Humanities desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

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 29

What style of architecture is this?

What style of architecture is this File:Mistletoe house, Jekyll Island, Georgia.jpg? The info is for Jekyll Island Club#List of remaining resort homes. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has the characteristic gambrel roof with curved eaves, I'd say that it's basically Dutch Colonial Revival. Compare the Pearce-McAllister Cottage. Deor (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Mansard_roof as well. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Gambrel it is. A gambrel has vertical gable ends. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" Europeans historically did not distinguish between a gambrel roof and a mansard roof but called both types a mansard" (from gambrel). This probably being why 196 mentioned mansard. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I put that in the article. To me it looks pretty similar to the Victorian style of the Moss Cottage, but I don't know anything about this type of thing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Victorian" doesn't really denote a specific architectural style, which is what you asked for. It's more of a catch-all term for styles popular in a particular period. Many of the Jekyll Island Club buildings are "Victorian", but they were constructed in a variety of architectural styles. I'd say that Moss Cottage was also Dutch Colonial Revival. Deor (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another commonality: Mistletoe Cottage and Moss Cottage both appear to be built in the shingle style. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Dutch Colonial Revival. Don't know about in Georgia, but in Indiana, the SHPO and other historic preservation agencies pretty much universally refer to gambrel-roofed houses as being Dutch Colonial Revival. See the houses in Commons:Category:Dutch Colonial Revival architecture in Bloomington, Indiana for examples (categorisation was all based off the City of Bloomington Interim Report), or the National Register form for the Walter Allman House at the other end of the state. The only other common style with mansards/gambrels is the Second Empire, and its structures generally look different: I can't quite explain how, but you can see that the Second Empire Al Hayes House is significantly different from the Thomas Sare House one block away. Gables with big windows appear to be rather common, as do big dormers, while the dormers of Second Empire seem to be less of a presence, not quite as important of a factor in the overall appearance. PS, Sluzzelin has a good point: Shingle influences are completely out of place in a Second Empire structure, as the style's popularity collapsed rather suddenly before the rise of the Shingle. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

other proposed Taiwanese flags

Recently, I've searched on Google for a proposed flag of Taiwan. There were several images of others which looked really nice. One in particular stood out. It happened to have a light green background and the "hearts-in-harmony" inside the middle. The original "hearts-in-harmony" was bright red. But there was a suggestion it should be a dark red. I was wondering if any of the other proposed Taiwanese flags could be posted with the coordinating article.158.222.165.116 (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few in relevant Commons categories (commons:Category:Taiwan independence movement, commons:Category:SVG flags of Taiwan), but if they haven't achieved much prominence, or reliable sources aren't available about them, then they probably don't belong on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal voluntary euthanasia and life insurance policies

I was once reading about insurance policies for racehorses. One of the things mentioned is that insurance generally will only pay out for a euthanized racehorse if the insurer-appointed veterinarians agreed beforehand (i.e. before the euthanasia was carried out) that the horse's condition was hopeless and gave the go-ahead. I assume there may be exceptions for "emergency" situations (e.g. a sudden horrific injury), but that's the general rule.

This got me thinking about a rather similar-but-different situation: Voluntary euthanasia on a human being performed in accordance with the law, in a jurisdiction where it's legal.

Pretty much all life insurance policies have exclusion clauses for suicide - sometimes for an initial period, sometimes permanently, I believe. How do such policies treat voluntary euthanasia - the same as any other suicide? Or are there different rules, and if yes, what are they?

(Please note that this is a totally hypothetical question, and I hope it forever stays that way. I don't plan to die anytime soon. :-) )120.144.155.161 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Netherlands is one of the few countries where euthanasia is legal, I'll refer to this website (in Dutch), which is from a Dutch insurance consulting firm. It says that, unlike in cases of suicide, all insurers pay out in cases of euthanasia if conducted after an initial period of two years, and most will even pay out within that two-year period. Do however keep in mind that euthanasia must be approved by a medical panel, and that insurers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of initial medical conditions when it comes to their fees. In order for euthanasia to be approved, medical experts must confirm that the person is suffering unbearably. - Lindert (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This blog from someone in the insurance industry does suggest these issues should be consider, it doesn't mention any particular examples [1]. (It does suggest exclusions have become less common, although I think this may be more in a change away from a permanent exclusion to a defined period one.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Godparent

After reading godparent, I have some questions on how this concept may have worked in practice, especially in unusual circumstances. Traditionally, why were parents replaced by other individuals to serve as godparents? (This may be where the secular definition of the term came about, as the secular definition exclusively refers to other individuals.) Was having a godparent absolutely required at a baby's baptism? What would happen if the parents and godparents died off? Where would the orphaned kid go now? Also, in a situation where the mother and father were both converted Catholics (rather than having a familial network of Catholics), it may not be so easy to find a godparent who must be an observant Catholic, because the parents' friends and relatives are all non-Catholics or non-Christians, and they may not be so intimate with their fellow parishioners to allow them be a godparent. 140.254.136.160 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baptists don't do infant baptism. So, do they eliminate the godparent role too? 140.254.136.160 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The godparent is meant to provide additional support in religious upbringing, and adopt the child if the parents die. The parents providing additional support would be like building a table that has one leg in two different spots (although I'm quote aware it's possible to build a table with a single leg, literally and metaphorically, it requires a slightly different arrangement than a table with four legs). Parents who are capable of adopting their own children aren't dead enough for it to matter yet.

Whether or not godparents would be required for baptism varies from denomination to denomination. Calvinists often allow the parent to be the baptism sponsor (and so would not require a godparent to sponsor the baptism). As I recall from what my parents have told me about my Christening, it was just me, my parents, and the Methodist minister. I still had godparents, who were Catholic.

If the godparents die, the adopted kid would probably go with the godparents' kids (if any) to those kids godparents. If not, they would (as in the rest of human history and society) go with some other relatives of their birth parents.

Baptists don't have godparents as sponsors of any sort of baptism, but they are free to have (or not have) godparents any of the other roles godparents might serve. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the bit about "adopt the child if the parents die" is a sort of folk custom added on to the actual religious requirements, at least in the Church of England. The Book of Common Prayer, also used by Methodists, only requires that godparents "...promise by you that are his sureties, (until he come of age to take it upon himself,) that he will renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy Word, and obediently keep his commandments".[2] It is a purely religious commitment, to support the child in his or her spiritual development. As a practical matter, if both parents die (as I understand it), the custody of the child would be decided by the contents of the parents will, which may be a relative, godparent, friend or whatever. If there was nobody specified, a court would have to decide; I can't see that being a godparent would carry particular weight in law. Some less-than-reliable references are here, here and here. Alansplodge (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CoE specifically notes the difference between a legal guardian and god parent [3]. (Actually plenty of other Anglican websites say something similar [4].) And these also not very RS sources (one from a Catholic POV) note additional problems with the god parent/guardian thing in modern times. [5] [6] [7] Beyond often carrying little legal weight nowadays it has other problems including that courts will often try and keep siblings together and of course there will generally only be either a couple in a relationship or an individual as guardian. Yet siblings will often have different god parents and the god parents will often not be married to each other, so there will be multiple choices (I guess not necessarily a bad thing as one may not be able or willing to be guardian, but there's no order for the court to decide which one if multiple are willing). It's generally suggested people who will be legal guardians in the event of death be properly named in the parent's will [8] [9] and of course speak to the people first and make sure they are happy with the arrangement. Of course the courts will still consider the best interest of the children, but it's likely to carry much more weight than god parents. And perhaps just as importantly, unless it was made clear to the god parents this was an expectation (that they be the legal guardian if needed), I think many won't expect it even if it was the tradition in some places. (Of course some may be confused in various ways e.g. [10] and the god parent could also be named in the will as legal guardian if everyone is happy with this arrangement.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the converted thing is as much as a problem as you seem to think it would be. Firstly particularly in older times with smaller communities, no internet etc, which you seem to be referring to, it's likely there would often be a resonable level of community involvement in the church/parish. I would suggest this would be particularly so for converts who would we presume be trying to embrace their new found faith. In the particular case of the Catholic church, I think it would be difficult to get through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults without getting to know other Catholics who could be a god parent (remembering you only need one per child), I suspect even if you're shy or avoid it, it will be sort of forced upon you in most circumstances and if you really completely refuse and have no good reason, there may be doubt that you're ready to become Catholic. So even in modern times, I'm not sure it's likely to be that difficult. If the parents really can't find anyone, the parish priest or someone else may introduce the parents to people perhaps as part of encouraging greater involvement in the parish. (An exception may be in places were Catholics were or are persecuted, I imagine there may sometimes be lower levels of community/parish involvement out of fear. Although there could also be higher levels.) Note also depending on the country, upbringing including schooling and person, whether someone is a convert may have limited influence on whether they have many Catholic friends. For example, in a place like Paraguay, it would seem difficult to not have any Catholic friends, convert or not. Nil Einne (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how traditional practices, that a god-parent would assume the role of parent if the child should be orphaned, would be described as folk beliefs. That's recentism. It is modern custody laws that have interfered with the older long-standing practices. One might as well argue that before the dole, widows and children simply starved to death, ignoring the charity of the community, church, and wider family. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But do you have any real evidence that the god parent is as traditional as you claim?

I had a look when first replying and although it was clear that that was a role sometimes played at a time in some places, I couldn't find much discussion of the practice such as its history or even how wide spready it was. It would hardly surprise me if the practice was actually a much later addition to the role of the god parent and perhaps only in some cultures.

The OP who I believe is an immigrant to the US is probably aware as I'm sure are other people in this discussion even if not you, that there are plenty of cultures without god-parents where orphans will often be taken care of by someone, perhaps a relative (although of course in practice it varied a lot from culture to culture as well as from case to case and social class to social class). There's no particular reason why this is a role a god parent has to play.

The roles themselves could easily come in to conflict. For example, particularly nowadays with parents often being older, it would hardly be surprising or unusual if older parents chose god parents who are closer in age to their child (the minimum age for a god parent in the Catholic church is generally 16 nowadays [11]) out of the belief they may be able to connect in ways to the child that may be difficult for someone with a larger age difference when they have religious difficulties, yet such a person may not make a good guardian/substitute parent. (To put it a different way, most would accept there's a big gulf between being partially responsible for someone's religious upbring, and their general upbringing.)

Beyond the obvious wording from the churches of the function of the role, the Catholic church for example clearly considers that such sponsors have a role to fill hence why they also allow sponsors for confirmation as well as baptism. Even in historic times the age consideration could still be an issue, and the earlier forum post illustrates 16 years is probably a more recent thing (even if it's also true it would be a lot more common for someone even younger than 16 to be the sole or co-sole parents to a child).

Another example would be that depending on the culture, it may be considered more appropriate for relatives to raise the orphan child. Yet if they were of different faith, they can't be a god parent under many traditions. The parents may still hope the child is raised under their religion. Again, depending on the people and culture involved, this could easily still happen. In fact presuming there aren't geographical issues, the god parent could play a role here, if for example the guardian/adoptive parent is fine with the child being raised under the parents religion but won't or can't (perhaps because they have to use the time to attend their own church) take the child themselves to church.

The modern ideals doesn't stop someone naming a person they would wish to raise their child in the event of untimely death, it just seperates the roles. (It also recognises that children aren't property, so it's best to consider what in their best interest rather than simply always going by what the parents want.) I also suspect based on anecdotal evidence (personal experience as well as the earlier forum post for example), that the idea of god parents becoming guardians/adoptive parents of orphans largely died out long before we had anything close to modern custody laws.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK Fraud Investigation

In the UK, what is the difference in the remit between the police and the Serious Fraud Office, in terms of investigating fraud? Does one have more powers than the other? Does more investigate more complex cases than the other? Does the SFO only investigate particular types / areas of fraud? Thanks. asyndeton talk 18:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please can any comparisons in remits also discuss the National Crime Agency? Thanks. asyndeton talk 18:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure that they rub along somehow, but I can't find an easy answer. The City of London Police have traditionally been the national lead police force in fraud investigation. They operate the City of London Police Economic Crime Directorate and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau; one of their senior officers is the ACPO National Coordinator for Economic Crime. The National Crime Agency also operates the Economic Crime Command. I'm more puzzled now than when I started. Alansplodge (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book recommendations for Roman Republican history

I've recently enjoyed reading Tom Holland's book Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic, which was a very entertaining read, and managed to illuminate both the social trends of the period and the personalities involved. Can anyone recommend any books that deal with the earlier periods of the Roman Republic in a similar way? I appreciate that the sources for late Republic are probably unique for including things like Cicero's letters, which really bring the period to life, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Any suggestions? --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual stew vs pottage

Perpetual stew vs. pottage. What's the difference, if any? -Modocc (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you will get any clear answer. In culinary terms a thin gruel could be called pottage by people living in a different location and what is exactly is a proper stew. In olden times it was more economical in terms of firewood to keep a pot with anything left over from the last meal and add more to it for the next. If one added grain, it had to be boiled to enable the enzyme action to make it sweet, yet any meat, had to be added early so that it slowly warmed and became tender. Perpetual stew, pottage, gruel and porridge, in actuality, probable blended in and out of each other, since the ingredients depended on what was available at that time of year and how much liquid was added that particular day. And who wants to eat exactly the same thing everyday. So, in answer to your question: I don't see any clear demarcation line between any.--Aspro (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The perpetual stew article is sourced, but didn't mention pottage until I added a see also link, and the pottage article is unsourced and claims that pottage originates in Great Britain [12]. Seems dubious, but maybe there is a source for that if that was due to the nature of local cuisine? Or perhaps these are synonyms or near-synonyms, which seems likely, such that the articles are redundant and need merging. I just don't know, which is why I ask. -Modocc (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. These articles grind with me also. Pottage (as I understand it) is more of soup and a stew does not have added liquid (as in Lancashire hotpot) & gives rise to the saying or idiom to Stew in your own juice. The noun potage may have been brought to Britain by the Normans. Feel free to update these articles. There must be some books on Google books that give good refrences.--Aspro (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've literally never heard of "pottage" except in the "mess of pottage" context. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do/did the cooks prevent spoilage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep boiling it to kill any microbes. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say about $7-8 in an snooty restaurant. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked as a cook, I know that a pot that's been brought to a boil, has a good seal, and is not opened while it is not boiling, will not spoil unless the seal is broken without reboiling. We'd normally prep soup and rice this way, checking it while it's cooking, but not taking the lid off after it had been left to boil a little more, until it was ready to serve or portion. It frustrates me to no end that certain people will make enough soup for three days, have it boiling on the stove, and then turn the fire off and take the lid off, because "it has to cool down before you put it in the fridge" (when it reaches room temperature) so that it won't spoil. Such people have a magical view of kitchen hygiene, one that does far more harm than just leaving the soup untouched. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I also mention the Pottage vs Potage issue? Alansplodge (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]