Get Talk:Humanities essential facts below. View Videos or join the Talk:Humanities discussion. Add Talk:Humanities to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.


Comment about this sentence: "Human disciplines like history and cultural anthropology study subject matters that the experimental method does not apply to--and instead mainly use the comparative method[4] and comparative research." This sentence is poorly integrated into the rest of the article, especially the reference to anthropology. This is a statement about the method used in history and anthropology. The problem is, anthropology is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, and anthropology is not usually classified as one of the humanities. Though it draws on the humanities, it is usually classified as a social science. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nor is it the case that history 'mainly uses the comparative method'. History mainly uses the historical method. (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I also take issue with the use of the word "manipulative" in the current version of this sentence. As it is understood in common parlance,  this sentence could lead people to believe that the experimental method engages in manipulating people,  rather than the conditions necessary to draw scientific conclusions.  SheldonHelms (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Old talk

"The humanities are the classics (as derived from classical antiquity) and liberal arts; those subjects supposedly taught for their social and intellectual merit, rather than for pragmatic use."

I think the statement above is ignorant bigotry. Obviously, although many areas of mathematics have great pragmatic utility, others are studied primarily for their intellectual merit and esthetic beauty, and yet they are not humanities. Humanities are fields that study humans, human life, and human societies. To imply that it is only in fields studying humans, human life, and human societies that one finds "intellectual merit" is bigotry. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael boobys are good for you heart21:48, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

By all means go ahead and add something useful to this stub. However, the only you refer to in your statement cannot be deduced from the text of the article. --KF 22:07, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The statement doesn't appear to make sense unless "only" was intended. Another problem is that the statement would seem to imply the implausible proposition that the study of humans lacks pragmatic utility. I'd have gone ahead and boldly edited if I hadn't been pressed for time when I wrote these comments. Michael Hardy 00:00, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If humanities are a "study of the human condition", does psychology qualify? If not, is the definition perhaps flawed in that it is too broad? --OldakQuill 22:16, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"I stand upon a notch between Two Eternities." -thoreau-

The Humanities are based in (not on) the Human Condition. In that context, psychology certainly applies, but only if it is practiced Hippocratically and explained in Common Language. The same goes for Mathematics. The dividing lines are between Good and Evil and The Ancestry of Humanity and its Posterity.

Humanitarianism is Practical Humanity guided by enlightenment from the study of the Human Condition in the broadest possible context and an earnest desire to improve it (see altruism). The Humanities have given the Human Race a Continuum through which to pupetuate this process. : Quinobi


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Humanities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Education and Employment

Under Education and Employment, the article makes the claim: "Humanities graduates also earn more as their careers progress; ten years after graduation, the income difference between humanities graduates and graduates from other university programs is no longer statistically significant.[35]" The source listed in note 35 is Adamuti-Trache, Maria; et al. (2006). "The Labour Market Value of Liberal Arts and Applied Education Programs: Evidence from British Columbia". Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 36: 49-74. This source does not find that humanities graduates equalize with graduates from other university programs. Rather, it finds that graduates with "liberal arts" degrees equalize with graduates who have applied degrees. The article lumps physical sciences and social sciences together in the liberal arts category. Unless I'm missing something, this source never makes claims specifically about humanities graduates, who only count for 23% of the graduates that the study includes within the "liberal arts." So using this source here is very misleading. I think this claim should be deleted until someone identifies evidence that supports it. Sherid16 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Top US Cities was developed using's knowledge management platform. It allows users to manage learning and research. Visit defaultLogic's other partner sites below: : Music Genres | Musicians | Musical Instruments | Music Industry