Humanities desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 7[edit]

Emergency Measures Act used to end labour strike -- how often?[edit]

In New Brunswick, Canada, the provincial government just ended a strike by healthcare workers by ordering them back to work under the Emergency Measures Act. I know that workers are fairly often ordered back to work by back-to-work legislation; that is, a bill introduced in parliament or a legislature which has to be voted on and passed in order to take effect. However, this is different: it's an executive order, no vote. Can someone tell me how unusual this is?

Communpedia Tribal (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the minister responsible for public safety has declared an emergency, they then have the power to issue such orders as deemed necessary to maintain essential services, which during a pandemic can reasonably be interpreted as including medical services. I don't know how usual it is in New Brunswick for healthcare workers to go on strike during a pandemic; if that is not usual, then the use of the Emergency Measures Act to order them back to work is also not usual. --Lambiam 12:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what I'm mainly after here is historical information, not legal philosophy -- 156.57.115.168 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't logged in. I'm hoping somebody can tell me, for example, when the last time an executive order was used this way. Canadian examples would be best, but from other countries OK too. Communpedia Tribal (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer how often this happens, but it happened in Alberta in 2002: Alberta Teachers' Association v Alberta, 2002 ABQB 240 at para 14. I found that case by doing this search. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! This helps. Thanks. -- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Age consent in real life[edit]

This question I am asking just out of curiosity and not going to use in real life
When visiting some sites with adult content sometimes the website has a screen which displays message I am above 18 and willing to watch adult content . . . and then we have to click Agree and continue. But in most adult website this warning message does NOT appear. Instead, website opens directly the videos and a message is present when scroll at bottom By continuing you agree that you are above 18 . . . . . , which means there is no explicit asking of consent. So is this latter situation possible in real life? Say, there is a adventure park which is open to all, but a particular smaller portion of park has some adult activities. So will it be legal if park authorities keep no age verification at entrance of this portion and instead of that place a notice near that entrance like By entering, you agree that you are above 18 and . . . . . . .. If it is found by some government/law officials that someone below 18 entered who will be charged guilty, the park or the person who entered. -- Parnaval (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the situation is obviously possible in real life (though I can't really imagine an adventure park offering "adult activities"). Whether it would be legal depends entirely on local legislation, and we can't offer legal advice or opinions, so I don't think your question is answerable here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Video rental stores, when they still existed, often had adult sections that weren't really blocked off in a way that would keep minors out if they really wanted to get in. What's in the mysterious room with the red light and saloon doors or bead curtains? I certainly couldn't say. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve heard it said that a crackdown on the legal and moral issues surrounding this type of thing was part of the reason they stopped existing. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Video rental stores is the example I thought of as well, since the porno section existed within the store, which matches best with the OP's scenario. In Ontario, at least, there are also broadly similar situations with sex toy shops and a few other restricted businesses, like smoke shops and strip clubs. Admittance to those places is restricted by age and proof of age is required for admittance. Oddly enough, LCBO stores, which sell alcohol, only restrict purchases, not admittance; it was no problem bringing my underage child there, though they did also forbid her from carrying the alcohol. Adventure parks don't generally restrict patrons by age, though many rides are restricted by height and/or weight, usually for safety reasons. I believe some "haunted house" tours are age restricted, though I don't think that's legally mandated, and the "restriction" may be really more of an "enticement". Matt Deres (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By adult activities, I mean erotic/nude photoshoot, swimming, dance etc. I may also contain activities involving excessive blood (Like while completing a particular activity, people are surrounded by dead bodies (fake, obviously)). These all visuals are considerd inappropriate for people under 18. So if a teenager enters even when there was a notice but no verification (As i said in original question), Who will be wrong, per the law in India (or even in any other country, as I am just asking for sake of curiosity). -- Parnaval (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

President of Ecuador in 1875[edit]

Rafael Pólit was President of Ecuador for a short time, ending in 9 December 1875. José Javier Eguiguren was acting President of Ecuador from 6 October 1875 to 9 December 1875. Did Ecuador have two presidents, or were they competing claimants, or something else? I found Pólit with a random search, and Eguiguren appears on the List of presidents of Ecuador. 72.77.42.118 (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This three-month period was following the assassination of President Gabriel Garcia Moreno on August 6, which, according to Encyclopedia Britannica [1] "brought a period of near anarchy." So it's quite possible that it's not clear who was in charge and until when in those months. Note that the Spanish-language wikipedia does not consider Polit as having been President (they give the whole term to Eguiguren), stating that he was simply Minister of Interior and of Foreign Relations during the period. The Enciclopedia del Ecuador [2] seems to confirm this, and I can't find any reliable source in Spanish listing Polit as having been president (only a few secondary ones in English). I don't have access to more in-depth sources that would explain exactly what was going on during that period, however. Xuxl (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1875 García Moreno is elected to a new term but is assassinated on 6 August. Francisco Javier León serves as interim president; later Antonio Borrero is elected president.

Historical Dictionary of Ecuador (p. xxxii) by George M. Lauderbaugh. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garcia Moreno, President of Ecuador, 1821-1875 (p. 317) mentions that "The day after the assassination, Vice-President León consented to remain in power until the election of a fresh President".

We have an article on Francisco León Franco who was "acting President of Ecuador 6 August 1875 to 6 October 1875". No clue as to what happened on 6 October though.

Alansplodge (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recopilación de leyes del Ecuador: Relaciones exteriores, culto y negocios eclesiasticos. (1821-1899) says á 31 de Agosto de 1875... Rafael Pólit . — El Presidente de la Cámara de Diputados. Perhaps there's been a mistranslation somewhere? Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interim presidents Francisco Xavier León ( August 6–October 6) and José Xavier Eguiguren (October 6–December 9) governed until elections were held.

The History of Ecuador (p. 72) by George Lauderbaugh.

Alansplodge (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Rafael Pólit says he was President of the Senate in 1875, a role which is described as "presiding officer of the legislature of Ecuador", in other words, the Speaker. Alansplodge (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leyes y decretos ejecutivos de 1875, Quito, Imprentia del Gobierno 1891 confirms that Pólit was President of the Senate in 1875 until the end of September. In October he becomes now listed as Minister of Interior, and Foreign Relations are implied I think, a bit much like it was stated by Xuxl above . --Askedonty (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did she miss something in this sentence?[edit]

Colin Manlove in an article, ‘In the Demythologising Business’, writes: “The whole book seems to occur on a metaphysical level that puts it beyond ordinary concerns, seems too to be self-contained, a fantasy that explores and is about the making of fantasy itself” (l58). Twentieth-Century Fantasists: Essays on Culture, Society and Belief in Twentieth-Century Mythopoeic Literature. (1992). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Didn't she/the editor miss something after 'too'? --2409:4073:4E9E:F808:D16B:D120:500E:CB8D (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this construction "too" is a synonym for "also", not an intensifier for an omitted adjective. The writer could additionally have inserted "and" before the second "seems" to make the sentence a little more clear, but the parallel "seems" . . . , "seems too/also . . . ." is an acceptable construction.

Who does your "she" refer to? The person referenced appears to be the (male) writer of the essay, Colin Manlove, although the overall volume's editor is Kath Filmer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.185} 90.205.225.31 (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about mistaking his gender. However, evidently, he is saying that the novel is not self-contained? That's how it appeared to me. Am I wrong? --2409:4073:4E9E:F808:D16B:D120:500E:CB8D (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase could be rephrased as "also, it seems to be self-contained". 2603:6081:1C00:1187:4408:191C:CDE5:9ADF (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Too, it’s a strange usage which while admitting that using "too" in this way is not grammatically incorrect, quotes Kingsley Amis in The King's English: A Guide to Modern Usage:

Never begin a fresh sentence with too followed by a comma, to mean something like further or also. Not even Americans should be allowed to get away with that.

BTW, I do know a) that the example quoted by the OP isn't at the start of the sentence, but the usage is similar, and b) that the writer in question is British - I can't think of an excuse for that.

Alansplodge (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He Was a Male War Bride - but how many others were there?[edit]

Apart from Roger Charlier, whose story was dramatised as I Was a Male War Bride, were there many - or any - other male GI brides? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article in the 8 December 1952 Bridgewater NJ Courier-News states Charlier reached America in 1947, so he (probably) wasn't the individual in "the first group of 'War Brides' to arrive in the United States" described in the The National WWII Museum article "Coming To America: The War Brides Act of 1945": "Four hundred fifty-two British women, 173 children, and one bridegroom left Southampton in the south of England on January 26, 1946, and arrived in the United States on February 4, 1946." (bolding mine) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: British Post-War Migration notes "there were "fifty-nine war bridegrooms, that is British-born husbands of female members of the United States Armed Forces" (compared to 37,553 British war brides who emigrated to the US). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idiomatic translation from German to English 11/7[edit]

Hi Folks!! I wonder if anybody is up for doing a translation of the following text. Thanks.

Die Sorge Um Deutschlands Zukunft geht durch das Volk!

Das Gewissen aller wahren Patrioten aber bäumt sich auf gegen die ganze derzeitige Form deutscher Machtausübung in Europa. Alle, die sich den Sinn für echte Werte bewahrten, sehen schaudernd, wie der deutsche Name im Zeichen des Hakenkreuzes immer mehr in Verruf gerät. In allen Ländern werden heute täglich Hunderte, oft Tausende von Menschen standrechtlich und willkürlich erschossen oder gehenkt, Menschen, denen man nichts anderes vorzuwerfen hat, als daß sie ihrem Land die Treue halten […] Im Namen des Reiches werden die scheußlichsten Quälereien und Grausamkeiten an Zivilpersonen und Gefangenen begangen. Noch nie in der Geschichte ist ein Mann so gehaßt worden wie Adolf Hitler. Der Haß der gequälten Menschheit belastet das ganze deutsche Volk

scope_creep^Talk 22:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to save a bit of trouble, here's a Google translation that might be used as a starting point, if it aids translation:

The people are concerned about Germany's future!
But the conscience of all true patriots rebels against the whole current form of German exercise of power in Europe. Anyone who has retained a sense of genuine values see with a shudder how the German name under the swastika is falling into disrepute. In all countries today hundreds, often thousands, of people are shot or hanged arbitrarily and according to the law, people who can be reproached for nothing other than that they are loyal to their country [...] In the name of the empire the most hideous tortures and atrocities are perpetrated Committed civilians and prisoners. Never in history has a man been so hated as Adolf Hitler. The hatred of tortured humanity burdens the entire German people

—96.8.24.95 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty fair translation, but "arbitrarily and according to the law" is wrong; it should be "arbitrarily, without due process" (literally: "summarily and arbitrarily"). Also wrong, grammatically, "perpetrated Committed". The opening line is translated too statically. In the context "accused of" is better than "reproached for". I'd change "Anyone who has retained" to "All who have retained" – both more literal and to obtain agreement with the subsequent "see". Also more literal: "swastika" → "swastika symbol". Less literal, but clearer: "a sense" → "their sense"; "German name" → "the good name of Germany"; "countries" → "states of Germany". And leave "Reich" untranslated. Together:

Anxiety about Germany's future is moving through the people!

[...] But the conscience of all true patriots rebels against the whole current form of German exercise of power in Europe. All who have retained their sense of genuine values see with a shudder how the good name of Germany is falling into disrepute under the swastika symbol. In all states of Germany today, hundreds, often thousands, of people are shot or hanged arbitrarily, without due process, people who can be accused of nothing other than of being loyal to their country [...] In the name of the Reich the most hideous tortures and atrocities are committed against civilians and prisoners. Never yet in history has a man been so hated as Adolf Hitler. The hatred of tortured humanity burdens the entire German people.

I've also added an ellipsis; the second line does not immediately follow the heading in the original text. --Lambiam 10:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd just disagree with your choice of rendering "Länder" as "states of Germany"; in this context, it seems clear to me that it does refer to "(occupied) countries" – that's where those summary executions were happening. "Land" in German can of course mean "(federal) state", as a technical term, but "country" is its more general and more common meaning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Future Perfect at Sunrise: scope_creep^Talk 15:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lambiam: scope_creep^Talk 15:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]