Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 April 3

= April 3 =

Why is there no Ferdinand II of Castile?
My question here has attracted no responses in 18 months. Why is there no Ferdinand II of Castile, when there's a Ferdinand I of Castile and a Ferdinand III of Castile?

Ferdinand II of León did occupy Castile but never became King of Castile. It wasn't till 40 years after his death that his grandson Ferdinand III of Castile united Castile with León. I'm thinking that since there had already been a Ferdinand II of León, it would have been crazy to call a later king of that country "Ferdinand II". But that later king, Ferdinand III, came to the throne of Castile in 1217, thirteen years before its unification with León. So I'm still unclear why he was not named Ferdinand II of Castile at that time.

It's complicated by the fact that Ferdinand I of Castile was actually "Ferdinand I of León and Castile", so there seems to have been a splitting up of that united kingdom before its reunification in 1230, and maybe that played a large part in the regnal numbers of the relevant monarchs around that time. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Ferdinand I gets his regnal number from Leon rather than Castille. Consider List of Castilian counts.  There are two Ferdinands on that list, making Ferdinand III of Castile the third person to reign in Castille first under the name Ferdinand.  Just speculation.  Also is the real situation that sometimes, regnal numbers got screwed up in the past because sometimes people weren't so good at history.  Consider the problem of the Charleses of Sweden.  Charles VIII of Sweden was the second such named monarch to rule Sweden.  There were no Charles II-VII.  There was also no Pope John XVI.  He was an antipope that later historians mistakenly included in the official lists, by the time it was corrected it was too late and the Popes John are thus misnumbered as well.  So, "they just screwed up" is an entirely plausible explanation.-- Jayron 32 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just so. But I can't be the first person to have ever questioned this discontinuity, and there must be a full explanation of it somewhere.  My googling has produced nothing of value.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This site claims Ferdinand II was Ferdinand III (in the sense that the biographical info they give there is for the person who Wikipedia calls Ferdinand III, but they call Ferdinand II). this site does the same.  This site calls Ferdinand I as Ferdinand II.  None of those is strictly reliable sources, but it shows the problem with researching this stuff.  Undoubtedly, there's some historian somewhere who specializes in medieval petty Iberian kingdoms.  His books are moldering on a shelf at some university library.  -- Jayron 32 01:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there are lots, and it's a very vibrant field, for sufficient definitions of "vibrant". That's not my particular area but it seems to me that you've already figured out the answer - Ferdinand III considered his grandfather to be Ferdinand II even if he didn't really rule Castile. Or, maybe some later historian messed it up and the numbering stuck, since medieval monarchs did not always use regnal numbers themselves. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jayron's suspicion seems likely, since there were Ferdinands I & III of Leon and Castile, but only Ferdinand II of León. We think of Castile as the majority of Spain, but consider the map.

Thanks for that. I wish I could find a genealogical map showing the complex interconnections between all the monarchs of all the places that are now part of Spain. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Retention of Flag after Restoration
Why did France retain its tri-colour flag after Napoleon was exiled and the monarchy restored? 130.195.253.36 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It didn't. See Flag of France.  From 1815-1830, France reverted to a form of the Fleur-de-Lys flag with white field.  The Tricolore was restored with Louis Philippe, the "Citizen King", who presides over a rather liberal monarchy himself.  But during the original Bourbon Restoration, France did not use the Revolutionary Tricolore.  -- Jayron 32 01:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometime back in the Wikipedia Elder Days, the Ref Desk was set up to help people write new articles.
 * And sometimes it still helps people to write new articles.
 * Flag of France -> Napoleon III -> Louis-Charles Boileau
 * Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

,, , The tri-colour flag was introduced during the French Revolution in 1790. Initially, France retained the royal white flag with the gold fleurs-de-lis after Napoleon’s defeat and exile in 1814. The tri-colour flag was banned in 1815, but was eventually restored in 1830 at City Hall in Paris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philley-skeePhilley-skee (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and the cross (or in their case, the stake)
Four years ago, I asked a question on whether or not there are any known modern Christian denominations that believe that Jesus was executed using a stake rather than a cross (long story short: apparently only Jehovah's Witnesses do, at least in modern times; another question I asked the following year, as well as the article Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, mentioned that some scholars hypothesized that Jesus was executed on a stake rather than on the cross, although it is interesting to note that none of the scholars mentioned in the article are from before the late 19th century). While re-reading the latter article, I wondered: why do the Witnesses continue to believe in the doctrine that Jesus was not crucified, but rather executed on a stake, when the vast majority of early Christian writers (including the earliest ones) wrote that the execution instrument had a crossbeam? In fact, the article states that "Christians of the first centuries are unanimous in describing the particular structure on which Jesus died as having a transom, not as a simple upright." (This statement does not have a citation; however, it is implied by the succeeding paragraphs, all of which have citations. A similar statement in the section Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion also has a citation) I'm aware that the reason why the Witnesses hold to their doctrine is because the Greek word used in the Bible, "stauros", does not necessarily mean a cross, but how come they still hold to said doctrine when the vast majority of non-Witnesses scholars and writings have debated the Witnesses' interpretation? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the absence of a real answer from Wavelength (or otherwise), the reason is that this is simply a way to differentiate themselves from other denominations. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, but no one else believes it, so they do. They're trolling us, basically. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure trolling is the appropriate term; social groups, including religious ones, have a need to differentiate themselves. It's been suggested by more educated people than me that keeping kosher is a similar situation. Considering some of the other ways groups have chosen to differentiate themselves throughout history, this one seems pretty innocuous. Matt Deres (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The JW's, like any number of other groups, tend to follow the tradition of their leaders, until and unless some more recent leader says something different. And you can generally see why. One of the reasons, of course, is if a comparatively newer group says one of the things which they have held for years based on the statements of an early leader is wrong, it raises unfortunate questions about whether anything else that leader or those leaders may have been similarly wrong, and thinking along those lines generally leads to schisms, which most groups try to avoid.
 * Also, as there exists no real hard evidence to the contrary, it can be argued that all such views are equally unprovable, and there no particularly definite reason to have to change. This is kind of like the reason for the Catholic Church questioning Galileo, where the response of the church wasn't actually "you're wrong, because the Bible says different," although a lot of pop culture portrays it that way, but something more like, "Look, we've believed something different for centuries. You might be right, and we have to say you've got some interesting indicators that you might be right and the historical view wrong, but we're going to need a bit more real evidence that your newish opinion is right and the old historical view wrong." The JW's have held to the stake idea for about a century, and, in the intervening century, we haven't seen any new evidence which really indicates that the original belief is wrong. So, they haven't seen a real strong reason to have to change. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that only a few would find the road to life. (Matthew 7:13, 14)  He said that not everyone calling him "Lord" would enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. (Matthew 7:21–23)  Jehovah's Witnesses have published the article "Completely Equipped as Teachers of God’s Word" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002125.  They have published the article "Cross" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989219.  We could also ask why the vast majority of non-Witness scholars and writings on the subject continue to refer to the instrument of Jesus' execution as a cross, even though Jehovah's Witnesses have taught that it was a simple upright stake.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Jehovah's Witness article is interesting, but they do not address the fact that the Latin crux comes from a root meaning "to turn", that the fifth century Greek [Herodotus]] mentions crucifixion with hands and feet spread, mostly by non-Greeks, and they do not tell us of a first-century Greek word besides stauros which refers exclusively to execution on a cross as opposed to a stake. The JW argument seems motivated by fears of paganism and idolatry more than the implicit notion that the Greeks would have used another term if they meant a steak with a crossbeam. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

General Election - Voting
My constituency is a safe seat with a Labour majority. I will be voting Conservative which therefore is in essence a wasted vote. Would it not be better to have two votes? One for your local MP and one for who runs the country? For example, a nation vote result might come in at 14m Tory votes, 12m Labour votes, 4m Lib Dem votes etc. That way your vote always counts. Of course, a possible problem could be a government elected with more total votes but less seats than another party and therefore less representation and harder to push through legislastion. However, I also think that Labour might offer the local solutions I want but not the national solutions, again meaning two votes could represent my wishes better. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.254.188 (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry: it says at the top, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.", which your question seems squarely to be. We can point you at the article voting system, but not answer your question. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the UK, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party who won most of the votes, is a MP (previously could be a Lord), and s/he will appoint his/her Cabinet. All members of the Cabinet must be MPs or Lords. In most of Europe a similar system applies, except that the is some PR system to pick the MPs. In the US, the President is elected separately, appoints his own Cabinet, the members need not be Senators nor Representatives. In the US deadlock can (and often does) occur if the the President is from one Party, and the other Party controls both houses. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the UK, there are no written rules over who can be PM. For practical purposes, they would be both an MP and the leader of the majority party in Commons, but there's no rules to say that it must be that person.  Additionally, there are no rules over who can serve in the Cabinet.  Again, for practical purposes, they would be in Parliament in some way.  But there's no rules requiring it.  -- Jayron 32 00:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Small correction: members of the US Cabinet must not (rather than "need not") be legislators: "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office" (Article I section 6). —Tamfang (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We had an opportunity to make a modest change to the so-called "first past the post" system in 2011, but the proposal was rejected by a substantial majority of those voting. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

---But the places where clever people live (Oxford, Cambridge, the parts of London with lots of students from the best London universities) all voted to change the system. Once people get better educated they prefer the Alternative Vote system!


 * Is it really true that the prime minister in the UK is the leader of the party that won "most of the votes"? I thought that the prime minister was normally the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament, though if no party has a majority in Parliament, conceivably the PM could be the leader of a minority party who has managed to cobble together a coalition of smaller parties that does form a majority.  Because of the way in which constituencies are formed, I believe it is possible for a party that came in second in total number of votes to win the largest number of seats in Parliament.  Since Labour's voters tend to be concentrated in Labour-majority constituencies, and Conservative voters are more likely to be scattered across constituencies where their votes will be "wasted", as the OP says, I believe it is possible that the Conservative Party could get the highest vote total while Labour could win more seats. In that case, there could be a Labour MP even though the Conservatives won more votes. Since I'm not British, I may be incorrect, so please correct me. Marco polo (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your understand is correct. LongHairedFop's claim isn't. In practice, you generally require a fairly high degree of gerry mandering or a fairly unusual situation for the party who got the most votes to not also have the most seats. This happened in the Malaysian general election, 2013 for example but I don't think it's very common in the UK. The effects of a lack of proportionality show up more in other areas. Note also that even in countries like NZ and Germany which use Mixed-member proportional representation so generally have a fairly high proportionality between votes and seats, there's no guarantee the party who got the most votes/seats will have their leader as Prime Minister. A Prime Minister ultimately needs to be able to win confidence and supply votes, so if their party doesn't have a majority, then it's not always clear that the leader of the party who got the most votes will. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake, of course I meant Seats, rather than Votes. LongHairedFop (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The last time it happened in the UK was in 1951; Churchill's Conservative party had a majority of seats, but Attlee's Labour party had the majority of the popular vote (48.0% to Churchill, 48.8% to Attlee). The last time the government party had an absolute majority (55%) of the popular vote was in 1931. Tevildo (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the United Kingdom general election, February 1974 in which "Labour won the most seats (301, which was 17 seats short of an overall majority) with the Conservatives on 297 seats, although the Conservatives had a larger share of the popular vote". Alansplodge (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. One thing the example does show, when there isn't excessive gerry mandering and a very odd situation, under FPTP I think this party getting the most votes not getting the majority of seats mostly happens when both are very close. For this reason, I think in practice the party who got the most votes may actually be more likely to form the government than in a country with a more proportional system, particularly for a system with very high proportionality and where there's acceptance of smaller parties and the idea that the party who got the most votes doesn't have to be the one to form the government. When the votes aren't close, they will normally get the majority of seats so can form the government, even if they may not really have anything close to majority support and the majority may prefer someone else. Or in other words, the difference is in countries with a fairly high proportionality, the government should hopefully have whatever degree of support necessary (this may not be completely support i.e. a coalition) from the combination of parties that got the most votes (hopefully a majority of votes). The other thing is that it's difficult to have a situation where a party received a majority but can't form the government or other egreious examples of the proportionality seriously being out of wack. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (EC) Some of the effects that you see more often from FPTP are depressed voter turnout in safe seats, a lack of interest in them, problems for smaller parties who have a fair amount of national interest but insufficient concentrated interest, a good majority for a party who's share of the popular vote isn't that much higher than the next party etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Some countries use proportional representation which has strengths and weaknesses like any other system, as described in the article. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Our system is not parliamentary, but both of Bill Clinton's elections were by plurality, 43% & 49%, and G W Bush received a minority of 48% in his first election, but still won. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To expand on that, note that Bush's 2000 victory was much more comparable to the original question than either of Clinton's victories, because Bush received fewer popular votes than the other main candidate, Al Gore. Conversely, Clinton both times faced two challengers with widespread support, and while they kept him from winning an outright majority of popular votes, he still beat each of them handily.  Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviations in Latin missal
Whom do "V" and "R" represent in this portion of a 1962 missal? As far as I can tell, the website doesn't explain if they're priest and people, priest and deacon, or something else. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Versicle and Response. Tevildo (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Rhetorical Analysis/ Criticism Applicable to Social Science Research?
There are some scholarly websites that count rhetorical analysis as a research method, but there's quite a few literature discussing how rhetorical analysis should be used in an actual research. So I'm wondering if rhetorical analysis has been used as method in any published research.49.144.142.130 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this relates to your Q, but: It seems to me that any social research should be a 2-step process. Say we establish some fact by using data, such that those living in inner city areas do worse in education.  We then need to theorize as to why that might be, and then test that theory.  For example, one theory might be "Inner city youth have lower educational outcomes because their perception of the potential earning value of that education is lower than the reality".  We could then do surveys to establish their expectations, and compare that with their actual earning potential, to test that theory. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Rhetorical analysis is certainly a widely used research method in the humanities, much less so in the social sciences. Certainly it would be possible to analyze social science texts from a literary or semiotic perspective focusing on the rhetoric used in such texts.  Certainly a great deal of research along these lines has been published.  See the publications listed here, for example.  Rhetorical analysis could possibly be used as a method in social science itself, though, as StuRat's comment suggests, rhetorical analysis by itself would not be enough to count as social science research.  Social science research, as it is usually defined, aims to test hypotheses about the social world.  One way to test certain hypotheses might be to conduct rhetorical analysis of various discourses to determine their implications about the social world.  In the context of assessing a hypothesis or claim about the social world, rhetorical analysis could be part of social science research. This search turns up a number of published social science findings that seem to use rhetorical analysis as a method.  Marco polo (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Costa Concordia and Germanwings disaster insurance
Given that both of the above disasters were caused by the Captain and co-pilot respectively, what liability, if any, will be accepted by the relative insurers? Apart from the terrible loss of life in both incidents, the ship and plane were total losses with enormous search, rescue and salvage costs involved, together with already paid compensation and future compensation claims to be met. I cannot believe that any insurer would include acceptance of such liabilities when the cause(s) were the companies' own officers. Thanks 92.239.221.31 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why insurance wouldn't cover incompetence. After all, almost all incidents are caused by human error or intent, in one form or another (including design and maintenance problems).  As for intentional disasters, there it would depend on who caused it.  As long as it's not the people who took out the insurance that caused the incident, then I don't see any issue with that, either.  (The normal issue with intentional incidents is that they might have been done to collect the insurance and make a profit, but I don't see either company making a profit here, when you account for loss of passengers who distrust them after.)  StuRat (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Depends upon the policy and prevalent law. Here is a source discussing the issue, and why in US companies are in general prevented from taking out insurance protecting themselves for liability caused by an employees deliberate act. See also the Intentional Acts exclusion in Nationwide's General Liability Insurance. Of course, airlines don't sign up for such cookie-cutter policies and certain internationl agreements cover the area, so the principles may or may not apply. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Former New Jersey Supreme Court justice, Andrew Napolitano, comments on the liability of Lufthansa here (skip the interviewer's intro, and go directly to 1:25 in the video). This article points out some of the complexities of insurance payout in the 9/11 attacks. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The International Underwriting Association of London (IUA) publishes the text of their standard aviation policy on their website (click on AVN 1C - it opens as a Word Doc). In SECTION IV (A) GENERAL EXCLUSIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL SECTIONS, "This Policy does not apply:- 10.	To claims caused by... (e) Any malicious act or act of sabotage.... (g)	Hi-jacking or any unlawful seizure or wrongful exercise of control of the Aircraft or crew in Flight (including any attempt at such seizure or control) made by any person or persons on board the Aircraft acting without the consent of the Insured". Although the Germanwings aircraft may not have been insured in London, it was almost certainly reinsured there.  Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

''
 * It's by no means certain (this being a legal matter, after all) that the co-pilot's actions were "malicious" (as he was, according to the records, mentally unstable), or that he was acting "without the consent of the Insured" (as he was still their employee - see vicarious liability). I'm sure that many lawyers are going to make a lot of money during the determination of this issue. Tevildo (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Too true. Alansplodge (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The killer reportedly said, ‘One day I’m going to do something that will change the whole system, and everyone will know my name and remember it.’ He also did searches on methods of suicide and the mechanism of cockpit doors.  This was deliberate and premeditated and he knew it was wrong.  The company also lied (see video above) saying at first they had no knowledge of any mental issues, then clarifying that they were indeed aware of his past treatment. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe that source does have something useful, but I gave up after the stupid reporter wasted the first 1:30 minutes in a dumb mock outrage commentary on the difference between clarification and new information. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, I will see if I can just find the judge. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no shorter clip of Napolitano after Lufthansa changed its story, so I do recommend the clip, just starting at 1 min 25 sec. His points are relevant, cogent, and no where near as rabid as the host's. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In thanking every respondent to my O P, I must confess how surprised I am to note that most of the responses, though not all, relate to the Germanwings Air Disaster which must surely by now be accepted to be a Murder/Suicide, whereas I can see few, if any, responses concerning the Costa Concordia disaster which has resulted in the conviction and sentencing of ex-Captain Schettino. So my original question still applies, ie, what liability will their Insurers be likely to bear? OK, I know this could be discarded as a legal question but I am not asking for the eventual legal settlement; that would be grossly stupid; I am only asking how an Insurance Company might view it's responsibilities when a disaster is caused by a causative employee. Again, many thanks. 92.239.221.31 (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See Costa Concordia insured loss rises again, close to $2 billion (July 2014) and The worst may not be over for Costa Concordia underwriters - The criminal conviction of Francesco Schettino for manslaughter could mean more bad news for marine insurers (February 2015). Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

words printed on chicken
Wtf. USDA stamp? Ink transferred by chicken touching a newspaper? Other? Please explain. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks darker than I would expect from transfer. Can you read what it says ?  Even a few letters ?  That might help to identify it.  Show the manager and get another free, I should think.  (Of course, the ink may very well be the healthiest part of that particular meal.) StuRat (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Send help, I'm trapped in a chicken abattoir..." - Nunh-huh 18:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Good one, Nunh-huh! I think it's obvious a strip of paper got into the batter. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes you wonder what other stuff might turn up in their fried chicken. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a transfer; the writing appears to be right-way-around; transfers would normally be mirrored. My guess is that a small piece of paper got stuck on the surface of the chicken, probably while it was brining/marinating, and the deep fryer bonded it together. Matt Deres (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A friend tweeted the original source saying that it was most probably the receipt, she hasn't disagreed with this yet. Nanonic (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)