Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 18

= September 18 =

13, Duncan Street, Houndsditch
Is there a Duncan Street near Houndsditch, or was there in the late nineteenth century? Searching for <"duncan street" houndsditch> returns plenty of results for A Study in Scarlet, unsurprisingly, but nothing that discusses whether Conan Doyle made up the location entirely. I had assumed that it was a real street with a fabricated address, comparable to 221B Baker Street. Google shows me a Dunan Street at 51.53361°N, -0.10444°W, but that's two miles away from Houndsditch at 51.51528°N, -0.07861°W — obviously not what one would tell a cabbie in the late nineteenth century. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And on a side note: Google Maps tells me that my drive from Duncan Street to Houndsditch involves toll roads; apparently I have to pay some sort of charge at about 51.51917°N, -0.07444°W, even though no tollbooths are visible on Street View. Is this somehow related to London's congestion charges, or is it something else? Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are some fantastically detailed period maps of London online. They aren't searchable, but you can scan the Houndsditch section and get the names of nearly all the alleys. London1868.com is my fave, but for closer to the period there are also London 1878.com and, though less detailed, this one from 1886. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As regards the toll, Houndsditch is within the London congestion charge zone, so Google Maps is doubtless referring to that. There are no tollbooths; it's all controlled by ANPR cameras.--Shantavira|feed me 07:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Gotcha! "The name of Duncan Street was later changed to Camperdown (Street); 1881?" from The New Finding Sherlock's London by Thomas Bruce Wheeler (p.197). Camperdown Street is now in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in the E1 postal district; not too far away from Houndsditch, but most people would call it Aldgate in my humble opinion. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, excellent work! And you can see it as Duncan Street on London1868.com too. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I used to work in Goodman's Yard nearby, which is now a main road instead of the tiny alley marked on the 1868 map. Conan Doyle would still recognise St George's German Lutheran Church which is almost opposite Camperdown Street, although I see that there haven't been any Germans worshipping there since 1996. Just down the road, Leman Street Police Station was at the centre of the Jack the Ripper investigation; the same building now houses the Specialist Firearms Command Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Amazing how the streets change in that period of time for such an old metropolis; I've seen massive changes between mid-19th century maps and the present appearance of the area around the Wood Street subway station in Pittsburgh, but Pittsburgh was still developing in the 1850s. Just imagine the respectable paperhanger Keswick being dropped onto Camperdown St today :-)  Thanks for the help!  Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that we did have some unwelcome assistance with demolition work. Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

How predictable are divorces?
I am just wondering if it's possible to predict the likelihood of a divorce in couples or the likelihood that couples may have a marriage surviving for 25 years or more. Are there people who predict the likelihood of divorces like an actuary who deals with the financial impacts of risks and uncertainties? 164.107.102.21 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Scientists do attempt statistics-based predictions all the time; there are dozens of known factors. See 15 Ways to Predict Divorce and these academic papers. However, I don't know about making predictions for an individual, rather than an average couple. Divorce insurance says it was only offered once and the company went out of business. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As an actual scientist I would take offense to those sorts of sociology wasters-of-time being called scientists.....Fgf10 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is actually possible for social scientists and natural scientists to talk amicably about quantitative methods. I recommend trying it. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Predicting the success of a marriage is like predicting the weather. There are countless factors involved, and the best you can do is predict probabilities based on past observations. The overriding factor in marriage might be the level of commitment to the marriage by both parties. And that level may not be known before the marriage, or even some time after. And notice the emerging "dark side" of the same sex marriage issue: Some high-profile celebs who got same-sex-married are already getting same-sex-divorced while the ink was barely dry from the marriage certificate. One would think that their level of commitment to such a marriage would have been high. But maybe their commitment was more to "the cause" than to the actual marriage. But there have been same-sex partners that stayed together for decades, despite the lack of any legal commitment. The last I heard, the current opposite-sex divorce rate in America is around 50 percent. Don't be surprised if the divorce rate among same-sex partners eventually approaches that figure. But two folks getting married aren't a group - they're two individuals, with countless vectors pushing the marriage one way or another, just as there are countless vectors pushing hot and cold fronts one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit of POV on display there, in describing divorce as the "dark side". HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you'd like "the unhappy side" better. The point is, divorce means failure. That's not to say divorce is unjustified. But it's still a failure. I'm especially saddened for the folks who fought so hard for the right to marry, and once they had the legal opportunity, couldn't make it work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's only a problem if you think that marriage must be forever, or it's a failure. That's a particular POV to take. People change. Relationships evolve. It can be argued that deciding to move on from a relationship that's no longer what it once was is a very positive thing to do. Many people I know have been very happy once their divorce actually occured. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you think the purpose of marriage is. And I didn't invent the term "failed marriage", it's a commonly used expression. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a bit like the weather, though, in that we can predict to some extent. Hot weather is more likely in summer, cold weather in winter. Similarly, divorce rates are low in countries where the law makes divorce is difficult or impossible, higher in other countries. But we can't say whether it will rain at 3pm or 3.30pm. Stochastic is the word for it. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should squeeze the time interval at which the weather becomes unpredictable even narrower, if you can predict how fast the rain cloud is approaching your town. 164.107.103.161 (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in England. The rain clouds are always hanging around tergiversating. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * John Gottman predicts the likelihood in 3 to 5 minutes here...doubt he would hold out much hope for me & Fgf10. Tommy Pinball (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, what? How did I get involved in this? Fgf10 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I must add that the 50% divorce rate thing in the United States is a disputed number, because there are quite a few sources that seem to suggest that the rate is a myth, even Psych Central. In any case, I would be extremely cautious about using 50% as the realistic/actual divorce rate of the country. Furthermore, since divorce rates are correlated (not caused by!) with age of marriage, education level, personal finances, family values/relationships and commitment, Asians are known to have the lowest divorce rate in the U.S. 164.107.103.161 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What's an Asian? Do you have a source for your claim? HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You probably know this, but in the States, "Asian" means mostly "East Asian", specifically those East Asians having visible phenotypic characteristics similar to Chinese. What used to be called "Oriental" before, by the mysterious process that these sorts of things happen, that word became politically incorrect.  It's a little dishonest as terminology, because it's actually a racial term disguised as a geographic one, but there's not really a choice about using it if you don't want your language rather than your content to become the focus of discussion.
 * I gather that in the UK, "Asian" means mostly "South Asian" (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi), which is a source of misunderstanding. --Trovatore (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone who's studied Greek knows that Asians means Iranians and their Anatolian subjects, like the Hittites. The question is, what doe Brits call what Americans used to call Orientals? μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We say "people from East Asia", or if we know their nationality we say "Taiwanese people", "Japanese people" etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Beg to doubt. Maybe you do, personally, and maybe a certain educated subculture does.  But "people who look like Han Chinese" is an obvious classification that people are going to come up with, and I don't buy that you don't have a word for it.  Maybe you (not you Judith, but you British) just say "Chinese", even when referring to, say, Japanese people?  I know that that's not an uncommon usage in some countries; not sure about the UK. --Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that can happen. There are also derogatory terms. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In parts of Australia the word Asian is used by many to negatively categorise people with a particular facial appearance, with no real interest in or even knowledge of where they actually come from. I work in high schools in an area with few "Asians". It has become an insult. "They talk funny. They can't drive. Etc, etc, etc." "You're Asian" is used as a similar insult to "You're gay." I avoid using the word. Do you really thnk most others who use it really know where such people come from, or is it really just a descriptor of facial features? HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it does mostly mean a particular facial appearance, or at least a genetic background correlated with such an appearance. But it's not an insult; it's the PC term, the term that the self-conscious-community types prefer.  If you see an "Asian Students Association" or similarly-named organization at a US university, you shouldn't expect to find a lot of Israelis in it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you find Indians/Pakistanis/Sri Lankans? Does America have category name for such people? HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you probably wouldn't. They're "South Asians" in educated speech; probably just "Indians" otherwise. --Trovatore (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is just guaranteed to please the Pakistanis and Sri Lankans. A bit like calling Canadians Americans or New Zealanders Australians I guess. We're not very good at this stuff, are we? HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is HiLo's way of educating us on the way he'd prefer we speak. Shadowjams (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I like people to realise that the term has many meanings depending on where one is. I'm not certain of the precise meaning in the US (maybe it varies across the country too), and also wondered if there actually was a precise enough meaning for such statistics to exist. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol yeah, all of us understood your sarcastic bent, most of us just didn't find it all that useful. Shadowjams (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no sarcasm intended. Fuck off. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not surprised you're as clueless as your posts suggest. Shadowjams (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a book on Epistemology, I'll need to find it later (not near home!), that claimed that an effective indicator is to take the number of times the couple has sex per week minus the number of times they fight, if negative, they'll probably not last. I realize I don't have an actual citation here yet, so please take that with a grain of salt; especially since it was a book on a completely different topic:-) (if anyone else is familiar with the book I'm talking about and wants to provide the name: it's main topic, if I recall, was that epistemology should be less about defining the terms involved and more involved with looking at methods for acquiring knowledge, the example was given in a chapter emphasizing that simple linear formulas can often beat experienced professionals.)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oldest residential building?
What's the oldest residential man-made building, that is still inhabited with average citizens? (It would be cool to live in a 1,000 years old home. Just wondering, no specific reason for asking) Let's exclude "natural" buildings like caves or grottos, "temporary" buildings like tents, and buildings, that are primarily used for non-residential purposes like churches, monasteries, castles or storage halls. Bonus points for oldest residential, inhabited building per continent. Of course the building can be renovated, but a huge part of it should be "old". GermanJoe (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "oldest continuously inhabited house in Britain", since 1148.
 * Taos Pueblo "said to be the oldest continuously inhabited houses still occupied" in the US, since c. 1000.184.147.120.88 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The 11th century Kirkjubøargarður in the Faroe Islands is " one of the oldest still inhabited wooden houses of the world". The Pattursson family have been tenants since 1550 and still live there. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Saltford is the oldest continually inhabited house in Britain, but there are older occupied buildings. The Tower of London still has a garrison who live inside the grounds, though I don't know if they are resident in the building itself. Durham Castle was occupied pretty much continually by the bishops and their staff until it was transferred to the University, and contains student accomodation today; there may have been a nineteenth-century hiatus, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Yeoman Warders at the Tower live in the casemates which I believe were built against the medieval outer curtain wall during the 1830s. The Waterloo Barracks at the Tower is now a museum, the small guard detachment stay in the guard room in the gatehouse. So not really a contender. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Diocletian's Palace in Split, Croatia is said to have been taken over by squatters sometime in the 7th Century and there are still people living there. The building itself is 4th C.--Rallette (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The oldest actual residential building in the U.S and the world seems to be Taos Pueblo. It is said to be over 1000 years old. Obviously there are older buildings but when you go on to the ones that have actual people living in them, then Taos Pueblo is the oldest and functional building. You can also learn more about Taos Pueblo through theses articles which go on to explain the significance of the house and other houses built by the same group that are just a little younger. Alexlatimer2121 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if you can't find older examples from the Mediterranean world, for example in Rome, where parts of residential blocks still have significant Roman remains in them as is hinted in this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Talmud Schottenstein Ed. Text in all upper case type
In the English pages of the Schottenstein edition of the Talmud, in tractate Berachos, some of the bold faced type [the literal translation] is in upper and lower case, and some is in upper case only. I am trying to find out if there is a reason for this, and if the all-caps portions have a special significance.70.251.235.221 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The text in uppercase is the text of the Mishnah itself, whereas the lower-case is the Gemara. Despite the case differences, nonetheless sometimes it seems like some text is part of the Mishnah, but in actuality it is Gemara, because in such cases the Gemara is written immediately with the Mishnah to clarify and the result is a single continuous sentence. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly
I've tried to find some sources but no luck. Any idea what the seating arrangment for this session is? Who was drawn to take the first seat?Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FYO, it was CroatiaLihaas (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

List of territorial disputes
I was checking the article and came across the dispute of Wake Island between the Marshall Islands and the United States. Is it possible in the near future that the U.S. hands Wake back to the Marshallese? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiplimo Kenya (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Brief answer: No. (The Marshallese would appear to have their hands full trying to deal with Kwajalein.) The article Kingdom of EnenKio would appear to answer many questions... AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Quebec history
I'm looking for a book on the political history of Quebec during and after the Quiet Revolution. I'm specifically looking for something opinionated, from an Anglophone perspective, and with a negative view towards separatism and the influence of the Parti Quebecois. Thanks a lot for any help. 65.92.5.24 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The one thing I can think of is Mordecai Richler's Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Requiem for a Divided Country. I haven't read it, but Richler was famous for being an opiniated Anglophone with a negative view towards Quebec nationalism. Effovex (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you ask for books with a specific point of view, and aside from Richler's highly polemical essay, most serious works on the issue are more balanced. The standard textbook in English is Kenneth McRoberts: Quebec: Social Change and Political Crisis ISBN 978-0195414868, although it's a bit dated by now. --Xuxl (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)