Humanities desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

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.

January 3

Battleship Potemkin

I've read a lot about the uprising on the battleship Potemkin, but I still have more questions than answers. Here are a few:

(1) The ship's CO, Captain Golikov, had a reputation as a martinet, but how accurate was it? Did he really treat the sailors especially harshly, or was some of his reputation due to the sailors themselves being unused to (and resentful of) military discipline, in general?
(2) Was the meat really rotten (as in, unfit for eating) like the official Soviet sources say, or was it merely maggoty as the ship's surgeon, Dr. Smirnov, maintained?(If the latter, then this situation was not all that uncommon aboard ship, even in the early 20th century.)
(3) What exactly happened between when the meat was served and when the officers gathered the crew on the quarterdeck? Do the Soviet sources tell the whole story when they say that the sailors merely refused to eat the meat, or was there something else going on as well (possibly some kind of violent altercation between the sailors and the officers)? As strict as the Imperial Russian officers must have been, I seriously doubt that they would have threatened the sailors with mass execution merely for refusing to eat.
(4) What exactly was the role of Quartermaster Vakulinchuk (sic) in the uprising? There's a lot of contradictory info about his involvement -- on the one hand, he was said to be the chief organizer of the rebellion, but on the other hand, it was also said (in fact, sometimes by the very same sources) that he tried to put a damper on the rebellion when it did take place.
(5) When exactly was Vakulinchuk shot, and by whom? There's considerable disagreement among the various sources about this. Are the official Soviet historians perhaps hiding something?
24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the answers are known. Records of things which happened in Tsarist times were not necessarily kept by the communists, and the full truth might not even have been known at the time. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this as "we'll never know". 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be in such a hurry to call it quits, on the basis of one editor's unreferenced opinion. I'm sure others will have valuable things to offer. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be your unreferenced opinion ? StuRat (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I don't need a reference to refer to another editor's unreferenced opinion. No need to be defensive, Stu. I was simply wanting to support the OP in waiting for some other answers before coming to conclusions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You may try British newspapers archives of the time, the British were very invested in all things Russians at the time (and some claim still are) because of the vital trade routes past the Dardenelles (that Catherine the Great and a Russian John Paul Jones tried to take among other Russians) that could sever the Suez Canal and Indian, Australian and eastern empire treasures. Especially in that time the U.K. papers did have a lot more accurate information then even the Tsar. Good luck! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll see if I can find anything. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What book is good for political philosophy graudauate study

I wonder if the book of Micheal Curtis "The Great Political Theories" is sufficient, I have the copy of the two volumes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 03:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking to get into graduate-level studies, you're probably best to get involved in the original works and direct commentaries of them, not on omnibus overview texts, which are usually introductory in nature. That is, you'll want to read the original works by Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, John Locke, Jeremy Bentham, Michel Foucault, etc. to name just a few. --Jayron32 04:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Joshua Atienza, I agree with Jayron32, as a Poltical Science major in my undergrad I have to wonder what undergrad preparation have you or the interested party your asking for done? I don't believe any social or humanity sciences are pre-reqs on all but most grad programs do require some. From my limited knowledge of graduate studies especially in the social sciences is that one would almost always drill down to something more specific than simply political philosophy. Perhaps its more me seeing how such a degree translates into the real world, not to say some grad schools would offer such a grad degree. So is there a particular era of poli phi, particular "school" or ideology that you are looking to drill down on? Also I will say--although you already may know--at the graduate level something such as this spills into economics (macro and micro), anthropology, cultural studies, even demographics and statistics so some overview texts on those topics would be at least required for any grad degree in poli phi. The specific texts on the specific subject covers everything from Plato, Cato, Machiavelli, Jefferson, Tzu (as in Sun) even Franklin and Twain, just for an undergrad there were completely different reading texts for the 4 requirements of political theory, international politics, local/regional politics and comparative politics and from my experience all 4 can get super specific kind of like a career for Mayor Daley in Chicago vs. a career at the White House vs. a career in the United Nations or NATO vs. a career interpreting ancient greek city states or how Marx compares to Hobbes etc. after 6 years of study the one aiming for the UN gets a very different last 2-3 years then the one aiming for being a county planning and zoning manager, even though both are integral to poli phi. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, 'Sun Tzu' is not a name of the form 'firstname surname'. 'Tzu' is an honorific meaning 'sage', as in Lao Tzu, Meng Tzu, and Kong Fu Tzu. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For secondary sources, read Quentin Skinner, AGA Pocock, and Sheldon Wolin (be sure to pronounce this with a 'V').OldTimeNESter (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the anthology Arguing About Political Philosophy compiled by Matt Zwolinski from cover to cover and I found it quite good. Gabbe (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Going To War And Then Backing Out

When has the United States of America seriously considered going to war (by war, I mean all-out-war, like the Vietnam War, not like the NATO intervention in Libya) but decided not to go to war in the end? Futurist110 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuban missile crisis is a popular example of this. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you know of any other similar examples? Futurist110 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was some serious discussion during the early 1990s, that the U.S. should have been more involved, militarily, in the Bosnian War, but the Gulf War had just concluded. During the 1990s, the U.S. global military strategy was dominated by what was called the Powell Doctrine, and Bosnia didn't represent the kind of conflict the U.S. had an interest in fighting under those terms. By the time the U.S. got involved in 1995, it was mainly some token NATO troops to enforce as cease-fire, and as a peace broker for an already played-out war (i.e. the Dayton Accords). There's been a lot of discussion over the U.S. and other powers failure to act in 1991 when a strong military action may have been able to prevent much of the genocide that occurred in the subsequent years. This paper alludes to many analyses of the U.S.'s failure to act, though it mainly discusses the final token intevention in 1995. This book may have some more information on the subject. --Jayron32 06:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jayron. Any other examples? Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you'll find many. As informed by the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. until World War II (World War I notwithstanding) was took a stridently non-interventionist foreign policy. Pretty much prior to 1941 (except for when it was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the final phases of WWI) the U.S. wasn't much involved in foreign wars outside of the Western Hemisphere. It just didn't happen. See United States non-interventionism. After WWII, the U.S. did an about face on this, and became the "world's police force" involved several "all out wars" (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghan War, Iraq War), numerous minor military operations (Granada, Panama, Bay of Pigs) and many proxy wars with the soviets (Soviet-Afghan War, etc.). Other than those already noted, perhaps the Berlin Airlift represents a time when the U.S. may have been dragged open war with the Soviets. Maybe also the Somali Civil War as a place where the U.S. failed to become too involved, Operation Gothic Serpent was something of a Charlie-Foxtrot (Black Hawk Down and all), like Bosnia and Rwanda, is among the major ethnic civil wars that the World Powers have been criticized for doing nothing about. --Jayron32 07:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. fought in the Philippines between 1898 and 1913, and they were outside the Western Hemisphere. Also, wars and potential wars in the Western Hemisphere also count for the purposes of answering this question (thus I suppose you can add a war with Britain over that Venezuela-Guyana border dispute in 1895 to this list of potential wars, if the parties did not agree to resolve this border dispute by international arbitration). Futurist110 (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippine War was a continuation of the entanglement of the Spanish-American War which was mostly (except the Philippines) a Monroe Doctrine war., it wasn't so much a war of intervention as it was a war of independence by the Philippines themselves against their new overlords (the U.S.) who won the colony from their old overlords (Spain) as a result of the Spanish-American war. The U.S. wasn't going to war with Britain in 1895. Nothing like Cuba in 1962. --Jayron32 13:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think you mean "all-out war", as the US hasn't done that since WW2. StuRat (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Losing over 50,000 troops in the Vietnam War does not count as an all-out war in your view? Anyway, maybe I used the incorrect terminology. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that was spread out over about a decade. That's something less than 1/1000th of a percent of the US population killed each year. StuRat (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was only an all-out war for the Vietnamese. Uncle Sam was fighting with one arm tied behind his back, and the civilians back in the States were not mobilized into a wartime economy. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They seriously spun the spin machine up on Iran but never did invade. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were there ever any serious consideration of invading Iran? From what I know it all appeared to have been empty bluster and bluffing. Futurist110 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will have a lot of different answers to different degrees with a question as vague as that. Not a criticism I get what your trying to ask just with your last clarification, I remember news stories of Pentagon plans for Iran invasions but (and this is key) I didn't pay much mind to those because the Pentagon (as well as Langely) have plans to invade almost every nation, from my knowledge there are floors of personnel (analysts) who all day long just draw up contingencies for military or special op responses to all kinds of events in almost every nation. And here is the other reason some of these answers may be muddled prior to the 1940s or 1950s this was not the case, so bluster and bluffing was more the order of the day but without plans. So hard to draw a bright line exclusion or inclusion on a question like this.

One thing that pops into mind though is the War of 1812 we actually invaded Canada (memory tells me the Windsor area of Ontario) but the U.S. army commander decided to retreat after the Canadians spread rumors of a massive land force luring his men into a "trap" when in fact no British or militia force was mustered between him and Toronto and probably Ottawa and Montreal. If he had not listened to the rumors and turned away Canada would be our 51st state today--again this is from a memory of several readings of history. Though to talk of bluster I did see on CSPAN recently on their "contenders" series that Henry Clay during the war of 1812 declared that Canada should be invaded and that the Kentucky militia alone could take it!

I don't think your take on the war of 1812 matches any of the 4 sides interpretations. See our well-fought-over article: War of 1812. Rmhermen (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible answer was aired several times this week on CSPAN book notes the name escapes me but the author wrote several military books and this one about generals not being held accountable and did mention that the 1991 Iraq War it is now known Saddam was shocked and surprised that "we offered him a cease fire" after destroying his force, and that his take was that we surrendered and he won that war in that we never invaded past southern Iraq. Perhaps asking Vietnam or the North Koreans or others may actually claim different histories than ones popularly held in the west. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Were there ever any serious consideration of invading Iran? From what I know it all appeared to have been empty bluster and bluffing", to my eyes as someone who is able to observe and has a memory (I realize this puts me in the minority), I remember the same circus preceding the invasion of Iraq: namely, its circus "weapons of mass destruction". So, to me, the spin-up to Iraq was the same as the spin-up to Iran, and then was followed-through on, where-as the Iran spin machine got spun up but then abandoned. It would have surprised me 0.000% if Iran then was invaded the same as Iraq had been, following the exact same spin-up. But, again, the view that this is how America "seriously considers going to war" (by trumping up Iraq's WMD or Iran's nuclear danger to fever-pitch) is just my view. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be safe to refer to threatened U.S. invasion(s) of Iran in the past tense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. And if it did happen, it could not possibly happen in the next two or three weeks. Instead it would be preceded by a spinning up period of spinning up the spin. This is not happening at the moment (so we know America is not about to invade Iran in the next couple of weeks) but did in the past and, were there to be a war, would precede a war in the future. This is just the MO, not really a value statement or anything. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, we did invade Iran once, in an attempt to get our hostages back, in a move which worked out about as well for Jimmy Carter as the Bay of Pigs invasion did for JFK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Quasi-War might meet your criteria, as might the US interventions in the Russian Civil War, the American Expeditionary Force Siberia and the Polar Bear Expedition. Marco polo (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Taiwan Strait Crisis, Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add: General MacArthur was determined to cross the Yalu River into China during the Korean War, and General Patton dearly wanted to see Moscow, ca. 1945. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bizarre question because first of all it has a nice slant to it (the u.s. is so warlike... when have they not gone to war...). Secondly it's a really ambiguous threshold about when they were "about" to go to war and then didn't. Perhaps a country that does a lot of saber rattling (Iran and North Korea come to mind) but then backs down (probably because they're either completely wrong in the eyes of the world community, or can't possibly come out ahead) would seem almost sympathetic given this prompt.

The answers here seem fine given how... frankly dumb... this question is. I think the better question is are there situations in which country X would have gone to war but country Y didn't, given similar circumstances. Still a cause for rampant speculation, but maybe more interesting... It'd be nice if the reference desk also occasionally included the one off reference, but I don't hold my breath for that. Shadowjams (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanyawadi state

Hello, in 325 BC, did Dhanyawadi state have a script? Greetings HeliosX (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was one, it was probably Brahmi or Kharosthi (or a slight variant)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Author of phrase?

Who wrote the phrase, "Mercy comes down like gentle rain but stupidity falls like fucking rocks"?170.154.182.202 (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first part is a paraphrase of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Act 4 Scene 1, where Portia says "The quality of mercy is not strain'd,/It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven." On page 18 of Private Heat: an Art Hardin Mystery, by Robert E. Bailey, the narrator says "The voice of Sergeant Ochoa, my old ranger instructor, whispered to me from the dark recesses of my memory, 'Mercy may fall like gentle rain, but stupidity comes down in great-big-fucking chunks.'" --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism question

I've seen it argued that since the 1970s, a lot of girls and women have viewed traditionally feminine things and the concept of the "girly-girl" as weakness and an impediment to sexual equality. Is this accurate? Paul Austin (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For one extended discussion, you can look in the book "Femininity" by Susan Brownmiller... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen this, and which particular country are you talking about? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Women don't have to identify as feminists to reject stereotyped or over-the-top feminity.. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting a paranoid and incomprehensible but still clearly irrelevant rant

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

No joke. It's happening to me now and these people say they are Virtuagirl.com Totem Entertainment Howard Raymond Film Porn Crew a black gay group with racial hate for whites. They said they were a secret Government affliated Obama expeimental Darpa, Rfid, wifi dept. immune to law suits. They said they are from Totem County, Anahiem, Bakersfield, or Tuvall State California a film porn crew. They are masters of torture, deceit and hate. For over a year now this US Government affliated Co - Virtuagirl.com using a Darpa Alien tech. rfid wifi brain control brain program or virtual implanted chip with Gov. Wifi expert - H. Raymond. Virtual or real son of late Paul Raymond. (Porn King of Soho) Paulraymond.com Club Mag Virtuagirl.com manager, CEO J. Leno or D. Jay Thornton, using Cyndi L. virtual voice and songs with a girl Bobbie J. Lee voice on their software I know from Victoria, Tx.

H. Raymond - Gov. Wifi virtual or real Negro voice told me they installed an online brain control wifi program or virtual chip without mine or other members knowledge from mine and your computer monitor from their site into the retina of your eye or brain then a program downloaded then controlled by wifi from your house electricity, silently with no computer on nor cam of your own but have an invisable program cam used to record and projest anything they desire at any angle or degree in complete darkness if nessecary, with an an unannouced Darpa Gv. Adv. Alien X-ray tech to view or sell anything you do anywhere you go to their site invisibly without a sound 24 hours a day. They threaten you with it and use Wifi brain and pressure point pain. They said they used me and my family in virtualized incest porn and revirtualized my dead father to torture me with then told me my mother and brother are dead or dying in a wreck or something else every day to call 911 then laughed.

Article on WIFI RFID-Radio Freq. ID invisable secretly implanted mind programs.

RFID Chips fuse with Brain Cells, then controlled via WiFi Cameras installed into the retina allows vision for the blind! This technology is quite fascinating, these chips literally allow data to be transferred directly into the brain from a WiFi connection.Literally downloading information from the Internet or electronic source to the physical brain. This same technology will allow the monitoring Real time 24 hours a day 7 days a week of the individuals chipped with the RFID. These chips relay the electronic impulses of the brain to the Host for deciphering, wether its what the individual is seeing, feeling, tasting, hearing, thinking, etc... Each thought has a unique signature that Computer programs can decipher. So full time spying through the eyes of the individual, either animal, human, or insect. This technology is an Alphabet agencies wet dream. Think about it for a minute, everything you experience can be recorded, stored, translated into a VR reality. Remember the saying, "Be careful what you think, they can read your mind"?

RFID Chips fuse with Brain Cells, then controlled via WiFi "We here at inhabitant love DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) — they are the people behind plans for a transforming Flying car, batteries that are smaller than grains of salt, and oh, they invented the Internet. Now, in partnership with IBM, DARPA is investing $21 million in a project to develop a series of experimental computer chips that will be designed to replicate the human brain’s perceptive, Active and cognitive abilities.

All this materialism - like Gov. incentive for overpopulation, unwed mothers to have more children for more Gov. tax. Overpopulation (more tax collection) causing global warming with high Co2 and methane levels from automobiles and refineries with depletion of our natural resourses water, oxygen, trees and animals, then us. The anartic melting at 10% a year. How long do we have? Who cares? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.50.13 (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original, rather strident version of feminism, where they wanted to dress and look like men, reject marriage and children, etc., has largely given way to a more subtle form. I think this newer form was summed up nicely by the lyrics from Peggy Lee's I'm a Woman: [1] (although perhaps the lyrics from the commercial based on this song are even better: "I can bring home the bacon, then fry it up in a pan", where "bring home the bacon" means she has a job). That is, many modern feminists no longer feel it necessary to reject their traditional roles when taking on new roles.

So, to get back to your Q, under the original form, yes, "feminine" was the opposite of "feminism". However, this is no longer true. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also the different "waves" of feminism: First-wave_feminism, Second-wave_feminism, and Third-wave_feminism. OldTimeNESter (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, my answer was comparing the 2nd wave with the 3rd (I don't call the 1st wave "feminism", I call it "women's suffrage" and the "women's temperance movement"). StuRat (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They called it feminism at the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found the numbered "wave" thing to be completely confusing, because in my own mind feminism in the United States is mainly concentrated into three periods (the earliest period in the mid-19th century, ca. 1848-1870, when it was often associated with abolitionism; the struggle to gain the vote towards the end of the 19th century and during the first two decades of the 20th century; and the modern period beginning in the 1960s) -- but those who devised the "wave" terminology apparently had something completely different in mind. AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Houghton Hall, Norfolk, UK

How did Houghton Hall, Norfolk UK get it's name ? Deanne Houghton Shorb at <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.229.19 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our Houghton Hall article doesn't seem to say. The most obvious answer is that this was the name of one of the owners, but I can't confirm this. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the parish of Houghton, Norfolk, one of several with the same name in that county. If I've got the right one, it was listed as Houtuna in the Domesday Book of 1086. Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more detail; apparently the old village of Houghton was demolished to make way for the Hall. In 1729, the village was rebuilt in a more convenient place and called "New Houghton". The name comes from the Old English language, hoh (hill-spur) plus tun (enclosure, settlement or farm); so "farm on the hill-spur". See Samuel Lewis, A Popular Guide to Norfolk Place Names. There are a great many places called Houghton in England, A Topographical Dictionary of England: Volume 2 lists 26 of them. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your email address for your protection. Rojomoke (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job - I missed that. Alansplodge (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated the rather sparse Houghton, Norfolk article and put a link to it in the lede of Houghton Hall. Alansplodge (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House numbering in Britain

Resolved

In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, chapter 12 opens with an explanation as to how the Muggles had "come to accept the amusing mistake that had caused number eleven [Grimmauld Place] to sit beside number thirteen." Wouldn't evens and odds be across the street from each other, so that 11 is always adjacent to 13 and 12 would be on the other side, or is that a modern thing, or perhaps an American thing? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article on that. See House numbering#United Kingdom. In the UK, house numbering often proceeds sequentially down one side of the street, to the extreme end, then returns in the opposite direction, AKA Boustrophedon-style. So neighboring houses have directly sequential numbers (i.e. 11 is between 10 and 12). This occurs in areas where the numbering occurred prior to the 19th century. More modern numbering schemes (with odds on one side and evens on the other) resemble that commonly found in the U.S. However, the setting of Harry Potter, being a well-established part of London, appears to use the older boustrophedon numbering scheme. --Jayron32 22:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that the odds one side and evens the other is far more common in the UK, and that consecutive numbering is a more recent thing. MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think I've ever seen a street in London that is numbered in the way that Jayron suggests. Certainly my 1890s terraced house is on the odd numbered side of the street. I would expect 11 to be next to 13. However, Privet Drive is supposed to be on a new-ish housing estate in Surrey, so who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some smart streets in central London with the boustrophedon method. Holborn area for example. But I agree with Alan, not 1890s terraces, not 1870s terraces. Not 1930s semis, either. 1980s private estate, maybe. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it in cul-de-sacs and squares in various British cities, and very occasionally in larger thoroughfares. OR here, but I think that in those cases, it's been streets with long histories. I wouldn't mind some background on what Grimmauld Place is. --Dweller (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Victorian or Georgian terrace, in a style very typical for central London, in Islington. [2]. I would expect this to have the usual British 1/3/5 opposite 2/4/6 unless the house is on a square or garden crescent (where there aren't houses on the "opposite" side). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But given that Rowling has shown herself to be a smart and very meticulous writer, she knew what she was doing when she wrote the section in question. So we can surmise that she meant some posh place where the houses are arranged without an opposite. A good example is Moray Place in Edinburgh (I mention Edinburgh in particular because that's where Rowling lived when she was writing the books). I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that, when thinking of that house, she was thinking of somewhere like that, Athol Crescent, Rothsay Terrace or the like. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She would never mistake King's Cross for Euston.

-- AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...or place a non-existent platform between tracks 9 and 10, which are actually adjacent.

Gandalf61 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Street View, I have found both numbering systems at use throughout London. Argyle Street, in Kings Cross, uses alternate side of street (odds on one side and even on other), easily confirmable by house numbers on both sides. However, Dartmouth Street in St James Park area uses Boustrophedon-style numbering; on the left side of the road going north the numbers go 18 -> 17, while down the road a bit on the right 21 is next door to 20. However, other streets in the same neighborhood seem to use conventional numbering, for example Old Queen Street, a continuation of Dartmouth Street, uses the odd-even convention. The same hodgepodge exists elsewhere: Pall Mall is numbered Boustrophedon-style, nearby St. James Street is odds and evens. So, there doesn't appear to be much of a system in London. I have no doubt that in most of the city the standard odds-even convention is more commonplace, but the boustrophedon numbering is common enough that I could find examples randomly wandering around various well-known parts of the city with Google Street View. --Jayron32 02:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up on a fairly new housing estate where the numbering was all consecutive. When I was 12 I moved to the family's current semi-detached house, where opposite us where 2 and 4 and we are 3 with our neighbours as 5, which I thought was odd (if you pardon the pun), so both systems are in use here in the UK. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has ever accused the British of being systematic. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody once had an idea to number the houses in feet from the end of the road, so No. 1250 would be 1250 feet from the start of the road. It was to help postman and the like, I dont think the idea caught on! MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about in the UK, but it's extremely common here in the USA, especially in rural areas where you have big gaps between houses. For example, the county where I grew up has determined which roads are the east/west and north/south meridians; if you live outside of a city or village, your house number reflects how far you are in miles (e.g. house 3055 is 3.055 miles away) from the meridian for that direction. It's the dominant scheme in Indiana, and reflected in the road numbering too; someone who lives at 3055E500N lives 3.055 miles east of the line dividing east and west, and his road runs parallel to the north/south line and is five miles north of it. Nyttend (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in Albury, NSW, in a house numbered 682, in a street that had only about 40-50 houses. The reason is that they divided the city into 4 zones, each zone had its own range of numbers, and our zone used the range 600-799. Not sure what purpose this system ever had. Taxi drivers and postal deliverers would know a street by its name, not by whatever numbers the houses in it were allocated. But I'm sure the city fathers had some reason. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our entire neighborhood has houses numbered sequentially from the single entrance into the neighborhood. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are side by side, then you turn a corner at our house, and 7, 8, 9, etc. are numbered on the same side of the street all the way down. We're across the street from 7, and we're several numbers higher than that. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both the OP and everyone who has answered has missed the point on this. The numbering system on UK streets is irrelevent. It's not that number 12 is across the road; there is no number 12. Number 12 is invisible to Muggles (as the Black family house and headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix.86.145.219.38 (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We understand; the question asks why Muggles would expect to find #12 between #11 and #13, rather than between #10 and #14. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Grimmauld place is a square, not a street! On a square, there is not opposite side for the odd numbers, you would expect the numbers to be consecutive, going all the way around the square, wouldn't you? --Lgriot (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Harry Potter calls it a street, and all appearances of "square" apply to other places. In what chapter is it called a square? I vaguely remember reading about the observers standing in the street and have no memory of reading that it was a square. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry, I think I was confused by the movie. You very well could be right, I'll have a look at the book later today at home. --Lgriot (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have checked the book and it is definitely a small square, it says so twice on the last page of chapter 3 of the order of the Phoenix. That is page 57 of the British edition. I knew I wasn't mad! So the most common numbering system for squares is that numbers are continuous, which is why 12 should be between 11 and 13, not on the other side. page 2 of chapter 4 repeats that it is a square. And chapter 12 of the deathly hallows indicates that there is a patch of grass in the middle. That is frequent on London squares, but very infrequent for London street, JKR is consistent. --Lgriot (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great -- thanks a lot! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]