."

This was agreed long ago. --Couttsie 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the general practice of the IHEU to capitalize Humanist, without using an adjective such as secular, as evidenced by most of the contents of their webpage.

It is also recommended usage for Humanists, and many Humanist organisations follow this convention. --Couttsie 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statements endorsed by Humanist leaders or past presidents of IHEU do not qualify as endorsements from IHEU itself.

Neither are such statement to be disregarded or played down as statements by "some leaders". --Couttsie 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word usage (specifically, capitalization and non-adjectivization of Humanist and Humanism) within documents adopted by the IHEU congress (such as Amsterdam Declaration 2002) reflect agreed-upon usage for that particular document, and do not represent a universal endorsement by the IHEU congress of that usage outside of the context of that document.

But they do reflect a clear IHEU preference to use capitalization. --Couttsie 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps. Rohirok 05:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. How are you defining Humanist as distinct from humanist?

--Plover 08:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article on humanism sheds light on this when it says

Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies

and

While the broad category of humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical or religious thought, it is embraced by some people as a complete lifestance. For more on this, see Humanism (lifestance).

Another way of looking at this might be to regard humanism is an intellectual category of belief systems while Humanism is a more organized movement associated with a large subset of these belief systems. --Rhwentworth 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not what I'm confused about. The problem is that some of the statements in the list above are ambiguous concerning whether they equate Humanism with humanism. I don't expect that is Rohirok's intention, but as this whole conflict has turned on minute distinctions in definitions, it seems best to make sure they are explicit.

--Plover 22:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is all very confusing, and seemingly minute distinctions make a huge difference for certain people. I am using Humanism and Humanist to refer to the lifestance (whether it is religious or irreligious) and its adherents. I am using humanist to refer to the broader category of philosophies or schools of thought that, while related to Humanism, are not considered complete lifestances (analogous to a religion). Thus, while you can be a Christian humanist, you can't really be a Christian Humanist. They are incompatible, as one is based on belief in God, and the other is not. What makes it really confusing is that many Humanists call themselves just humanists. If you check the talk pages for Humanism, you will find people objecting (rightly, in my opinion) to previous content that seemed to imply that humanism was the same as Humanism (though they probably put it differently than that). There is definitely a humanist current in Christianity (running more strongly in some branches than in others), so their objections are on the mark, which is why a page like Humanism (lifestance) (or something similar) is necessary. Rohirok 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, that's about what I expected. It's just slightly different than how I thought it was being used at the IHEU page.

--Plover 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dacoutts (Couttsie)

From IHEU talk:

Plover: If the IHEU cares enough about capitalizing Humanism to change their website when the use of lower case is pointed out to them, then that seems fairly clear evidence that it's a meaningful convention within the organization.
Rohirok: That they changed their website from h to H is compelling, and I admit that always capitalizing without an adjective is their general practice, as evidenced by much of the website.

From Cabal: "A cabal is a number of persons united in some close design, usually to promote their private views and interests in a church, state, or other community by intrigue. " There has been no intrigue here. Prior to my contributions the IHEU article was a mere shell. There was no Amsterdam Declaration article. The worldwide usage of the Happy Human symbol was unclear. As Plover noted, few people had heard of the IHEU. Yet the fact is that the IHEU is the world body for Humanism (belief system). It is recognised as such by the UN and UNESCO. This includes secular humanism. There is no other world body for Humanism. Now, Wikipedia reflects nothing more than the facts regarding the IHEU etc. Rather than being condemned for such action, I should be thanked.

Rohirok and I have agreed suitable wording on the normal usage of capitalization within the IHEU, and by IHEU leaders (including former IHEU presidents), and IHEU documents such as the Amsterdam Declaration 2002. We have also agreed that the IHEU recommends usage of capitalization of the word H, but that such usage is by no means compulsory.

It is offensive to argue that the IHEU is the Humanist papacy, given the lack of compulsion in IHEU recommendations.

--Couttsie 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Rohirok has not commented - I'm trying to find out what you would accept rather than have the two of you reverting, re-inserting, etc. Give me an idea of what you would find acceptable. Also, we're dealing here with too many articles - so pick one or two, and perhaps what is decided between you can be reflected in the other articles. Direct me to some statements that are now in contention and give me an example of what you would like them to read.Chandler75 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couttsie: "'A cabal is ... .' There has been no intrigue here."

Um, cabal in this context refers to the Mediation Cabal, the group conducting this mediation. Where did anyone say that you were engaged in intrigue?

--Plover 11:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rohirok (IHEU talk page):Perhaps you could get your boys at IHEU to write up a statement to post on their website, for all of us to see firsthand.

My bolding. This sounds to me like Rohirok is accusing me of being in cahoots (as opposed to Coutts ;-) )with the IHEU. --Couttsie 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the use of the word cabal here on the mediation page?

Generally speaking, the idiomatic use here of "your boys" does not necessarily imply anything beyond the fact that you have been supporting and defending the views of a certain group. In this particular case, it also happens to refer to the fact that you have been in contact with them. While the tone is a bit snarky (rather mild compared to many things that have been said – on both sides), I can't see him as expressing anything that is in dispute.

If you are determined to look at every word that has been written in this conflict to try find things that could be interpreted as suspicious or offensive, you will find them. A lot of nasty things have been said on both sides. The general feeling, again on both sides (I thought), is that they were based on misunderstandings and are regrettable. Of course, there are statements that portray you in an unflattering light, and these appear along with statements by you which do the same to others. And, obviously, this is why apologies have been offered and accepted. The question is whether or not things are working well now. If you and Rohirok can work together at this point, that's what matters. Bringing up older statements, and raising suspicions about them gives the impression that you aren't accepting other people's apologies as genuine. For myself and, I would guess, also Rohirok, the reason that we are acting in a way that may seem to you, as you say below, ambivalent, is precisely because you, in raising these suspicions, seem to be being ambivalent. I have no idea what you are thinking. Do you accept the apologies or not? And if so, what good does it do to drag all these details up rather than just starting clean?

And again, this is why I keep saying that the discussions should be edited. There's no reason to leave the record of misperceptions and regrettable statements on the discussion pages. Rohirok, as he notes above, has already removed some of his.

--Plover 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plover: Bringing up older statements, and raising suspicions about them gives the impression that you aren't accepting other people's apologies as genuine. and And if so, what good does it do to drag all these details up rather than just starting clean? Well, whereas I openly advised Rohirok that I would report him for vandalism (and then did so), I don't recall being advised that I was being reported to any Cabal for pushing my "Humanist Papacy" views. Thus, the question of whether or not Rohirok was being genuine in his apology is a very good point. Thanks for raising it. --Couttsie 23:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plover: Rohirok, as he notes above, has already removed some of his. And I have already removed references to vandalism by Rohirok. --Couttsie 23:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue treating attempts to find a rationale for moving on as occasions to outline more grievances, I don't know what I'm supposed to say. If you view everything I write as something to be examined with utmost suspicion for any hint of a misstep or the faintest suggestion of bias rather than as suggestions or explanations offered in good faith – and that is what most of your recent responses give the impression of – then there probably isn't much of anything I can say. I have added a further statement at "Comments by plover" below.

--Plover 04:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From IHEU talk page. Plover:If it would help matters (i.e. if both of you want me to), I could try to construct a neutral statement that you both might agree to. I'm willing to give it a try --Couttsie 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I ought to make this clearer. What I mean by a neutral statement is not something like the list of grievances you've been trying to get Rohirok to sign, but something to the effect of "We've both said a bunch of nasty stuff, we're sorry, we'll cooperate in good faith from now on." This is more or less what I hoped would be effect of the apologies you have already given each other. I also suggested taking down your nastier statements in accordance with WP:REFACTOR to the degree that they serve only as a record of your misperceptions of each other and not as the kind of debate that makes a useful record on the Talk pages.

--Plover 11:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rohirok (Humanism (belief system): What matters to me is the quality of the Wikipedia articles that I contribute to, and most of your contributions have, quite frankly, degraded rather than enhanced that quality. In fact, the opposite is true. Wikipedia is better off, and the articles are more extensive and above all more accurate. --Couttsie 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rohirok (Humanism (belief system): You seem to think that the IHEU is to Humanists as the Pope is to Catholics. And hence, thanks to this Mediation Cabal case - "The Humanist papacy" - we see that Rohirok not only accuses me of this heinous crime but, to add insult to injury, he appears to extend it to the IHEU itself. --Couttsie 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These statements were made on February 28, at the height of this conflict. Why would you think they still reflect Rohirok's sentiments now? And how do they constitute a response to my previous statement anyway?

--Plover 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rohirok wants this Cabal case to remain open, and hence I believe it is necessary to leave the remianing comments where they are until this matter is resolved. Regarding "Humanist Papacy", see comments above under Rohirok section. Regarding quality of Wikipedia, no further comment. --Couttsie 01:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I want

My good faith and integrity have been repeatedly attacked. See last few sections of IHEU talk page. There has been an apology, and some ambivalent comments made, but it is still not crystal clear as to whether or not both Plover and Rohirok (and others) accept that I was acting in good faith, being totally honest, was not part of some "cabal" or the "Humanist papacy", and was not "evangelising".. Prior to my contributions, the world religion page did not even acknowledge that Humanism existed, yet worldwide figures are between 3 and 5 million. It is a matter of marginalisation, and possible religious discrimination, if there is any attempt to suppress these facts. I believe Rohirok, and Wikipedia editors generally, were ignorant of these facts. Now, whether they like the facts or not, at least Wikipedia is (finally) accurate.

Given the complete lack of my supposed "co-conspirators" (a cabal requires the effrots of more than one person acting alone), I want a full and unequivocal statement to the effect:

"We agree that Couttsie (aka Dacoutts) has, in fact, at all times acted in good faith and with unimpeachable integrity. Any suggestion that Couttsie was been evangelising, part of any "cabal", or promoting "a Humanist papacy" are unequivolically withdrawn by the signatories below. With respect to articles pertaining to Humanism, and the IHEU, Wikipedia is now more accurate than at any time previously. In the main, this is thanks to the efforts of Couttsie."

--Couttsie 01:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plover (above):I have no idea what you are thinking. Do you accept the apologies or not? I was asked by the mediator what I wanted, and I added this "What I want" section. Isn't this clear enough? --Couttsie 23:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also my Talk page, which includes the following comment from me to Rohirok: "However, I very much appreciate the way you signed off "Yours in Humanism (capital H, no adjective)." which is clearly conciliatory. Please don't rush through (yet) another hasty move (you asked for week on your last "vote", but I'm told two weeks is normal). Please desist from destroying Humanist (belief system) related articles. Yours in Humanism (capital H, no adjective). --Couttsie 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)"

--Couttsie 01:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IHEU is the world body for Humanism

This is from the IHEU website: "Based in London, IHEU is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg), and maintains operational relations with UNESCO (Paris)."

That's the UN, UNICEF and UNESCO. Can anyone please point me to any other "world body" for humanism (or Humanism) with such obvious status as the IHEU? --Couttsie 01:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhentworth contributions

For what it's worth, a list of organizations with similar status is at [1]. This includes IHEU, International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies, Humanist Committee on Human Rights, plus myriad organizations not mentioning humanism

Who added this nonesense? Whoever wrote this is clearly being disruptive. "plus myriad organizations not mentioning humanism" go on then, name another. I did a document search on "humanist" and only the 3 listed here came up.

You seem to be misreading, as the preceding text is entirely consistent with your finding. The page included organizations with "Consultative Status" with a particular UN organization. The list included the three mentioned organizations with names vaguely related to humanism, plus what seems like a few hundred other organizations (close enough to "myriad" for me) with names not alluding to humanism. Your statement "go on then, name another" is a complete nonsequiter, as there is no implication that there is another organisation related to humanism on the list. The mention of "myriad other organizations" reflected a sense that there are a lot of organizations with this sort of status with the UN, not that there are a lot of humanist organisations with this status. -Rhwentworth

I don't see how it helps to make passing references to organisations without then following up and seeing if they even claim to represent Humanism (belief system). --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humanistic is not the same as humanism, Humanism or secular humanism.

I'm curious as to what you believe the distinction to be? I note that the article on Religious humanism lists Humanistic Judaism as a type of humanism, and the article on Humanistic Buddhism talks about it having humanism as one of its characteristics. So, there might be a distinction between humanist and humanistic but I don't know what it is and I don't see evidence that other Wikipedia authors are aware of a difference. (While it's certainly not authoritative, one dictionary lists humanistic as the adjective corresponding to the noun humanist.) -Rhwentworth

And I still don't see any need to discuss it as they do not claim to represent Humanism (belief system). --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference lists only TWO bodies for Humanism, the IHEU and the Humanist Committee on Human Rights. As to the worldwide recognition of the "Humanist Committee on Human Rights" as a world humanism / Humanism body, well they appear to only be a specilaised committee with a restricted scope. . --Couttsie 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are - Humanist Committee on Human Rights. Limited scope (Human rights only), do not even claim to be world body for Humanism. --Couttsie 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. "The ICPHS is an international non-governmental organisation associated to UNESCO. It federates hundreds of different learned societies in the different fields of philosophy, human and social sciences." No claim to represent Humanism, or those that state a "religous affliliation" (as per census question) to the "No Religion" of Humanism. --Couttsie 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking the comment on organizations that have "Consultative status" as having more significance than it was intended to have. I was merely curious as to how unusual the designation of "Consultative status" was. I offered what I discovered, in case others had a similar curiousity. I did not claim that the results were deeply significant, nor that they contradicted the point you were trying to make. So, while it's nice that you researched things a bit further, no detailed refutation was really required. -Rhwentworth

I still see these "contributions" and disruptive. By all means add them in, but start your own section rather than confuse and disrupt my contributions. --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the UN, UNICEF and UNESCO. Can anyone please point me to any other "world body" for humanism (or Humanism) with such obvious status as the IHEU? --Couttsie 01:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think asking if there is any other "world body" for humanism (or Humanism) with such obvious status is quite the right question.

I do --Couttsie 23:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be curious to see a list of humanist organizations that are not affiliated with IHEU. That might shed some light on how universally IHEU represents humanism. If virtually all humanist organizations affiliate with IHEU, then calling it the world body for humanism might be fair. If there are a sigficant number of groups calling themselves humanist that are not affiliated with IHEU, some softening of that title might be appropriate.

There are around 100 organisations worldwide in about 30 nations in the IHEU, with a membership somewhere between 3 and 5 million. I have asked Rohirok to provide figures of secular humanists, but nobody backed me up. As Rohirok himself/herself has stated, the secular humanism numbers are included in the Humanist numbers. How wonder how people worldwide regard themselves as members of the Humanist Committee on Human Rights? --Couttsie 23:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that if IHEU represented 2/3 of all humanists, but I was in the 1/3 of humanists not affiliated with IHEU (and that lack of affiliation was by choice rather than by indifference), I would be resentful of having IHEU referred to as the world body, regardless of whether or not it is the only humanist organization with such a large global influence. Imagine a Protestant accepting having the Vatican be called the world headquarters for the Christian religion? In terms of being by far the most globally influential center of Church leadership, the Vatican is pre-eminent. But it does not represent all adherents to Christianity. It might turn out to be the case that IHEU represents a larger percentage of world humanists than the Vatican does of world Christians, but a similar principle applies unless the number of humanists not represented by IHEU is small and their doctrinal differences are slight.

So, the question is, how large or divergent in thinking is the contingent of humanists not represented by IHEU? (This question is slightly complicated by the fact that not all people who regard themselves as "humanists" affiliate with any organization.)

This is answered directly on the IHEU page as it stands. Again, this seems needless and idle chit chat. --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If IHEU represents a majority of, but not all, humanists, how should that be reflected in Wikipedia articles? --Rhwentworth 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I was a Christian and my particular denomination had a national or international body, and people tried to say that that body was not "the" national body or "the" international body - purely on the grounds of your own argument above - then I would consider my rights to have been suppressed.

So, you're saying that if you were a Baptist and there was a national organization of Baptists, you would think it unfair if people refused to call that organization "the" national body for Christians? Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying that you only want to assert the organization is "the" national body for Baptists? Could you please clarify? -Rhwentworth

I thought I had clarified, but I seriously doubt this has much to do with this Cabal and I don't appreciate most of your comments. --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence, and only speculation, to back your argument.

That's a strange objection, as I wasn't arguing for a particular conclusion -- I was making a argument as to what information would be needed in order to reach a valid conclusion. -Rhwentworth

So keep your idle speculation in your own section of this Cabal. --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm sure there are many Christians who would love to see such baseless and speculative arguments win the day (but only in the case of suppressing non-thesitic beliefs such as Humanism)

Wow. Frankly, you're beginning to sound like a zealot. Even if one were a passionate advocate for Humanism, I don't understand why the question of how we should speak about the IHEU should be regarded as a life-and-death issue. What horrible thing would happen if the Wikipedia community came to a different conclusion than the one you favor? -Rhwentworth 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is with you people? Why do you always have to resort to name-calling? --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intention all along has been simply to figure out the right answer. I don't have a vested interest in a particular conclusion, yet it feels to me as if you are presuming that any statement I make is a villainous attempt to sabotage your own position. I would prefer a presumption that I am trying to collaborate in finding an accurate view of reality, and a calm effort to try to understand each other's arguments and questions. -Rhwentworth 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what comes across. --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One additional request... please read more carefully before you respond. I've noticed that with me and with others you have repeatedly responded in a way that indicates you didn't actually hear or understand what was said. If you reread what I write and the significance of what I've written still isn't clear, please ask. Thanks. -Rhwentworth 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I think you are getting off the point. --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, and this may seem harsh, unless your future comments are more responsive to what is actually being said as opposed to what you imagine is being said, I'm likely to simply give up on this conversation and conclude that anything you (Couttsie) say should be assumed to be unreliable unless supported by someone who can discuss things more carefully. That would be a loss, as I expect you likely have some useful things to say. But it's only worth it for me to invest my time in discussion if we're having a real dialogue and not just talking past one another. -Rhwentworth 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now I'm unreliable? Tell me, what have you contributed to any of the Humanism (belief system) articles (IHEU, all the member organisations, Happy Humans etc). What did you know of Humanism (belief system) before my contributions? --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IHEU stands alone as the world body for Humanism (it is internationally recognised as such) and I agree with Rohirok that that includes those who prefer to call themselves secular humanists (and other terms). However, the IHEU is not the world body for humanism in the broader sense, as they reject the supernatural and all forms of theism. See the IHEU minimum statement.

So, if you are a humanist in the broad sense, but believe in some sort of god, then you are not a Humanist (or a secular humanist) and have no need to object to the fact that the IHEU does not represent your views. If there is, in fact, a world body for theistic forms of humanism that that's great (though I am unaware of such a body). However, any mention of a theistic world body for humanism belongs elsewhere, and not in the Humanism (belief system) article, the IHEU article etc.

--Couttsie 23:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC) --Couttsie 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following might be relevant. Looking at the IHEU site, they have a page identifying humanist organizations that are kindred organizations (which are apparently not member organizations, as member humanist organizations are listed separately). Included on this list are:

Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). The UUA is not all humanists, but has a large (maybe 40% from what I've been told by people intimately familiar with UUA though I don't have a reference) Humanist subgroup. Note that this subgroup embeds the Happy Human in their logo. It appears that UUA Humanists are religious humanists not in the sense that they believe in the supernatural, but in the sense that they regard their Humanism as a religion.[2] The total UUA membership is around 150,000+. If the $40% estimate is correct, this would suggest around 60,000 Humanists in UUA.
The European Humanist Federation (which apparently uses the Happy Human as a symbol) is also listed as a kindred organization. This appears to be a European federation of perhaps 30-ish individual Humanist associations, each of which have their own member organizations.
Also listed as a kindred organization is the Humanist and Ethical Association of Bangladesh. Not clear how large this is, but is sounds like it has a similar purpose as IHEU but within Bangladesh.

It seems like there could be a strong case made for claiming that these are organizations representing Humanists. They are apparently not members of IHEU. Two of these organizations seem to represent a significant number of members.

This suggests the likelihood that, while IHEU may represent a majority of Humanists, there seem to be a non-negligable number of people who should legitimately be considered Humanists who are not represented by IHEU.

What do people make of this research and possible interpretations or implications? --Rhwentworth 08:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by plover

(Addressed to Couttsie, in regards to his complaint about my use of the word evangelising. However, I request others to comment if they feel my account to be in error.)

(Talk:International_Humanist_and_Ethical_Union has been refactored. To see all the details discussed here requires this archival version. [Added 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)])

As far as I am aware, you currently have one complaint about me for which you are seeking redress: that I made statements using the word "evangelism" in a fashion you did not like. I have never accused you of evangelism. I described some actions of yours (this set of edits to secular humanism are an example) that could be interpreted as an attempt to supplant a general definition of humanism (in this case secular humanism) with the codifed IHEU form of Humanism, and thus could – absent other considerations – appear to be evangelism. The following three excerpts (source) show my statement, your response, and my followup:

P: If it ever becomes true that most people who call themselves humanists – not just people who belong to IHEU or other humanist organizations, but anyone who simply thinks of themselves as humanist – adopts the IHEU definition, then it might be reasonable to treat the IHEU stance as the primary definition. Until then, 'humanism' is a general term with multiple meanings, 'Humanism' is one specific, codified form of humanism, and any attempt to supplant humanism with Humanism is evangelising, rather than creating a neutral description of how most people actually use the term humanism.

C: I agree, which is why we have separate articles for secular humanism, humanism and Humanism (lifestance).

P: If a reasonable solution for separating the general idea of humanism from the IHEA's specific view has been found, then, great.

In other words, I offered a description of evangelism which you agreed with. You then gave a statement as to why the description no longer applied, and I replied that there was, in that case, no real problem. My followup is not, perhaps, the most full-throated endorsement, but then, I wasn't aware that it was going to be vetted for sufficient enthusiasm.

In another part of your response, you stated "I am not evangelising if I am asking the IHEU itself to clarify the position, provide us with information, then allow a week to discuss the information and vote." The closest thing to a direct response to this sentence that appears in my followup is the phrase: "[g]etting information from the IHEU sounds like a good idea". Not explicitly an agreement, but certainly not an indication that I dispute your statement either. I do, in fact, agree with your statement, but I should also note that it refers to a different set circumstances than those which I was questioning.

The only way I can conceive of my statement as constituting any kind of accusation is if I had a continuing belief that you were trying "supplant humanism with Humanism". At the time I wrote the comment, I had no specific belief, only speculations based on the evidence I had seen at the time; after your response, I had no such belief period, and I'm not aware of anything I've written since that could be interpreted that way. Furthermore, in another part of that followup, I noted that I had written the first comment under the mistaken assumption that "these humanism-related edits were your first contributions to Wikipedia", which is why I thought it might have been necessary to explain why your actions might be viewed as evangelism by other Wikipedians. My followup also includes an acknowledgement of this mistake and an apology for my tone.

Later I made this statement: "It it also true that I showed up on the scene fairly late – most likely after most of my concerns were already resolved – and should probably have posted my comments on Talk:Humanism rather than here, so I apologize for any confusion that may have caused." My chief concern from the beginning was only with the actual philosophy articles, not with the articles concerning Humanist (or humanist) organizations. As the response of yours I quoted above indicates, the issues relating to what conventions were to be used on the various philosophy pages had largely been addressed by the time I showed up. Hence, my apology for possibly causing confusion. After my concerns were settled, my intent in continuing to participate in the conversation was actually to try and defuse tensions between you and Rohirok – not, apparently, one of my better ideas.

In short, I have made no accusation of bad faith. Disagreement with your actions or arguments, even strong disagreement, is not an accusation of bad faith. An explanation of why I might view certain actions as evangelism is an argument as to why I think those actions should be ceased, not an accusation of bad faith. I don't know how to make this any clearer. I'm sorry if you were misled by anything I may have said, but as far as I can tell, your suspicions of me in this matter far more resemble an accusation of bad faith by you against me, than anything I have said can be considered such an accusation by me against you. My request is that you simply desist in your allegations.

Of course, I see this from my point of view. So, I invite anyone else participating here to view the record of my statements at Talk:International Humanist and Ethical Union (archived version) and inform me if they find my account here to be in error.

(Note: If you respond, please do not intersperse your comments in what I have written – it is "customary, polite, and less confusing to refrain from [that practice]" (as Rohirok elegantly puts it in an edit summary unrelated to disputes here).)
--Plover 04:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's move on --Couttsie 05:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. --plover 05:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response

I thank everyone who has commented thus far. I agree that there is no reason to rush everything through. I am only here to help the two of you reach some sort of an agreement so that you can work together rather than at odds with one another. There are going to have to be some compromises, obviously. I will continue to solicit comments from others as well as yourselves.

If anyone wants to deal with this through my email, feel free to do so.Chandler75 19:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think RhWentworth has made some excellent points, and both Couttis and Rohrik seem to be zeroing in on what the sticking points are. I am especially interested in the kindred organization page on IHEU. If this were a page about Catholics, it might be tempting to say that the world body for Catholics is the Vatican led by the Pope - and perhaps the Wikipedia page says that, I'd have to check. But I think there would be an objection because many baptized Catholics, due to the church's stand on abortion, birth control, the place of women, and gay rights, have broken with the Pope and do not consider him their leader. However, they still consider themselves Catholics.

I would suggest that making a statement about IHEU and failing to acknowledge the other organizations doesn't seem that it would be a particularly neutral statement.

I disagree, see "Kindred Organisations" section. --Couttsie 06:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Rohirok's disamibiguation sentence (from Humanism (belief system) to the IHEU article. This article discusses Humanism as a non-theistic belief system (the term preferred by Humanists is "life stance"). For other uses of the term "humanism", please see Humanism. I think this helps clarify the scope of the word "Humanism" in the IHEU article. --Couttsie 06:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I think the following: Both Rohrik and Couttis need to get rid of the negative statements on the various talk pages and start fresh. You need to together hammer out a statement you can both live with that draws in various descriptions and organizations with appropriate explanations and let go of whatever went on before. I think that Rohrik should acknowledge the work Couttis has done and his enthusiasm for the work, and I think Couttis needs to acknowledge that he needs to compromise, and that as he and Rohrik have both been working on this, that the contributions of both are valuable and important. And I think you both should apologize for past angry statements directed toward one another.

I have deleted ALL unnecessary comments from the Humanism (belief system) and IHEU articles. Just Rohirok's vote on the Humanism (belief system) page, and my call for volunteers to help with biography articles on the IHEU page are left (and refs to this CABAL). --Couttsie 06:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

|' As such, I thought this meant that the Humanism (lifestance) article would be about them as well as being about those affiliated with IHEU. But I gather Dacoutts understood the scope of the Humanism (lifestance) article to be limited strictly to describing the lifestance of those affiliated with IHEU. Perhaps that difference in understanding about the intent of the Humanism (lifestance) article was the root cause of the dispute about the status of the IHEU? |}

We need to get input from Rohrik re this as well.Chandler75 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check his talk page - he's taking a break. That's kind of rich considering he requested this Cabal. --Couttsie 00:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush about closing this mediation, but I will need to know if you're making progress. If you're not, this will have to go into dispute, which is much more formal. Let me know your thoughts. And again, to everyone, thank you for such excellent comments.Chandler75 03:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An apology from Rohirok to Dacoutts

Thank you plover for cleaning out the rancor from the talk pages. Thank you to Dacoutts for doing the same on other pages. I made additional deletions of certain bitter accusations between Dacoutts and myself, and hope that these meet with the approval of all concerned. I am sorry for accusing you of acting in bad faith, Dacoutts. I appreciate your earnestness and hard work in trying to make the Humanism-related pages better. I am sorry for calling this mediation case "The Humanist papacy." It was a poor choice that was not at all conducive to resolving the bitterness that was between us. Thank you Rhwentworth for your input on these matters, and for your work on the articles as well. Thank you Chandler75 for taking this mediation case and doing an excellent job.

As Dacoutts mentioned earlier, I am taking a break from Wikipedia, and I would like to see this resolved. While there are certain small disagreements over facts and wording, the major factual issues have been resolved, and more importantly, I believe the emotional issues have been adequately addressed by deletions from the talk pages of charged language, accusations and insults. I move that this mediation case be closed. Rohirok 01:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With Rohrik out, I don't see how we can continue as he brought the complaint. I think we have to close.Chandler75 02:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindred organisations

The whole point about the kindred organisations is that they will have (or can have) their own articles. If they exist, let's see what claims they make to represent any form of Humanism or humanism. If they don't, by all means write them up. What they do not do is represent my Humanism (belief system).

Humanism (belief system) is that which is - by and large - defined by the IHEU and endorsed by member organisations.

I have no objection to anyone creating other pages for other forms of Humanism, or humanism. Then we can link these Humanism pages together subsequently.

I have very strong objections to the suggestion that any other body represents my beliefs, or the beliefs of member organisations of the IHEU. I have several emails from the IHEU indicating that they are satisfied with the content of the pages as I have written them - the only error (which I am about to correct) is that Julian Huxley should not be listed under presidents (though he gave the first presidential speech).

The IHEU is the world body for Humanism (belief system). --Couttsie 05:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rhwentworth

I still see these "contributions" and disruptive. By all means add them in, but start your own section rather than confuse and disrupt my contributions. --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for interspersing; I wasn't aware that the preferred convention was to avoid that. Though, I notice that you just interspersed comments into the moderator's section, so I'm not sure I understand what the expectation is about whether interspersing comments in other people's sections is acceptable or not.

I am not objecting to you interspersing, but failing to stick to the point of that section of this Cabal. As I said, your comments were off-topic and appeared disruptive. --Couttsie 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One additional request... please read more carefully before you respond. I've noticed that with me and with others you have repeatedly responded in a way that indicates you didn't actually hear or understand what was said. If you reread what I write and the significance of what I've written still isn't clear, please ask. Thanks. -Rhwentworth 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because I think you are getting off the point. --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure how you would know if someone is getting "off the point" if you don't understand what they've said. I think that, even if you don't see the point of what someone is saying, it would still be helpful to carefully read and respond to what is said, if you want to see the dispute resolved. Otherwise it is very difficult for a meeting of the minds to occur, and such a meeting of the minds is what ends disputes.

This gets us nowhere. No further comment on this point. --Couttsie 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did you know of Humanism (belief system) before my contributions? --Couttsie 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I am a member of an organization affiliated with IHEU, and so am reasonably well informed about the topic.

I think the confusion that spawned this mediation mostly relates to differences in logic rather than differences in how informed people are.

The whole point about the kindred organisations is that they will have (or can have) their own articles. If they exist, let's see what claims they make to represent any form of Humanism or humanism. If they don't, by all means write them up. What they do not do is represent my Humanism (belief system)... Humanism (belief system) is that which is - by and large - defined by the IHEU and endorsed by member organisations... I have very strong objections to the suggestion that any other body represents my beliefs, or the beliefs of member organisations of the IHEU... The IHEU is the world body for Humanism (belief system). --Couttsie 05:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this clarifies where you are coming from. If I understand this right:

It must be true that "The IHEU is the world body for Humanism (belief system)" because Humanism (belief system) is defined to be that belief system that is represented by IHEU.

Dacoutts, would you agree with that statement?

Very close. This is closer: The IHEU is the world body for Humanism (belief system)" because Humanism (belief system) is defined by IHEU and unanimously endorsed by its member organisations. The only proviso (which is already incorporated into the articles) is that some member organisations still prefer terms such a secular humanism. --Couttsie 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that had led me to think that the Humanism (lifestance) article wasn't by definition just related to IHEU and member organizations was on the humanism page where it says

While the broad category of humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical or religious thought, it is embraced by some people as a complete lifestance. For more on this, see Humanism (lifestance).

I thought this meant that the Humanism (lifestance) article was about all people who embrace humanism as a complete lifestance. The material about humanist organizations "kindred" to IHEU indicated to me that there are a fair number of people who embrace humanism as a "complete lifestance" who are not affiliated with IHEU. As such, I thought this meant that the Humanism (lifestance) article would be about them as well as being about those affiliated with IHEU. But I gather Dacoutts understood the scope of the Humanism (lifestance) article to be limited strictly to describing the lifestance of those affiliated with IHEU. Perhaps that difference in understanding about the intent of the Humanism (lifestance) article was the root cause of the dispute about the status of the IHEU?

The humanism page is about all forms of humanism, and I have absolutely no problem with that. However, the Humanism (lifestance) article is restricted to the beliefs of IHEU and member organisations (and individual members of those organisations). Why? Because these beliefs were not represented anywhere in Wikipedia previously. They are substantial enough to warrant their own articles. --Couttsie 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current situation where Humanism is taken to be by definition limited to the scope of the IHEU is likely to be somewhat confusing to other readers, as it was to me. However, really fixing the problem might require editing more subtle than what the current quality of communications between editors would allow. Unless someone can successfully propose an agreeable fix, maybe we'll need to live with this flaw for now. -Rhwentworth 09:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just knew that you didn't "get it". Yet this is what Rohirok, myself and others have been debating. I thought by using Rohirok's introductory sentence on the IHEU and Happy Human page that would make it clearer. What do you think? --Couttsie 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me some credit. I know this is what Rohirok, you and others have been debating. What I'm saying is that even after all the debate so far, the problem still has not been completely fixed. See my detailed explanation below. -Rhwentworth 05:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what the expectation is about whether interspersing comments in other people's sections is acceptable or not.

There are three different things going on here I think:

If individual comments get broken up, this quickly becomes confusing as someone new to the discussion may have trouble determining which fragments belong to who. Thus, it is customary not to do this. (This is what I was referring to above in a parenthetical note in the "Comments by plover" section.
The sections on this page that are named for each person are something I invented – I thought the structure of the page was becoming unwieldy. I have not seen it used on other Mediation Cabal case pages that I have looked at. There is therefore no custom as to whether or not people can comment in each other's section. However, even when I imposed the sections, they did not start out with comments uniformly by one person, and it is my opinion that commenting only in one's own section would make dialogue more difficult. It was never my intention for the sections to be used that as exclusive domains, but, of course, as with almost everything on Wikipedia, everybody gets to invent their own rules simultaneously...
If I understand Couttsie correctly, however, his request concerns not a structural issue but a content issue. Based on his opinion that some of your comments are "disruptive" or "idle speculation", he appears to be requesting that those comments not be posted in his section. This appears not to be a matter of convention at all, but a rather a disagreement between you over what details of the situation are germane.

--plover 13:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. In that case I guess I have a mixed reaction to Couttsie's complaint.

Again, I was not objecting to you interspersing your comments. I was objecting to your interspersed comments being off topic. No need (once again) for any legalistic interpretations. --Couttsie 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dacoutts (Couttsie), on the one hand, I think I misstepped by not being more careful with regard to my comments on "Consultative Status" with the UN. I didn't realize quite how adversarial the conversational environment was. I think in a less adversarial environment those comments would have been, if not that important, also not that disruptive. However, given the current emotional environment it would have been better had I not introduced those remarks. So, to the extent that those remarks ended up being unintentionally more distracting than I anticipated, I apologize to you for introducing them.

Cool --Couttsie 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Dacoutts, my other remarks that you dismissed as "needless and idle chit chat" or with "I seriously doubt this has much to do with this Cabal and I don't appreciate most of your comments" were sincere attempts to go to the very heart of what there is disagreement about. That you did not "get" them is unfortunate. But your responses seemed to me to be part of an unhealthy pattern of people expressing animosity towards one another rather than trying to figure out why we don't "get" each other's positions.

I "got" them, which is why I stated that you were off topic. I apologise for the tone. --Couttsie 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy for any of us to fall into animosity, as a result of frustration. But it's not helpful—and is counter to (my) Humanist values. :-) If I have in any way slipped into expressing hostility, I apologize for that. To me, many of your reponses have appeared to be more about expressing hostility than about responding to content. So, I would appreciate a similar apology from you.

As far as how to structure conversation on these pages, it sounds like the least confusing way to do this might be for us each to:

Do as Plover did: rather than interspersing comments, quote what you're responding to and add your comment at the end of existing text, or in your own section.
If one must intersperse, perhaps one should only intersperse a pointer to a longer comment elsewhere—as Couttsie did with respect to "kindred" organizations.

-Rhwentworth 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Plover's suggestion, my comments that were here have been moved to Talk:Humanism (lifestance).

As the mediation between Rohirok and Couttsie is effectively over, it would be better, in my opinion, to pursue this discussion at Talk:Humanism or Talk:Humanism (lifestance) so that others are more likely to see it and be able to participate.

--plover 04:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]