Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.213.18.208 (talk) at 15:23, 4 May 2023 (→The sum of all human knowledge before 300 AD?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

  • Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
  • Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
  • Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:

April 27

Tucker Carlson

One of the accusations against Tucker Carlson, just fired anchor from the fox News was that he used c-word. What is the c-word?

107.191.2.20 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See "C" word. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Over at Fox, conscientious, compassionate and competent are all c-words. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
In case you haven't noticed, Clarityfiend is also a C-word. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should have guessed, alas... next time.... Thanks, AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Catholic Priest (And Biblical Scholar) In Rome (Or Somewhere In Italy) Who Was Active During The 1950's

Somewhere in the English-language Wikipedia I noticed a biographical article about a Roman Catholic priest in Rome (or somewhere in Italy) who was active during the 1950's. The article mentioned that part of his academic work was writing a large commentary (about 10,000 manuscript pages) on the Bible. His major topic in systematic theology (or dogmatics) was theology of sacrifice. Unfortunately, in his Biblical commentary work, he did not make clear distinctions between INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture (which are supposed to be consistent with official Catholic interpretations) and his own ideas about the APPLICATIONS OR IMPLICATIONS of Scripture (where there is more freedom for personal ideas). Therefore, the Catholic authorities in Rome did not approve of his commentary work and prevented him from publishing his commentary work (or maybe he did publish and then the authorities placed his writings on the Index Of Prohibited Books). If possible, I would like to find this article again because it exemplifies the importance of this distinction (interpretations versus applications or implications). Any ideas from anyone? Thank you. Aquinas2023 (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several controversies connected with the Pontifical Biblical Institute. The Index was abolished in 1966... AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theology and philosophy aren't my strong points, so a lot of your clues don't mean a whole lot to me, but Yves Congar's True and False Reform in the Church was banned by the Catholic Church in 1952, according to his article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might try looking through Category:20th-century Italian Roman Catholic theologians - there's only 26 of them. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of that list the most "problematic" ones are probably Raimondo Spiazzi and Giovanni Franzoni. --82.52.31.81 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found the exact answer but I certainly appreciate the thoughtful replies that several people have posted concerning this question! I suppose that I could try contacting the Catholic Biblical Association or the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, but the question isn't really worth pursuing to that extent or degree. Thank you.Aquinas2023 (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the last seconds of videos of this channel, there is iOS ringtone. It is fair use or copyright broke?

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGck6hIsj2Pmw8bzTSBACZM5wIAUOSzPm 2001:B07:6442:8903:A436:296:5F80:2880 (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to be the same as the iOS "Classic" Bell Tower. Fair use is not a concept everywhere in the world (although most countries have some way to allow some use of copyrighted material in some way). The question is a) if this ring tone is sufficiently original to enjoy copyright protection and b) if so, if that use is covered by some exception. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should have guessed, alas... next time.... Thanks, AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

Jesús Colón body cremated?

Our article on Jesús Colón says that his body was cremated, and ashes spread over a river in Puerto Rico. I can't find a very reliable source establishing that (I don't think our article's current source is great...). Can anyone? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marine 69-71:  --Lambiam 18:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:
Tony the Marine (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Marine 69-71. (FYI, Your first two links are dead.) I was hoping to find a source that predates the 2004 addition of this content to our article (the links you offered are from 2006 and 2021, respectively) or is marginally higher reliability. The People's World source seems to be directly lifted from Wikipedia, while I can't find anything about cremation in the sources linked by the BlackPast article, and it uses the same image we use, suggesting the author at least looked at our wikipedia article (though it is by a reputable author, I have seen a number of authors with PhDs make mistakes, particularly in scholarship on Colón). Can you or anyone find anything else? Eddie891 Talk :Work 15:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the second source link.  --Lambiam 07:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ A Puerto Rican in New York
  3. ^ [2]

April 30

Birth rate of developed countries and poor countries

I always though people in developed countries have more money. I have seen that women in poor countries have more children that Europe, USA, Japan. Most parents in those developed countries struggle to raise two kids also. While many Sub Saharan rural women have 10 kids. How are poor people able to feed so many kids, while middle class American compain of rising costs? Some Italians are not having kids as they don't have money to feed extra family memeber.

In 1985, Niger had birth rate of 7.93 child per woman, Chad had birth rate of 7.04 child per woman. 1962, Zimbabwe had birth rate 7.25.

I checked Europe, USA never had such birth rate above 7 per women in past 200 years. Maximum 4.6 for European women 150 years ago. In twentieth century, no White country had birth rate above 5. Still, Europe has more population density than Africa.

Why people in rich countries say raising kids is costly, but people in poor countries have no problem raising many kids? CofeeGhana (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cost of living is much higher in rich countries than in poor countries, so it costs much more money to raise kids in rich countries, but parents there are generally rich enough to do so. In poor countries, it costs much less to raise each kid, although having fewer kids would mean more money available for raising each.
BUT, there is another more important factor. In most rich countries, people usually receive unemployment benefits if they cannot find work and other benefits if they are ill or disabled; they can often afford to save up money for their old age; they may earn occupational pensions from their employers, and they usually receive government-run old age pensions. By contrast, in poor countries some or all of these are unavailable, and unemployed, sick and old people are instead supported by their relatives, including their children. Because also infant and child mortality is higher in poor countries, parents have to have more children in order that enough of them live to adulthood to support those parents when old.
This can cause problems in countries where health standards are rapidly improving, because people continue to have many children out of cultural habits, resulting in a surplus population of young adults who cannot find work. This is called the Demographic trap, and is an important underlying reason behind, for example, recent unrest in various North African and Middle Eastern countries. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than just cost of living -- in the conditions of many traditional agricultural societies, children were basically economic assets after about the age of 10, while in more economically-advanced societies, there's usually very little direct economic return for the time, effort, and expenses of child-rearing. In any case, the main article is demographic transition. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CofeeGhana Don't be mislead by statistics. The birth rates you are quoting are averages and include couples who have difficulty conceiving, or the woman has difficulty carrying the pregnancy to term. A look at many family trees will show families of 0, 1, or 2 children alongside those of ten or a dozen. The next point where statistics can easily mislead is to equate live births to successful rearing, the rate of infant mortality has varied a lot over history. For many and complex reasons the "White countries" (your term) had safer drinking water, paved streets and sewage/rubbish removal before other countires. These were the major changes in public health which lead to northwest Europe entering stage 2 of the demographic transition. If I remember correctly (from studying this at school 50 years ago) the UK entered stage 3 roughly at the start of WWI. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cost to raise a child varies by what parents deem necessary to provide for a child. In some parts of the world a $1000USD stroller is a reasonable need, in others a stroller is not necessary. Some parents plan to spend over $100,000 on education for their children while most parents across the globe do not and both groups see their choice as reasonable for properly raising a child. Of 19 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another factor is time. In western countries, you need a lot of education to have any chance at a job. Then you have to find a job, then another job that actually pays well enough to afford cheap housing. In some poor countries you may be able to survive on €50 per month, but in western Europe the poorest quality apartment will already cost you €500 per month. Then you have to find a mate (not trivial in a society where you don't even know the name of your neighbour and only communicate with computers; most people still meet their colleagues, but many jobs have a strong gender bias, so that doesn't help), then a home that's big enough to have children. It's career first, then children. In my country, the average age of a woman when she has her first child is about 30. Starting at that age, 3 children is about the limit. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One aspect not mentioned is the wide and easy availability of contraception, and of the very idea of family planning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

Weh Antiok Khusrau

The article spite house says: In 541, after the conquest of Antioch, Sassan Emperor Khosrau I built a new city near Ctesiphon for the 30,000 inhabitants he captured, he modelled this city after the original Antioch and was said to have forced the inhabitants to live in their old homes/old workplaces. There’s no source. Where can I read more about this? Amisom (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Ctesiphon#Sasanian period article has a mysterious reference, "Dingas, Winter 2007, 109" which isn't listed in the Bibliography section.
The History of Ancient Iran p. 327 has a brief mention.
A less reliable source is this blog. If this is correct, it seems that the spite was against the Byzantine emperor rather than the Antiochians, who apparently did rather well out of the deal.
Hopefully another editor can do better. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Dingas, Winter reference is to Dignas, Beate; Winter, Engelbert (2007). Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. p. 109. Following it up, I find they tell us that "Not far from the Sasanian capital Ktēsiphōn he [Xusrō] built a new city that was modelled upon the conquered city; he named the new foundation Veh-Antiok-Xusrō (='Xusrō made this city better than Antioch') and settled Antioch's deported population here." --Antiquary (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC) And I've added that ref in full to the Spite house and Ctesiphon articles. --Antiquary (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Ah yes, I now see the IP below was pointing to that ref. --Antiquary (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Weh Antiok Khosrow (and sources therein). 136.56.52.157 (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn’t repeat the claim though. Amisom (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not directly, but some of it can be implied from the name meaning "better than Antioch, Khosrow built this" and prisoners-of-war from the cities of Sura, Beroea, Antioch, Apamea, Callinicum, and Batnai in Osrhoene were deported to this new city. Perhaps source(s) can provide more details. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Countries that recognized the old Republic of China

Is there an RS with a full list of countries that diplomatically recognized the 1912-1949 Republic of China? Republic_of_China_(1912-1949)#Foreign_relations mentions some, saying there were 59 countries, but without a reference, History of foreign relations of China appears useless in that regard and elsewhere I had a difficulty with finding (possibly there are Taiwanese sources too, but I don't speak Chinese). Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uff, I difficult to find a single source with a full listing. I think we have to narrow the question somewhat, are we speaking about cumulative for the entire period 1912-1949 or do we speak about a number of countries at a certain juncture (say 1949)? Considering 1912-1949 spans both WWI and WWII the list of countries available would differ greatly. --Soman (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[3] (pp. 415-416) has a list of Westeners in Nanjing 1937-1938, it mentions American Embassy, French Embassy, Dutch Legation, Italian Embassy, British Embassy, German Embassy. Page 351 mentions a Belgian Embassy in Nanjing. Page 88 mentions Japanese Embassy in Shanghai. Page 338 mentions that a house on 4, Chibi Road had been rented to the Mexican Embassy. Page 104 mentions diplomatic relations between China and Germany were suspended in 1942. Page 328 mentions a "Swedish envoy" (to China? can't say for sure due to snippet view). Page 365 mentions that China had a legation in Mexico in 1917, and an embassy in Portugal in 1926. And so forth. --Soman (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish envoy was Johan Hugo Beck-Friis, Swedish Minister to China.[4]  --Lambiam 16:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recognitions might have been highest in the Nanjing decade (after the Northern Expedition and before the Japanese invasion of China). Of course, there were a lot fewer independent nations in the world than there are today... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of thoughts - did the League of Nations require mutual recognition of members? and presumably recognition by the United Kingdom would imply recognition by the Dominions? DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 1920, The Republic of China (hereafter, “China”) was one of 42 founding members of the League of Nations, which over time had a total of 63 member states; it is highly unlikely that any one member would not recognize another. However, Foreign Minister Wellington Koo refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles because the document handed German concessions in China to Japan, rather than return them to China. 34 nations were party to those peace talks. China also was one of the 50 founding members of the United Nations. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

Where is "Yew Court" in Trinity College, Cambridge?

http://gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-private-dining-room-at-yew-court-trinity-college-news-photo/462700316 , http://gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-interior-of-prince-charles-room-at-yew-court-trinity-news-photo/462700372 and http://dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-12027449/Photo-taken-King-Charles-University-Cambridge-1967-released-time.html have photographs captioned "Yew Court" at Trinity College, Cambridge.

Trinity College, Cambridge does not list a "Yew Court". Is it a misspelling of "New Court", and if not, should it be added to the article? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 06:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Charles stayed in the New Court. DuncanHill (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess it that it was a typo on the source material, that has been carried through on those few pictures. There's no reference to Yew Court anywhere in any information on Cambridge, excepting that specific yew trees are occasionally mentioned. I'm pretty certain, as with the above speculation, that this is supposed to be New Court. Someone mislabeled (or wrote with sloppy handwriting) back in the 1960s, and those mistakes were carried through. --Jayron32 18:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanations, @DuncanHill and @Jayron32. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A book called 'Seera'

According to our article on Joseph Wolff he wrote that the Arabs of Yemen are in possession of a book called 'Seera,' which gives notice of the coming of Christ and His reign in glory, and they expect great events to take place in the year 1840. Do we know anything more about the book called Seera? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on prophetic biography which tells us that Sīrah is the generic name for such biographies of the Prophet Muhammad. Wolff has perhaps abbreviated the title of this particular example too much to make it easy to identify. --Antiquary (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Having now had the opportunity of reading the source given in our article, Wolff specifically says it is the Arabs of Hodeyda, and he says the information came from "Muhamed Johar, late Governor of Hodeydah, a gentleman very learned in the Arabic literature". Perhaps this further detail will help someone narrow things down. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More context (but still not the book name, sorry) in Chapter 3 of The Jews of Yemen in the Nineteenth Century: A Portrait of a Messianic Community By B. Z. Eraqi Klorman. Mostly about a Faqih Sa'id who claimed to fulfil this prophecy - unfortunately such a common name is also hard to search. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

Did Gandhi observe a strict vow of silence every Monday?

If so, why isn't this in the article Mahatma Gandhi? Being 1/7 of his life, it seems very significant if true. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --136.56.52.157 (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he just didn't like of Mondays. Shantavira|feed me 10:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it isn't in the article is because Wikipedia is a work in progress. When you find that a Wikipedia article is lacking some necessary information, vanishingly close to 100% of the time, it's because no one thought to add it yet. That person can be you. --Jayron32 11:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this sounds like at best an oversimplification to me. Gandhi studied law and became a barrister in London, a job hardly compatible with silent Mondays. He then went to South Africa for over 20 years. I suspect this vow was made much later, when he was back in India. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn’t mention it in An autobiography: The story of my experiments with truth, published in 1927, but he was observing it by 1936 “It was a Monday, his weekly day of silence.” 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the diary of Manu Gandhi, the practice of Monday as a day of silence began on Monday 17 January 1921.[5]  --Lambiam 20:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in our article on Gandhi, but it is mentioned in Vow of silence.  --Lambiam 20:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World, Guha talks about:
    • Gandhi adopting Monday as the day of silence sometime before 1926 (By now [September 1926], Gandhi had also decided to observe a weekly day of silence. Every Monday, he would not speak at all, communicating through signs or, if necessary, through writing notes on chits of paper.)
    • There are continuing mentions of Gandhi continuing the practice during the Salt March (The next day [17th March 1930] was Monday, Gandhi’s designated day of silence, and also now of rest.).
    • And in 1934 (Harrison read the article on a Monday, the Mahatma’s day of silence. She marked the passages praising and promoting Gandhi, and handed it over to him. He read it through, twice, asked for a pencil and piece of paper, on which he wrote: ‘Do you know of a Dreamer who won attention by “Adventitious Aid”?’ Asked by Agatha Harrison if he wished to comment further, he shook his head, with (as she recalled) ‘an amused smile’.)
    • Sometime in 1947 he shifted the day of silence to Sunday (For many years now, Gandhi had observed his weekly day of silence on Monday. This was now [Feb 1947] changed to Sunday, as that was the day the weekly bazaar was held in this part of eastern Bengal. Gandhi adjusted his schedule to the local rhythms, staying silent on the day when the villagers had to buy or sell their wares, while holding prayer meetings on Monday and through the rest of the week.)
    • But it was back to Mondays by the period of his assassination (Monday the 19th [January 1948] was a day of silence for Gandhi. He spent it attending to his correspondence and writing articles for Harijan.)
Abecedare (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sum of all human knowledge before 300 AD?

I have recently started the article Ancient text corpora, which is intended to describe and quantify all known writing prior to 300 AD. It was built mostly using the estimates of German scholar Carsten Peust. Peust stated that he didn’t know enough about South Asian or East Asian corpora, so he left them out. I would like to make the article comprehensive, so it gives a full picture of all the ancient knowledge passed down to us.

Would anyone be willing to help find secondary sources which could fill the gaps of estimating the word-count of the East Asian and South Asian ancient corpuses? I have been looking but it isn’t easy to find.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile That's an ambitious project! I happen to live in Seoul but don't know if I can help. I might try the National Library here. BorgQueen (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BorgQueen, it certainly is. I figure it is a topic of wide interest, particularly to us wikipedians. I previously believed the topic was too difficult, but Peust's article changed that, and cross-referencing with our pre-existing List of languages by first written account, we have already covered the significant majority of ancient languages.
Part of the reason for that is that the logogram-based ancient languages, Egyptian and Chinese, are counted as single languages, as the ancient spoken dialects can not be known. Old Korean is a good example of that.
Anything you can find to help would be greatly appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that article there appears to be a considerable confusion between the notions of script and language. Egyptian is not a script but a language; Demotic is not a language but a script.  --Lambiam 20:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I had noticed that but hadn't got round to fixing it. I have fixed it now. Thanks for the prompt. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Care needs to be taken in counting "words," which is a European notion of writing. Chinese characters, for example, are more akin to syllables than words, and works are sometimes refereed to by the total number of characters (e.g., "a 6,000 character essay"). DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Peust has been careful on that in his scholarly article, for example with Egyptian, writing: "Daraus ergibt sich, dass die Edfu-Inschriften insgesamt annähernd 1,2 Millionen Hieroglyphen umfassen. Da in den Edfu­-Texten ein Wort im Mittel mit etwa 2,1 Hieroglyphen geschrieben wird (bei einer Wortsegmentierung ent­ sprechend der im Wb zugrundegelegten, Suffixpronomina u.a. nicht als eigene Wörter gezählt), kann man festhalten, dass die Texte zwischen fünf­ und sechshunderttausend Wortformen umfassen." (As a result, the Edfu inscriptions total approximately 1.2 million hieroglyphs. Since a word in the Edfu texts is written with an average of around 2.1 hieroglyphs (in a word segmentation according to the Wb basis, suffix pronouns etc. are not counted as separate words), one can state that the texts contain between five and six hundred thousand word forms.) Onceinawhile (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was drawn here by the hubris shown in the use of the word "all" in the title of the section. Then I saw it was perhaps ONLY about knowledge recorded in written words or texts. Obviously some well evolved and well structured human societies had plenty of knowledge before 300 AD without having written language. Is such knowledge outside the scope of this discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HiLo48: isn’t that roughly consistent with how we use the phrase in WP:OBJECTIVE? We don’t use this wording in the article by the way. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a parallel, because we cannot get direct sources for knowledge that was not written down, but there are now written interpretations of at least some of that knowledge. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neolithic peoples knew how to make stone tools, for example. That's knowledge clearly, but it isn't written down anywhere. --Jayron32 11:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many cavemen would have kept that knowledge to themselves – a trade secret.
Even today trade secrets are often not written down, and certainly will never find their way to wikipedia.
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Cavemen' had trade secrets? I'd like to see a source for that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tongue-in-cheek or not, Harvard Business School would like to have a word: "Trade Secrets: Intellectual Piracy and the Origins of American Industrial Power". HBS Working Knowledge. 2023-05-03. We tend to think of intellectual piracy as a recent phenomenon, but of course humans have been stealing from each other since the first caveman to harness fire saw his or her IP spread without credit like, well, wildfire. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But in what sense was any "caveman" in "competition" with other humans he was in regular contact with (without killing, eating, or fleeing from them)? Up to the Neolithic (I have always imagined) humans mostly lived in relatively small and related groups and co-operated with regular contacts because they were all living on a knife's edge and could help each other. In such circumstances any -lithic age specialists would have wanted their knowledge spread as widely as possible because it might in future benefit them or their relatives. Anyone know of any papers on the lines of Paleo/Meso/Neolithic social cooperation (or competition)? {The poster formerly known as 87.821.230.195}

Human attention to the different part of a person

Hi there, I look for a reference to the claim that person pay more attention to the faces than the hands and cloths (for example when they meet someone and want to recognize who is this person). I look also for the name of the phenomena, which an object has parts which have different importance for its recognition by human (some-kind of attention importance)?

Thanks 2A06:C701:4B44:3600:F08A:6497:E38B:D479 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading Face perception. Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO face perception, the ability to see that something is a face and to "read" it (interpret the facial expression as conveying information about mental states and processes of its bearer) is another cognitive ability than face recognition (the ability to distinguish people just by facial features and to recognize familiar faces and identify their bearers). Our article Face perception and other articles (Facial recognition system, Prosopagnosia) conflate these. While these abilities are correlated [6] and many prosopagnosics do experience difficulties classifying facial expressions, case studies have described individuals with developmental prosopagnosia who are able to correctly label photographic displays of facial emotion.[7]  --Lambiam 07:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to the ability to recognize and identify people, face recognition is the most studied aspect in the literature.[8] While the review article I linked to is not a reference directly supporting the claim, the fact that face recognition is the most studied aspect reflects its superior role in recognizing and identifying people. The article also mentions voice, name, body habitus, personal belongings, handwriting, gait and body motion as cues by which one can identify people, but not hands or clothing, which strongly suggests they play a lesser role. A more direct support is from an article reporting on a study of incidents of errors in recognizing people: "Despite the fact that all of the different kinds of input information can lead to much the same types of incident, the majority of incidents recorded involved the facial features as the primary source of information. We do not regard this observation as demonstrating that face recognition is peculiarly prone to error. Rather, it probably reflects the important role that face processing plays in everyday recognition. Faces are much relied on for two reasons. Firstly, visual information is important because we see far more people than we hear voices or see or hear names; secondly, of the different types of visual information the facial features are more likely to be thought veridical in determining the person’s identity than such cues as clothing or hair-style. Thus, it is highly likely that most incidents are reported to faces as the primary source simply because this is the source of information that is most often used."[9] Note that this is not presented as a conclusion based on any findings of that specific study, but assumed to be general knowledge.  --Lambiam 07:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=1153159888"