Humanities desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 25

Halawa, Kohala

Can someone find me a map of Halawa in the Kohala districton the Big Island of Hawaii. NOT the one on Molokai or the one on Oahu.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something different from the kind of maps available via GeoHack and the coordinates link on the Halawa page? Pfly (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't know how to do that, here's the Google map: [1]. StuRat (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Halawa on that? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry I misread the question. Here is Halawa, the populated place, on ACME Mapper's topo maps. Apparently it is also a "civil" area, shown on the topo map about here. I'm not sure what those all-cap civil areas are. Halawa is also the name of the gulch/creek there. The GNIS pages (which also have map links) are U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Halawa (populated place) and U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Halawa (civil). That's how I found it, by the way--I searched for "Halawa" in GNIS and looked at the map links they provide. Pfly (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuareg edits, real or hoax?

With the news about a coup in Mali, the Tuareg article is going to be seeing a lot more eyeballs. But I'm skeptical about some of the information in it. Having uncovered an amusing incident recently where some hoax text about "Glucojasinogen" was introduced into Wikipedia and then published word for word in two scientific publications, I have reason to be wary - but I know nothing about the Tuareg and would be unsurprised if there is some information that never found the Internet until it found us. The editor is a User:Ameno who introduced a series of edits, e.g. [2], which surprise me. For example, he introduces the term "Tasagesaget" for a dwelling in the canopy of acacia trees out of the range of animals, and describes an astronomical use of Venus to determine "the time for milking goats". (The former surprises me as acacia trees are thorny and not very sturdy, the latter because Venus varies from morning to evening star and is often not readily visible) A lot of other terms are introduced. Can someone look this over and figure out - true or false, knowledgeable and highly prized editor or someone pulling our legs? Thanks! Wnt (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't verify very much of it, but a fair few of the terms do appear on Google Books, and they all have the meanings which the editor ascribes to them: for example, "Shet Ahad" for the Pleiades [3], "takoba" for a type of traditional sword [4], and "tafala" for a simple tent [5]. Judging by their talk page, it appears that the editor has some specialist knowledge of the Tuareg people, and may be Tuareg themselves. That said, it will be a lot of work to try to verify most of this, and it's questionable whether these kinds of word lists are encyclopaedic. Have you tried asking the editor whether they can supply any sources for their edits? Warofdreams talk 10:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a very frequent editor and, to be honest, I was worried that if he was pulling a hoax on me he might come in as someone else... I just wanted a neutral take on this. It is clear from this I should have searched harder! I guess "Once bitten, twice shy" applies. Wnt (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General strikes in Greece

I'm looking for a comprehensive list of the general strikes that have been held in Greece since the start of the current financial crisis. There have been a lot of them, and even though I can find information on many of them by googling '"general strike" greece' and the year, I'm interested in knowing how many strikes there have been as well as all the dates.

I'm also interested in analogous lists of general strikes in other European countries like Portugal and France. Sabbut (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the list is exhaustive, but a fair number of strikes are mentioned in the articles "2008 Greek riots" and "2010–2012 Greek protests". Gabbe (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excluded middle

Suddenly aware that my knowledge of logic was embarrassingly minuscule, I started to do a bit of reading. I knew that I'd quickly get confused, but I had no idea how quickly. I started (more or less) with the introductory bits of Law of excluded middle. I quote (after markup stripping): It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is.

The article quickly goes on to more abstruse matters, but I was already puzzled.

If, say, (x−3)(x+2)=0, then (A) x=3 or (B) x=−2. Implying to me that "x=3" either is true or is false.

Presumably there's some loophole for disjunction, but I don't see it. What have I missed?

Although I skipped the knotty middle of this article, I did look at the end. There I was most surprised to read:

That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown. A classic example illustrating the difference is the proposition: "It is not safe to cross the railroad tracks when one knows a train is coming". One should not deduce it is safe to cross the tracks if one doesn't know a train is coming.

Well of course one shouldn't. (Indeed, one shouldn't even deduce that it's safe to cross the tracks if one does know that a train isn't coming -- there could be a live rail, or a psychopathic sniper, or whatever.) But anyway this is a truthful proposition -- unless of course the speaker is violating some rule of normal conversation, e.g. that the train one knows is coming is in fact coming hours in the future, allowing plenty of time for a safe crossing -- followed by an invalid argument. Is this garbled (or vandalized), or are my brains scrambled by the cold I'm now suffering? -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue in your algebra example. It is still true that x=3 is either true or false. Your algebra has actually shown something more specific- either x=3 (in which case x=3 is true) or x=-2 (in which case x=3 is false). I don't know enough to say anything useful about the other example. Staecker (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing two different modes of thought. (x−3)(x+2)=0 is not a proposition of logic, unless you plug a specific value into the variable 'x' (or quantify is as a logical variable, with 'for all' or 'there exists').

When you solve such an equation, you are saying "assuming that this statement is true, deduce another true statement of the form "x = ...or x = ... or ...". You cannot do this by logic, but require a quite different set of tools - algebra. Using algebra, you can deduce that if your equation is true, then the proposition "either x = 3 or x = −2" is true. It doesn't tell you which arm of the conjunction is true - and from a purely logical standpoint, it doesn't rule out the possiblity that the conjunction is true because both arms of it are true. You need arithmetic or algebra in to show that they can't both be true. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see. Thank you! But how about a different example that does have values that -- well, if they're not specific, at least they are meaningful. Here's the assertion: "One divided by zero equals infinity." Maths is another area where I'm weak, but my hazy understanding is that this would normally be classed as neither true nor false, but instead indeterminable; although such an answer might be criticized, surely it wouldn't be condemned for violating the law of excluded middle. (Again, I'm not challenging the most elementary rules of logic; I'm instead merely wondering where I'm wrong and hoping to get a better understanding.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the statement "one divided by zero equals infinity" will depend fundamentally on your definition of "divided" and "infinity". There are some contexts, e.g. Real projective line, where this statement is true. In the context of standard high-school level mathematics that statement would be called nonsensical because division by zero is not defined. In that context the statement is not even a mathematical proposition at all- it's just nonsense, and so doesn't count as a counterexample to the law of the excluded middle. You may be interested in undecidable propositions- there are mathematical statements which cannot be proven to be true or false. These do indeed exist, but are not seen as violations of the excluded middle because there is a difference between truth and provability. Staecker (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forehead-slap -- yes, I'd forgotten about such a basic issue as nonsense. Mathematics aside, it's often hard or impossible to infer a meaningful proposition. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

link to video?

Can someone find a link to a video of Jim Cramer before he was on TV, I think he was at Goldman Sachs at a time, telling an associate about the important of their current game plan to set unrealistic expectations of Apple (in specific), which "apple isn't in a position to deny" (i.e. because it doesn't comment on future products). It was an old video, in the 'candid camera' quality style.

Can anyone find it? Thanks. 188.6.91.46 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how to not talk so much

my partner says I talk way too much. I'd like resources (or just an easy tip) on how not to talk to so much. It's not the content that bothers them, just the quantity. They like my ideas, for example, just not over and over again. Thanks for any resources. 188.6.91.46 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Set yourself a goal of trying to learn from others. That will require you to listen to them. And they'll marvel at how smart you are. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this person doesn't like too many questions either, they get on their nerves. do you have any other tips? 188.6.91.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

How can your partner not want you to talk so much? Aren't they your partner in conversation? Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the best tip not to talk so much? I really don't know how else anyone can approach this. It may help to understand the other side, though: in my own case, although I sometimes go on a bit, it is self-limiting, because I can hear myself babbling on, and I resolve to shut up when I regain control of my mouth, and to be more careful next time. When I am the listener, it can be rather harrowing when people repeat a point continually, or give heaps of subpoints when I've already agreed to the conclusion. Your partner may be finding this, so just consider his/her position. Also, if they are blunt, you are equally free to tell them that they are hurting your feelings. They are not the only person allowed to disagree with something the other person does. IBE (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to be ironic? If I rattled out the above paragraph, I would get yelled at. It's a prototypical example of me talking too much. 188.6.91.46 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My partner talks a lot, whereas I don't. If he starts repeating himself I mentally tune him out, and nod/smile in (what I hope are) the right places. I do this because I love him and want to be with him regardless of this character trait. You may wish to consider whether your partner is actually telling you something different. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a "big talker" myself, finding a partner who could tolerate me was easier than trying to change my own habits. Talking is a large part of how I think and make sense of the world. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I would like to find techniques to be a better partner than someone my partner has to tune out! 188.6.91.46 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. One is personal and the other is interpersonal. There can be virtue using speech sparingly. But I think this largely emerges from self-assessment. Thus we have two different considerations. Is there a compelling argument made by someone else that you expend effort to pare back speech? Does that argument make sense? If not, reject it. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think to fix the problem you first need to analyze why you talk so much. Here are some possibilities and possible solutions:

1) You don't like silence. Here some other form of sound might do, like playing music.

2) You forget what you already said, and end up repeating yourself. If so, you might need to list topics you already discussed with each person, so you can remind yourself not to repeat.

3) You feel the need for more communication with your partner. If so, perhaps you need to draw them out to talk more. The technique of active listening may help here. This could help, for example, if you are both talking but neither is hearing what the other says.

4) You talk when nervous. If so, some other relaxation technique, like meditation, might be in order.

5) You interrupt others while they are speaking. Here a possible solution is a talking stick. This is an object which you pass around, and only the person who holds it may speak. This keeps people from interrupting others and ensures that everybody gets to speak. If one person hogs the stick, then a timer can be used.

6) You miss nonverbal cues that others want their turn to talk. You might want to develop a system so another person can tell you they want to speak (so you should quickly bring your chatter to an end). Raising a hand is one method, but perhaps a single finger will do (not that one !).

7) You like being the center of attention. If so, perhaps you need to join community theater or something like that to get the attention you crave.

8) You always like to get in the last word. If so, try to make it something pleasant, which ends the conversation, like "I love you". StuRat (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested to see how this question panned out. In my view it is not the 'amount' as to the context that causes the comment “you talk too much”. Like TammyMoet, I can tune people out when they’re just voicing the thoughts running through their head. It's more a 'feeling' form of communications where its not the words that's important but the emotion with which they are voiced – if vibes are good or neutral then everything's OK and thus evoke the complimentary response from spouse: ” Yes dear – Oh really – Well I never.....etc., etc., & et cetera ”. What irritates people (in my experiences) is where someone engages tongue without engaging brain – and pontificate on subjects they have not really thought about. The OP states the s/he wants some tips. Get a book on Transactional analysis. Here you will see that repeatedly pontificating is a 'Parent' to 'Child' transaction. Its just like a loop tape of the same thing over and over. Ie. The listener is being “told' but not really being included or invited to contribute on equal terms in the diatribe of verbiage. Hence the response "you talk to much" (ie I don't want to hear you repeating and repeating what who have hear from somebody else - I can get all that from watching Desperate Housewives). Engaging the 'Adult' ego will give a chance to 'listen' and then modify, develop and improve 'what -comes-out-the-mouth' into communication that serves a purpose – even if spouse tunes you out from time to time. --Aspro (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how any of us can presume to know anything about this situation. This is advice column stuff with too little background on which to base advice. I am unsure whether "techniques" are really being asked for here. This almost veers into "medical advice" although I would not seriously call it that. The reason is because normally there is nothing preventing anyone from simply refraining from speaking. Selectively reducing speech could similarly be arrived at simply by giving consideration to each utterance before allowing enunciation of it. Under a controlled environment such as a home situation this should not be so difficult. The question is whether the expenditure of such effort is defensible. One's prior speaking patterns in any such considerations matter and I am hesitant to begin suggesting "solutions" that may not have a basis in a preexisting "problem". It is not inconceivable that a partner is making an unreasonable request. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that one can just stop from speaking too much is like saying one can just stop from eating too much. Obesity rates indicate it's not that simple for many of us. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a comparison here. Over-eating is just due to the body's genetic programming to attempt to get the right nutrients it needs. People who wander too far from the Paleolithic diet end up never feeling properly sated. So again, its a case of engaging brain before mouth and asking “ is eating this- or-that going to bring me the most benefiting the long time?” It just takes practice of exercising one's questioning awareness, regarding what one eats and disregarding what the adverts 'tell you' what to eat. Think about it. When you take the family to one of those Pitza, or what ever else emporiums, do they suddenly turn in the the smiling, polite Disney kids that the adverts have lead you to believe, or do they remain something a little worse than the Adams family. Its just sales and marketing misdirection. Next time you're looking at that double deluxe half pounder, ask yourself if your just about to bit into a delusion. Of course, this will end up costing a fortune in having to buy a new wardrobe of slimmer cloths, so it not a win-win situation.--Aspro (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have statistics and other empirical evidence relating to overeating and indulging in the intake of of substances including alcohol and tobacco and other drugs. But do we have objective criteria to call something "talking too much"? Your comparison may have some merit. I have been in the company of someone about whom I was convinced they talked too much. But actually this was an older person and they were beset by serious physical ailments. My point would be that in a normal situation in which calmness prevails and there are no external stimuli, it is questionable whether "over-talking" can really be said to exist. Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Figures. Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know. Never so true as asking this here at the Reference Desk - you've just diagonalized the Wikipedia userbase. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly baffled here. Diagonalised? IBE (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just like Those who can, do; those who can't, teach [6]. One might take it to the neurotic conclusion of “ Why should I tell you, because then, what's to stop you from becoming as clever as I am?” Baffle them all with spurious word of wisdom... so keep them in your power.--Aspro (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about your reference, but I've worked out Wnt's. IBE (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good time for a musical interlude:[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This musical interlude could be instructional too. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics caricatures one of those traits rather well. No doubt he was singing from experience.--Aspro (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More on auctioneering. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more. Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But getting back to the point, a London perspective; "Rabbit" ("Rabbit and Pork" = "talk") Alansplodge (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's this support group Astronaut (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austria-Serbian aggression

I realize there was a history of aggression between Austria and Serbia & Russia because of Austria's annexation of Bosnia, but did the nations ever have a history of aggression from the end of the Crimean War to the annexation of Bosnia? Thanks. 64.229.204.143 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure what "aggression" means in this context, but some of the general basic frictions were that the Habsburgs saw themselves as the grand leaders of Christian resistance against Muslim/Turkish domination in Europe for many centuries, and the Serbs as petty troublemaking upstarts; while the Serbs saw the Austro-Hungarian empire as a German-Hungarian conspiracy to oppress Slavs and thwart Slavic national aspirations... AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to have been armed conflict between the nations in question between those two events. See History of Serbia (1804-1918). Marco polo (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]