Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 June 2

Humanities desk
< June 1	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 3 >

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.

June 2

On shadow cabinets

The shadow cabinet is formed from members of the Opposition-so what happens in the event that the government wins such a crushing election victory that are insufficient MPs to actually form a shadow cabinet?Do those few who are left double up roles-or does the government just continue without any shadow cabinet at all? Lemon martini (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If they are few and far between, the remaining members of the opposition party assume a number of different portfolios each; minor portfolios may not have an assigned critic. Below a certain number of members, however, it becomes preposterous to call it a "cabinet", as you couldn't form a cabinet with four or five members only. It's a more useful expression when, as you state, there is a significant number of opposition MPs and some have more responsibilities than others. --Xuxl (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Has that ever happened ever? In Westminster system countries, 2-3 parties are favored by the way the system is set up, so you get the possibility of a single party which controls the majority of the legislature, but I don't know that it has ever happened where the government has controlled such a huge majority of seats as to render the opposition irrelevant. In other parliamentary systems, true majority governments are rare; most governments form via negotiated coalitions; the parties in the government coalition rarely control such a huge majority in the legislature as to render the other parties inconsequential either. Also of note, even in Westminster system countries, cabinet positions are not required to be held by MPs. In the UK, for example, the current Minister of State of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Joyce Anelay, Baroness Anelay of St John's, is not an elected member of Commons. --Jayron32 14:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It has happened in British Columbia. With only 2 sitting members opposed to the government, there was no official opposition. Mingmingla (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

B.C. isn't the only Canadian province to have had that sort of result. Here's one from Alberta. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

OP, re "... or does the government just continue without any shadow cabinet at all?": the government doesn't need any organised opposition in order to function. Governments have traditionally treated oppositions with ill-disguised contempt, except when it's not in their political interests to do so. The legislature, on the other hand, could easily become a rubber stamp/joke, unless the government continued to treat it with respect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Earliest known real (i.e. not legendary) people?

Has anyone ever seen a list of (say) the 100 (or 500 or 1000) earliest known humans for whom we have enough historical data to make it likely that they were real people, not legendary characters? For example, probably among the earliest, the following three pre-dynastic Egyptian kings King Narmer, King Scorpion, King Ka, or (among the earliest non-kingly characters) Imhotep, Hesy-Ra, Merit-Ptah. I don't mean to start a discussion regarding the possible actual contents of such a list (these were just examples) and of course they do not necessarily start in Egypt (I could have just as well picked my examples in Sumer). I'm simply asking whether such a list exists and/or is feasible. Incidentally I don't think we have such a list at WP (despite the famous claim), but this is not the place for suggesting the creation of a WP article. Contact Basemetal here 16:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, the earliest humans for which we have names are the Sumerian King List, the earliest objects to be inscribed with the lists are themselves 4000 years old. Many of the early names on the list have not been documented by other methods, but some have, the oldest of which is Enmebaragesi, who probably lived 4500-4600 years ago. I'm not aware of any other person for whom we can confirm their name or actions as individuals from much earlier than that. --Jayron32 17:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

According to our own articles King Narmer dates from between 5000 and 5400 years ago (see also Narmer Palette). Contact Basemetal here 17:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the Egyptologists aren't talking to the Sumerologists; the History of Sumer notes Enmebaragesi as the first archeologically attested ruler. --Jayron32 17:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Or the other way round. Assyriologists got a headstart, public relations-wise ("History Begins at Sumer" and all that) but that's no reason not to pick up the phone Contact Basemetal here 18:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

According to another article, Iry-Hor pre-dates Narmer and "is the earliest ruler of Egypt known by name and possibly the earliest historical person known by name." Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes (I was adding precisely this when I got an edit conflict with Ghmyrtle) possibly great-grandfather to king Narmer, so even earlier. There was some controversy as to his historicity but that seems to have been resolved. You can read all about it in the article. At least you've got to admit Sumerian names don't exactly roll off the tongue. Contact Basemetal here 19:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We had this question in 2008 (and that discussion links to one from 2006 - and I'm sure it has been discussed between 2008 and now but I can't find it). There are some more suggestions there (but ignore mine, Otzi the Iceman is not historically attested obviously...I guess I just like saying "Otzi"). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that, technically, my question was about the existence of a list of such people. It's Jayron who turned it into a question about the first one. Clearly, as the first item on any such list, that guy would be a start. But I was naively hoping for a list of a 100 (or 500? or 1000?) of them. Another reasonable (?) way to limit the scope of such a list would be to make it a "Chronological list of historical figures from before 2000 BC" (for example). After that such a list could become rather unwieldy. Contact Basemetal here 01:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the earliest names are often ascribed a mix of possibly real and supernatural attributes. For example, Enmebaragesi, listed above, was described as living 900 years. So, who is real and who isn't is very difficult to determine. Even multiple sources isn't definitive, since some may just have copied the others. So, I'd think your list would need to have a confidence level listed for each name. The list of Japanese emperors is one example, where the latest ones clearly are real, and the earliest are clearly fictionalized (although possible based on real people), but where the line is drawn is open to debate. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I am abit dubious about the tendancy to declare legendary or barely-attested characters to be "not real" on the grounds that people have ascribed supernatural or implausible attributes to them. There are people alive today who have supernatural or implausible attributes ascribed to them - sometimes jokingly, sometimes due to fraud, and sometimes due to honest mistakes. (And to my mind, a great many legends do look like the ancient equivilent of Chuck Norris facts, e.g. Roland (who apparently probably was a real person) destroying a part of a cliff while trying to break his sword). Iapetus (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The real-life giant from Game of Thrones (and actual Iceland) broke a tree-carrying record that had stood for an alleged thousand years (without breaking his back like the legendary guy) and deadlifted almost a thousand pounds. He'll go down in history, where newer people will call bullshit on his tales, and not just because they're from Bleacher Report and Gawker. The same will happen to the other four real Avengers. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Euhemerism can be applied to actual people, or people who never existed. It's distinguishing the two that's the hard part :) - Nunh-huh 11:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Mother's surname

If you're British and 15 years old, but dislike your father's surname and prefer to use your mother's surname, would that surname be allowed/issued by the HM Passport Office? 84.13.60.245 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You should really ask HMPO, contact details are here. Please note that it is the parent who would apply. I would imagine that the only name a child could have on a passport is either that from the full birth certificate, a deed of change of name or a statutory declaration as the parent will have to submit evidence of the child's true identity on application. Nanonic (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice, but according to this website, you must first legally change your name before you can use your new name on a passport, and you must be over 18 to legally change your name on your own. For people under 18 this website discusses the procedures for a legal name change. If you have any further questions, you will need to consult with an attorney. Marco polo (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Whilst we can't offer legal advise, I'd like to point out that deed-polls are not required under Scots law; you just have to write to all interested parties and inform them of your new name, and cease to use your old one. Also in Scotland the Age of Majority, where you can make such decisions for yourself, is 16 not 18, as in England and Wales. LongHairedFop (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Here gives the documents required to effect a change of name at the passport office. As well as a deed poll, a statutory declaration (signed by an appropriate person, e.g. a notary) or an affidavit can be used. This PDF (linked from the above) says that a statutory declaration is acceptable for change of name, but not for new applications. The example affidavit given is for the case of marriage, but I'm not sure whether that is intentionally limiting or not. MChesterMC (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

US old-people's prison

In the UK, the number of elderly people in prison is apparently more than it used to be; this article says "cold-case" DNA evidence is partially responsible. Obviously housing elderly prisoners imposes different challenges than the young-to-middle-aged people who form the majority of the prison population. This says that a wing in HM Prison Wymott houses many of these "old lags". Does the US Federal prison system similarly have facility designated for, or becoming the norm for, housing elderly prisoners? 146.90.127.87 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any, but we do have minimum security prisons, which might be appropriate, considering grandpa probably won't get very far with his walker, if he tries to "run". :-) Here "life imprisonment without the possibility of parole" sentences lead to the elderly in prison. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They just announced that a murderer had been sentenced to life without parole, plus 23-47 years. I am curious what the mechanics of that will be. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of accommodation, or administration, some of those are explored in the Ross–Littlewood paradox --Askedonty (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Life without the possibility of parole" allows for the possibility of amnesty, commution and reprieve, all of which allow a murderer to roam the streets for brains, but without requiring he first rise (or stir) from the dead. If this murder conviction is anyhow scrapped tomorrow, buddy would still have 23-47 to go on the three other things. In the unlikely case that he dies before that time is up and returns, prosecutors wouldn't have precedent, but a solid leg to stand on in reshackling his shambling corpse. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Mostly though, it's about having a sentence for each count's conviction, so that justice is formally served, regardless of what happens next. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

For commentary on this, see page 48 onwards of this 2012 report from Human Rights Watch. Nanonic (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)