Talk:prior knowledge

This is just a sum of its parts, right? --Dangherous 19:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No; it is legal terminology. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added such a definition. bd2412 T 23:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. &mdash; Hippietrail 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rfd was previously removed. 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–September 2018
Rfv-sense: Existing knowledge before one begins learning a subject, language, etc. Tagged by. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would think this would be trivial to cite, but it is redundant to sense 1; perhaps RFD was intended? Equinox ◑ 21:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely trivial to cite. To get this out of the way, I have cited it. Kiwima (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I think the sense as used in the quotation for sense 1 is better covered by the definition of sense 3. Second, that sense 3 is just a special case of the generic sense of "something someone knows or knew already", "knowledge that is prior [to some form of new information or some new situation, as implied by the context]". In the context of organized learning, it can refer to knowledge that may be needed for following the curriculum – or, contrariwise, knowledge that is actually not a prerequisite. The term can be used outside of a legal or educational context. ("This left a ton of devices out on the web that anyone could log into if they had prior knowledge of the default passwords." — "The rules are introduced as they come up, giving everyone else the opportunity to jump right in to the action without any prior knowledge." — "Women who aspire to become actresses should have a prior knowledge of what they're coming in to." — "BlockCAT is an Ethereum-based decentralized platform that provides an easy to use web portal to deploy smart contracts without the need to have prior knowledge or expertise." — "Prior knowledge in the fire protection industry is seen as a plus." — "Former Volkswagen boss denies prior knowledge of pollution cheating" — "Prior knowledge about marine animals isn't necessary to be a Maritime Aquarium volunteer." — "Although there was no cake, children's prior knowledge would lead them to expect a cake to be present." — "The record shows that defendant's jury was composed of eight persons who had prior knowledge of the case and four who did not.") And as to use in a legal context, prior knowledge need not imply any wrongdoing; in fact, it can be exculpatory: "Prior knowledge of an invention is an affirmative defense [against a claim of patent infringement]." --Lambiam 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed but probably an rfc or rfd is in order. Kiwima (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2021–September 2022
Sense 3 is definitely the sum of its parts (knowledge that is prior); sense 1 refers specially to experience, but the usage example implies that experience is being construed widely enough to cover any acquisition of knowledge, in which case it is the same as sense 3. I abstain, however, on sense 2, which is a legal term of art, and which was the only sense to formally pass RFD back in 2006. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also the usage of "A judge is disqualified if he or she has prior personal knowledge of evidentiary facts regarding a proceeding before the judge." (from Judicial Conduct and Ethics) I abstain though. General Vicinity (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this was brought about by my comments, I feel an obligation to weigh in. Delete sense 3 and keep sense 1 & 2. AG202 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Definition 1 is specifically about previous experience, not just any possible knowledge derived from experience, even though that is now absent from the definition. Similarly for definition 2, is about knowledge available to a suspect prior to the wrongful act. No lemmings either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note. The legal sense does not appear in any edition of Black's Law Dictionary (unlike, e.g., prior art and prior restraint). bd2412 T 18:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Replace sense 3 with &lit. DAVilla 22:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not convinced that sense 1 and 3 are meaningfully different and idiomatic. Should both be merged into one &lit. Fytcha (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Replace sense 3 with . Abstaining on sense 1 for now. Graham11 (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep sense 2 - it specifically refers to the fact that the knowledge is sufficient to make the actions criminally wrongful. Otherwise (to use the example), knowledge of the victim's vulnerability would not be relevant to the argument being made. Theknightwho (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Edit: changed my mind. See below. However, keep the new insurance law sense. Theknightwho (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I've deleted/merged' senses 1 and 3 into an &lit. - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your change to the criminal law sense, though I have thought of a civil law sense. Theknightwho (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording it's now been changed (back) to is too narrow; e.g. when a (rather than a perpetrator), it's not clear that the  makes suffering a crime a wrongful act on the victim's part. This fact that the core meaning is just [[prior]] [[knowledge]], and that one may thus also speak of a, or a victim's or someone else's, or say that the  something, may be why (as bd2412 said) it's not in law dictionaries, even if we want to have senses to explain that the most common situations where it'd be relevant in law are ones where having previous knowledge of someone makes a later act wrongful or invalid. - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right. I'm actually not sure that we should keep that sense either, as you're correct that it's just  that happens to be of legal relevance, but it's a common collocation rather than a fixed term.
 * The insurance law sense is different, because crucially it doesn't need to be followed by "of X" even though it's highly specific, as it always refers to the same thing (hence "prior knowledge clause", "prior knowledge claim", "prior knowledge exclusion" etc). The more general legal use usually does need to be qualified, though (e.g. prior knowledge of the victim's particular vulnerability). Theknightwho (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The insurance law sense is different, because crucially it doesn't need to be followed by "of X" even though it's highly specific, as it always refers to the same thing (hence "prior knowledge clause", "prior knowledge claim", "prior knowledge exclusion" etc). The more general legal use usually does need to be qualified, though (e.g. prior knowledge of the victim's particular vulnerability). Theknightwho (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Striking out so it can be archived. The entry currently contains no RFD tagging so there is nothing more to be done in this request as far as that. Meanwhile, a new sense was created for insurance law in diff, and that seems to have been discussed above and defended. Maybe some more action is preferable but almost two months passed since last post to the discussion. Let someone open a new RFD as required, and further comments here are possible before this gets archived. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)