Talk:Finger-counting

Eastern Europe

The section about Eastern Europe (EE) will need some clarification. I know several eastern european nations that count while extending their fingers just as it's described for Germans and French and in direct opposite to starting with all their fingers extended as is claimed in the article.

I don't know how every single nation in EE finger counts and that's why I don't feel qualified to update the article. 24.84.145.51 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Czechs definitely count the German way. Nahabedere (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC) There is not a German way to count. Unless you can provide some sources stating the contrary, please refrain to label things using unappriopraite adjectives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm living in Poland, and here the counting goes with _extending_ the fingers definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.38.66 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

and starting with the thumb, except when counting to "one" where the index finger is used (in rare cases counting to "two" could be done with the index and middle finger). Same for France. -- Wsw70 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm from Hungary, and we - like Germans - count by _extending_ fingers, and five is when all fingers are extended. Section would be more accurate if it only referred to Russia / fromer USSR countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.181.230 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am from Ukraine, know many Russian people from my study place and everyone I know shows numbers beginning with the index finger, through to the little finger for 4 and ending up with the thumb for 5. (same as English way described in the article) However indeed the counting starts with all fingers and the thumbs extended with the little finger first to be fold and thumb last to be fold. Ak-hannibal (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the above I'm going to limit the scope a little. Shiggity (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

English-Speaking countries

There is no single way of counting on fingers in all English-speaking countries, so this categorisation is not helpful. In the USA people tend to start with the index finger, as the article says, but in the UK, for example, people tend to start with the thumb. Thus, this all needs changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.85.103 (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That might be true, but it needs a citation. This book, Numbers: Their History and Meaning, describes European, East Asian, and Zulu finger counting, but surprisingly, doesn't discuss the differences between British and American finger counting. I'm sure there's a source for it.--xanchester (t) 21:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to research it right now, nor to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly. However, here is an article from the Guardian that makes my point might be worth referencing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/jun/26/count-fingers-brain

The larger issue is that this category of "English Speaking Countries" should not be here because there are massive variations around the world, and no single way to count on one's fingers in English-Speaking Countries. I just wanted to flag these issues for future editors who might have time to research the issue and improve the entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.85.103 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting and raising your concerns. I'll attempt a clean up of the section in a few hours.--xanchester (t) 22:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is down to a typically hegemonic assumption by US writers that "English speaking" equals the USofA - they tend to forget that the majority of English speaking nations are not in North America. I'm British and number one is my thumb - I think we need to get rid of this "English-speaking" nonsense and simply refer to the US (I've no idea what Canada does, or whether those pesky French Canadians do things differently), and include Britain in with Western Europe.Gymnophoria (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm British and agree with the the others above: we start counting with the thumb and reach five with the little finger. Also, it might be worth mentioning that the two-finger gesture is rude in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign) so we wouldn't count 'at' someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.176.56 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It is worth clarifying that the number 2 not using the thumb would only be offensive in Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia when facing inward, as described in the article, V sign, though not when facing outward. Please discuss if there is disagreement on this. Adavis444 (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So Quentin Tarantino and Michael Fassbender were wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.183.2 (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption of misuse of common practice in the film Inglorious Basterds, should you be claiming that the answer is yes, is primarily a claim that Germans sometimes omitted the use the thumb when counting to three in the year 1944. That claim in not in the context of this discussion, requires citation, and is limited in scope by the fictitious end of World War II in Europe in the film. It is secondarily a claim that 1944 Jewish-American soldiers sometimes counted to three without the thumb using the middle three fingers. That is not currently in dispute though would also require citation and faces the same limitation. Adavis444 (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the character who counts without using the thumb in the film is British, not Jewish-American. It is correct, however, that a British person would usually use the three fingers that the character uses the film, just as an American would. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm British. We do often start counting with the thumb if we're expecting to count above three, but for one, two or three we will usually start counting with the index finger as the Americans do. We would never usually use the thumb for one alone. That would almost always be the index finger. Two would be the index finger and middle finger (with the palm forwards of course - otherwise that would be rude in Britain). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The inconsistency is caused by people talking about two different types of finger counting. If you are referring to holding up a number of fingers to signal a number, most British people would use fingers only for 1, 2 or 4. 5 goes without saying. For 3, it is awkward for most people to hold their ring finger extended and their little finger bent at the same time (I can only do this on my left hand), so it is fairly common for 3 to be signaled with a thumb, index and middle finger. However, if you are instead referring to counting off one by one, either by tapping each finger with the index finger from the other hand, or simply raising them in turn, in most situations British people overwhelmingly start from the thumb. 89.240.253.100 (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Disputed

As can be seen from the discussions in Eastern Europe and English-Speaking countries below, factual accuracy and adequate citation is eroded by overgeneralization and lack of country-specific sectioning in the article. Please reorganize the article as necessary, ensuring the factual accuracy or sources and addressing each country separately unless reliable sources allow for grouping otherwise. Adavis444 (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

lead

"Finger Counting, or Dactylonomy, is the art of counting along one's fingers". Didn't know maths was an art :) more of a "science", i'd've thought. But, to keep it neutral, perhaps it should be changed to "practice"? BigSteve (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

BigSteve- it seems to me your comment assumes that Science isn't an art. As a (retired) practicing scientist, I assert that it absolutely is an art. (Why assume an exclusion relation between the two??) Oh, also: I agree with Feynman - if it isn't measurable then it isn't science (proper subject of...) and since no one has yet observed or measured 1 (or zero, pi, √2 or ∞,...) it ain't science. (yeah, these all depend on one's definitions)173.189.79.42 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ifrah

Ifrah is extensively cited here (and in other Wikipedia articles). Ifrah wrote a very popular (and widely available) history of mathematics. The problem is, his work ignored facts, fabricated facts, and has often been characterized as false and deceptive. I believe it is probably true that you can research the HISTORY of counting. Researching the PRE-history is much more difficult, so Ifrah's claims about prehistorical evolution of counting is rubbish. To be fair: it is one narrative which may or may not be more or less true, and it seems plausible enough, but there is simply no reason to believe it IS TRUE. Ifrah's book(s) exist, and they have had an impact (not only on the (gullible/intellectually sloppy) lay audience, but on people who should know better (see for example The Greatest Discovery by Bailey, 2010)) but that shouldn't mean that the opinions (or supposed facts) expressed in it are worthy of inclusion AS FACT in Wikipedia. (For a scathing review of his book, consult http://www.ams.org/notices/200201/rev-dauben.pdf, the AMS book review on it (this is damning and by a "real" historian of mathematics, iirc.)173.189.79.42 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)