Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 29

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.

November 29

ZARZUELA PLOT

I am trying to find the plot of El Poeta by Torroba in English. Can you help? [removed email for protection against spambots] bc12

Good books about firearms?

I want a nice large book about firearms, any suggestions?

What do you mean, "about firearms"? About the history of firearms? About firearm specifications? Or just "firearms in general"? --24.147.86.187 02:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A catalogue perhaps? If you just want some general information then try Wikipedia. I hear they have over 1.5 million articles in english. --The Dark Side 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Boston's Gun Bible [1] ? As you might expect, it has a rather anti-establishment, pro-anarchist POV. StuRat 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

which ADDISON ?

hello,

i tried finding the information i'm looking for to no avail. the following was penned by "Addison": "without constancy there is neither love, friendship, nor virtue in the world." my question is which mr. addison wrote this quote. there are several and i request your assistance if you can. thank you.

I do believe that's Joseph Addison. Marvelous writer; wrote for The Spectator in the early 18th century. Antandrus (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed Joseph Addison, and I completely agree with your assessment, Antandrus. Clio the Muse 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But this was written on Friday, June 30, 1710 in the Tatler, can it really still be true? meltBanana 19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's Addison, alright; and he wrote for the Tatler before the Spectator came into existence. Clio the Muse 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.  :) I have a complete three-volume edition of the Spectator; Addison's contributions are delicious. It's interesting to me how you can open it at random, and always tell which of the two (Addison or Steele) wrote the piece to which you have turned. The writings by Steele are never quite up to Addison's standard. If I remember correctly, there's even one by Swift. Antandrus (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. Alas, the work will have to do; but it will do very well. Clio the Muse 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

free psychological help

I have a friend who's in a bit of a bind. She has some serious family, personal, and monetary issues, and the stress is really having a negative effect on her life. She wants to see a shrink, but she obviously can't afford one (she's in college, self supported). I suggested a free campus psychologist, but she says it makes her uncomfortable because it might be another student (grad student).

Are there any free personal psyches out there?

What country are you in? Does she have health insurance? I'm sure it varies widely from place to place, but such services are often covered, at least in part, by one's insurance. Antandrus (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

USA, RI to be exact. I don't think she has health insurance... I think she is no longer covered by her mother's plan.

How about friends - like you? A psychotherapist would just mess her mind even more. Anyway, psychology is not the answer to her problem. Her physical situation is the one that should be changed in order for her to feel better. Lend her some money, be there when she needs you, take her to a funny movie, go with her on a vacation some place where there are birds and trees and flowers and the sun is shining brightly. A caring friend is always better than a professional psychotherapist. Moonwalkerwiz 05:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Has the mental stability of the population improved substantially since the advent of psychology ? I think not. Talking problems over with friends and family is as good, if not better. StuRat 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not always possible to talk to friends and family. When I went for counselling, my family and close friends had just experienced an unexpected and particularly acute loss, and to compound it, a close friend (of I and my friends), who my family had taken in because she had noplace else to go, was causing problems with my family and we were having a hard time getting her to leave. There was no-one I could talk to about it, and the trained counsellor, who helped me get some perspective, and recognise what I needed to do for my own wellbeing and how to do it, was invaluable. By not discouraging the OP from helping her/his friend get counselling, we aren't consigning the person at risk to a lifetime of medical addiction, victimisation and financial burden; lots of people only need to see a counsellor once, twice, or a few times, just to help gain perspective and talk to someone who doesn't have anything at stake in their lives; someone who doesn't have preconceived notions or a personal agenda v/v the patient. We shouldn't be discouraging that; lots of people whose lives spiral downward into despair or worse, do so because they don't have anyone to have effective interactions with v/v their problems. Anchoress 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In this age of the internet, you should be able to find an online support group where you can discuss your problems. Do you know of any stats for what percentage of those who get "professional help" are "fixed" after a few sessions, versus those who suffer "a lifetime of medical addiction, victimisation and financial burden", as you so accurately put it ? StuRat 08:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just speaking from personal experience (myself and my circle). And about the internet, I really don't think any internet community is as helpful as a trained, committed counsellor. YMMV. Anchoress 08:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think those who have suffered from a particular condition and survived are far more qualified to help than paid "professionals". BTW, what's "YMMV" ? StuRat 11:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your mileage may vary. And professionals aren't always paid; that's what this thread is all about. Anchoress 11:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree and think she should see a psychologist if she can. Shrinks excel at helping mentally healthy people work through immediate problems and difficulties that are causing stress and feelings of being overwhelmed. Where psychiatry fails is at treating serious, chronic mental disorders. She should be able to request that the shrink be someone who does not know her. At any rate, her treatment, even the fact that she is seeking treatment, is strictly confidential. -THB 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest checking the emergency numbers in your local phone book; often crisis lines are listed there, and your friend could call one (they are helpful in and of themselves, and sometimes such resources also have suggestions of further avenues of inquiry). Also, the local health board sometimes has free or extremely inexpensive counselling services (I saw a counsellor for bereavement, and it was free thru my health board). And try social services as well. Anchoress 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Anchoress. Believe me, I try to talk to her and help her get everything out, but there's only so much you can do on the phone/via e-mail. She has another friend who lives in her dorm who is helping her talk out some things, but she thinks that getting this out to a psychologist would be helpful. To be honest, she said she doesn't even like psychologists.

Does psychology work ?

Is there any objective evidence that going to a psychiatrist/pyschologist actually improves the mental state of individuals ? Most evaluations of the patients would tend to be subjective and, if done be "professionals", self-serving, as well. One objective stat I could think of would be the suicide rate. Is that lower for those under treatment, as compared with the general population ? StuRat 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with looking at the suicide rate is that it may be that people who go to a shrink are more likely to have problems that result in suicide than those who don't go to a shrink.

In addition, people commit suicide when they start to feel better, not when they're extremely depressed. The severely depressed often aren't able to formulate and carry out a suicide plan. So if treatment is successful, there is a period where the suicide rate would be higher than for those who are not successfully treated. -THB 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't whether or not psychology works, the point is the OP's friend in need says she wants to see one, and is looking for a free one. To do anything other than to suggest avenues of inquiry to the OP for finding free psychological counseling for her/his friend would be completely outside the mandate of the RD. In particular, telling the OP that counselling would screw up her/his friend more is waaaaay outside our area. Anchoress 05:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree with you. The main objective of a reference desk is to help people who seek help. The first premise of answering questions here is not "The question is right, complete, perfect," but rather, "The question is pointing to a subject that we must discuss in order for all the avenues of the question be sufficiently addressed." This is the humanities section. People are supposed to give informed views here. If we were in the exact sciences section, one answer is enough to a given question. But since we're in the humanities, we're all flesh and blood, we're all aware of the possibility of error on our part and on the part of the one asking questions, therefore, there is no one answer to a single question. Besides, as you can see, StuRat created a subheading for more in depth discussion of matters. If you just want to suggest a shrink then put it above. If you want to explore more possibilities, put it here. Moonwalkerwiz 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not criticising StuRat's section, I think it's fine. My comment was in response to you, and I disagree with your assessment of the RD, and I stand by mine. Anchoress 06:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. I like stubborn people. I think it shows self-responsibility. Moonwalkerwiz 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think we can stray from the stated question where the best advice is not a direct answer. For example, those who say they want to commit suicide and want to know the best way could benefit from being given suicide prevention hotline numbers, etc., even though that's not what they asked for. Now, back to my question, is there any objective proof that going to a psychiatrist/pyschologist actually improves the mental state of individuals ? StuRat 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed. For starters, look at the abstracts at http://www.apa.org/practice/peff.html or an analysis of the Consumer Reports study at http://horan.asu.edu/cpy702readings/seligman/seligman.html . In fact, PubMed, at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed , has 4660 papers on the search "effectiveness of psychotherapy" which get into minute detail on when it is effective and when it is not. None of this constitutes a rigorous mathematical proof, of course, but I think it is more than sufficient to constitute a clinical proof. Gnfnrf 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did they follow proper scientific procedures, such as objective criteria and a survey of at least 1100 subjects to provide a 3% margin of error over a 90% confidence interval ? I'm not sure how any double-blind tests could be given, as the subject must be aware of which treatment they received. However, at least those doing the evaluation of the patients could have no knowledge of the subjects' treatment methods. So, you could, in theory, eliminate all bias except for the placebo effect. I'm a bit skeptical, though, that psychiatrists would be willing to perform proper scientific tests. StuRat 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean a 95% confidence interval. At a 3% margin of error, that would require a sample size of 1,068. A 90% CI would only require a sample of 752. Besides, most statisticians I know don't put much stock in any study that uses less than a 95% CI. (Sorry about the critique, but I don't get to talk about stats on RD very often :-). —Cswrye 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I see absurdly small surveys of a few dozen people all the time, so I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who knows how worthless such small surveys are. StuRat 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your third link doesn't work, for me. StuRat 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Those studies seem to show very little benefit, to me. For example, one said "On the average, the typical therapy client is better off than 75% of untreated individuals." If the treatment was absolutely useless, you would still expect those who got the treatment to be better off than 50% of the untreated individuals. And, a better comparison would be with individuals who talk their probs over with friends and family. In that case, I would bet the 25% improvement by getting "professional help" over no help at all would likely disappear entirely. StuRat 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to have a debate on the subject. I answered the question to the best of my ability. If you're so sure that answer is wrong, perhaps you didn't need to ask in the first place. Gnfnrf 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is entirely the correct place to interpret what a source actually says. BTW, does your third link work for you ? StuRat 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting for space reasons) The third link loads PubMed fine, but you have to enter the search parameters yourself. As for "what the source actually says", I can't see how you can think that the APA studies (first link) don't claim to show that psychotherapy works. The abstracts claim things like "Meta-analysis showed that psychotherapy is effective in enhancing psychological well-being, regardless of the way it is measured by researchers."; "The evidence suggests that previous doubts about the overall efficacy of psychotherapy with children can be laid to rest." ; "findings show that Ss who underwent therapy improved significantly more than controls on subjective and objective parameters." ; and so forth. You may look at these abstracts and critique the research methodology or results (as you did above). It's difficult to do so from just the abstract, since you don't know much about the results or methodology. However, they can't all be flawed, unless you believe that all of these studies are inherently flawed or not performed in good faith, since they are done by psychological and medical professionals. I can't help you with that, because hardly anybody else studies psychotherapy. (Other people make claims about psychotherapy, but very few actually study it, that I know of).

That being said, Consumer Reports DID look at psychotherapy and drew some conclusions. It's not a resounding, solid proof, but it provides very good evidence that psychotherapy helps people who use it, and indirect but strong evidence that psychotherapy provides more help than untrained counselling.

In PubMed (I hope you can get it to work), there are thousands of papers, many of which focus on a very small area, and some of which are not relevent to the question. It is mainly useful for a narrower question, possibly restricting to a particular condition or form of treatment. My point in including PubMed was that studying this is not a novel idea; it has been done many times in great detail. From these many studies, a scientific consensus to the general effectiveness of psychotherapy has developed.

Now, some personal perspective on what I think about all this. Is psychotherapy better than talking to a friend? Not necessarily. For plently of situations and plenty of people, friends are a great resource. For that matter, some of the time you don't even need a friend. Talk to your car while driving alone, a stuffed animal, or just sit and have a good think. However, many other times, it helps to talk to someone who has gone to school for this sort of thing. Where is the line? I don't know, and I expect that it is different for everyone. Gnfnrf 16:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As a natural skeptic, I don't accept "evidence" unless I'm provided with all the study details. That said, those study summaries didn't seem to show all that much effect, like the "better than 75% of untreated individuals" study, which is only 25% better than would be expected at random. I wonder if people going to shrinks know they only help a quarter of the people who go ? StuRat 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It helped me. I used to ba a raving lunatic! Now look at me!--Light current 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, what type of a lunatic are you now ? StuRat 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I leave you to judge! Im sure you will come to the correct conclusion. --Light current 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Evil genius? :-) —Cswrye 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Stu the answer to your question is just like the answer to "does seeing a doctor ever work"? A doctor can save your life if you have adrenal failure or Hodgkins disease, make no difference at all if you have a cold or pancreatic cancer, or make the kind of difference some people would value and others would not for a variety of prolems. It depends on the type of problem, the patient, and the doctor. It is the same with the wide range of problems for which people see mental health therapists. alteripse 11:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You might have a point there. Going to a doctor for a minor complaint is likely to do nothing, or even make you sicker, due to unnecessary tests, surgery, and medications or due to diseases you pick up in the clinic/hospital. On the other hand, if you're going to die without medical treatment, then you don't have much to lose, so go to the hospital. Perhaps this is true of psychiatry, as well. Examples of them making things worse would be "false memory syndrome" and drugs which make people suicidal or exhibit addictive behaviors. StuRat 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem as you presented it is that it is too vague to answer succintly. First off, I think that you're really talking about psychotherapy, not psychology. Psychology is a science whose scope covers a wide range of topics, and therapy is only one subset of it. For example, I have a degree in psychology, but my concentration was on industrial/organizational psychology, which has nothing to do with counseling or therapy. However, even if we narrow the question to psychotherapy, we're still talking about a wide range of topics. Take this question: Does medicine work? Well, if you're talking about the ancient medical practice of blood letting to treat disease, the answer is no. Likewise, if you're talking about using hypnotherapy to treat mental problems, it probably doesn't work either, but that doesn't mean that all forms of therapy are useless. Some forms of therapy benefit people, and others don't, so they really have to be handled on an individual basis. Pretty much every peer-reviewed psychology journal has stringent standards on the scientific validity of the studies they publish, so you might find them a useful source in determining which types of therapy "work". —Cswrye 23:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'd really like is a table showing the effectiveness of each method. Something like this:

METHOD                            STUDY NAME  CONDITION TREATED  % IMPROVEMENT VS NO TREATMENT  MARGIN OF ERROR  CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
================================  ==========  =================  =============================  ===============  ===================
hypnotherapy
psychotherapy (Freudian analysis)
psychotherapy (Gestalt therapy)
psychotherapy (cognitive therapy)
   .
   .
   .

Does such info exist ? StuRat 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice, wouldn't it? There have been thousands of studies about various forms of psychotherapy, so the information is probably out there, but it may not necessarily be compiled all in one place. You might find a meta-analysis somewhere that covers a group of related therapies, but probably not a full summary of every one. When you consider all the different types of therpy, as well as all the recognized mental illnesses, plus the various demographic groups (that's another variable--for example, therapies that work on adults may not work on children), it would take a pretty thick book to cover everything. In fact, for this type of summary, a graduate-level textbook might be your best bet. (As an I/O psychologist, things are much easier for me. There actually was a meta-analysis performed a while back that looked at most of the major seletion methods to determine which ones were best.) —Cswrye 15:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how much a lengthy debate could grow out of a simple objection. But I would just like to inform everyone that my objection to psychology and psychotherapy in the first place, was not even about whether it works or not. Actually, I am quite sure that medical techniques work on patients, especially with the degree of the advancement in technology we possess. However, I was objecting to the fact that the practice of curing "abnormal" patients happen at all. I was objecting to it because I see it as a means of social control. If there are scientific studies that would show schizophrenics successfully being "cured," then I would just take it as proof that society does try to maintain a certain order meant to benefit the powers that be. Moonwalkerwiz 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Some conditions, like homosexuality, were formerly treated as mental diseases when clearly they were not. Other conditions, like hyperactivity, are likely also just "normal variations in human behavior", not mental illness. Still, I do feel that some indiviudals, like homeless people who wear aluminum foil hats to "prevent the CIA from reading my thoughts", could substantially benefit from being made "normal", if that was possible. StuRat 23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I ignored Moonwalkerwiz' comment above because he is apparently a kid, but if he insists on repeating it, I have to say that in my opinion it was the most appalling combination of ignorance, arrogance, and potential harmfulness to the questioner I have ever, I repeat ever, read on the ref desk. And our standards are not high. He is spewing some low-brow echo of Thomas Szasz' discredited and long obsolete opinions about 1960s psychiatric institutions. See[2] for some perspective. If he is half as smart as he thinks he is, after he has lived a few years and seen mental illness touch someone he cares about, he will be ashamed at having written off every mental health professional as simply practicing "social control". alteripse 01:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would never ignore a comment due to the age of the poster (and his home page statement "This user has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology" implies that he's not a kid, in any case). He is also not alone in his opinion. For example, I believe Scientology holds an even more negative view of psychotherapy. StuRat 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Stu. But I am amused that alteripse thought I was a kid. Or maybe I am a kid, who knows? Maybe I just put that userbox to seem big and smart. All the same, I think I should defend myself. First, I haven't even read any of Thomas Szasz' work. My views of mental institutions and psychotherapy as tools of social control actually derive from Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari. Secondly, I am tired of repeating myself over and over again. Mr.JackofOz had already engaged me on this comment, and his arguments were almost exactly like yours. So, in defending myself, I'll just copy and paste here my answer to Mr.Jack, replacing his name with yours:

...(alteripse), the fact that you sympathize with the tools of social control and see the "reason" and the significance of what they are doing, is in fact, a proof of subjection in the first place. And I never said anything about compassion getting "turned off" in psychotherapy. I will actually agree with you that these professionals have compassion and maybe even love for their patients! But (alteripse), social control is never manifest, conscious, full of obvious malice. Its tendency is to make itself seem natural and eternal. Ideology, social control, the superstructure is "proposed to all members of that society in order to make the ruling class' interests appear to be the interests of all. György Lukács describes this as a projection of the class consciousness of the ruling class" - Wikipedia. Moonwalkerwiz 02:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Shallow, intellectually vapid, and ethically bankrupt. One may analyze any human situation from a hundred perspectives. An intelligent person has the insight to use an intellectual perspective appropriate to a problem. A compassionate person chooses the intellectual perspective with an understanding of the meaning of the answer to the inquirer or listener. Critical theory is neither an intellectually nor an ethically defensible response to someone in emotional or social pain or someone seeking an objective assessment of the effectiveness of a form of therapy. If you are not a kid and you still think critical theory has any value for real problems of real people and real societies, your opinion is even harder to take seriously. alteripse 03:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my last reply to you because I can't have an argument with someone who thinks that Foucault and other philosophers and social analysts are "shallow,intellectually vapid, and ethically bankrupt." The case is just lamentable. However, I would just like to say that critical theory doesn't have any value besides it being applied to "real problems of real people and real societies." If someone views these analytical works as purely rhetoric and ghosts of the mind, then his case is indeed, lamentable. Finally, as for "A compassionate person chooses the intellectual perspective with an understanding of the meaning of the answer to the inquirer or listener," I could only characterize such action as cowardice in the face of hard reality. If someone cannot endure the ruthlessness of reality in his/her face, then that just speaks of his/her pitiful condition - the same may be true for the patient as for his/her doctor. Moonwalkerwiz 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

May I add something here? Moonwalkerwiz, I find considerable value in Foucault's work (I'm unconvinced by Deleuze and Guattari, who look like flashy charlatans to me, but maybe that's my problem). Nonetheless, Alteripse surely has a point. Some mental illnesses cause intense suffering. As a depressive and a friend of depressives, I know this from personal experience. Are you seriously suggesting that my desire not to be irrationally miserable - and my choice to take anti-depressant medication - are a symptom of subjection? I don't do this in order to be 'normal' - I do it because functioning is better than not functioning. And, note, the notion of 'functioning' I'm working with is derived not just from society or culture, but from my biological and psychological needs as a human being. Yours, Sam Clark 10:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on the matter, Sam. But this section is already unbearably lengthy. I'm posting my reply to you on your page. Moonwalkerwiz 00:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Gertrude von le Fort :Hymn to the Church

Frwerner 04:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Can you send me the text of the Hymn to the Church (Hymnus an die Kirche) by Gertrude vonb le Fort? both in German and in english? Fr.Werner Chakkalakal Centre for Faith & Democracy Thalore 680306 Kerala, India

Hello, Father Chakkalakal. Is there not more than one of these in Le Fort's corpus? I know that a collection of her poems, entitled Hymn to the Church, was translated into English by Margaret Chanler, and published by Sheed and Ward in 1942. I do not know if there is a more modern version, nor indeed where you can obtain a copy in the original German. Clio the Muse 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

British-Egyptian Trade betwen ~1880 and ~1900 Share of Revenue 1882-1956

Hello

I'm in the midst of writing a research paper on the colonization/decolonization of Egypt by Britain. I am a history and not an Economics student so I'm not sure exactly where to look for this information and some intensive searching has yielded little. What I need to know is if the amount of trade betwen England and Egypt increased as a result of Britain's occupation of Egypt in 1882. I would also like to know what share of revenue Egypt provided Britian following colonization relative to other colonies, I am hoping to gauge the economic importance of Egypt to the UK. The only source I could find is http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/brit-emp.htm which tells me that in 1905 Egypt was third behind India and Australia however this author provides absolutely no source whatsoever and therefore I am hesitant to cite it in a paper. Thanks.

Hello. For this kind of subject I think you are going to have to do a lot of the detailed foot-work yourself, which means digging out reports, digests and monographs from a good library. There is a extract from a Library of Congress Paper online which might be of some use, though it cites no sources-[3]. The short answer is that British occupation had the effect of turning Egypt into a 'single product economy', with the emphasis on cotton to the exclusion of all else. Some investors, including Lord Cromer, made fortunes out of this. Clio the Muse 08:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an update- I found the information I was looking for in the 1911 Encylopedia Britanica, although I won't have a reference to show growth it's not all that important as my paper focuses on decolonization.

That's good. Be careful, though. It's massively out-of-date, even in the use of historical data. Clio the Muse 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I will be using it as a primary source, to present to Importance of Egypt to the British as THEY saw it THEN not as we understand it to have been then, now. Thanks for the advice though. Gradvmedusa 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Attacking neutrals during a war

According to the article on Vichy France, it was "neutral" during WWII. Yet the Allies attacked more than once (Attack on Mers-el-Kébir, the Operation Torch landings). Was there any legal justification for this? Clarityfiend 08:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Clarityfiend, this is a political minefield that requires some careful negotiation! The chief point is that though Vichy was indeed technically neutral, the form and manner in which this was applied was subject to quite wide variations in interpretation. Under the priemiership of Pierre Laval neutrality tended to give way to active collaboration, with French workers making an important contribution to the German armaments industry; there were also French volunteers serving with the German army in Russia. In general the allies took a fairly pragmatic view of the whole situation, responding as the occasion demanded. In 1940 Britain was fighting for its life. If the French fleet had fallen into German hands it is almost certain that the fight would have been lost. This was a chance Churchill was not prepared to take. The new government of Marshall Petain promised that the fleet would not be handed over to the Germans-a promise that was ultimately kept;but this was not enough. Churchill demanded that it be sent as far away from Europe-preferably to British controlled ports-as possible, away from any possibility of German seizure. The French refused; the attack on Mers-el-Kébir followed. It was understandable, but was it justified? Probably not, as it only poisioned Anglo-French relations, achieved none of its principal aims, and encouraged those who were inclined to a more pro-German line. But there again, you have to consider the matter from Churchill's perspective, and it at least demonstrated to the French what further action would follow if there were any moves towards naval collaboration with the Axis.

Other actions had more direct justification. The British invasion of Syria and Lebanon in 1941 was prompted by the establishment of German controlled airfields in these French mandates. Madagascar was occupied to prevent it becoming a base for the Japanese, in the same way that Indochina had. Operation Torch was the result of no provocation by the French, but an essential preparation for the allied offensive in southern Europe. The invasion of Sicily and Italy would have been highly dangerous without allied bases in Tunisia. Of course to this general mixture you also have to remember that there was an ever growing number of French people around Charles de Gaulle who considered the Vichy authorities as little better than traitors. In the end there probably was no strictly legal justification for any of the operations against Vichy. But in war legality is the last, not the first consideration. Clio the Muse 09:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to Clio's nice account of the historical detail, but I would like to suggest that there are philosophical issues here too. Clarityfiend asked whether there was legal justification for attacking neutrals, but I suggest that the prior question is whether there was moral justificiation. In the Just war tradition, discrimination between combatants and noncombatants is central, and the question would therefore turn on the reality of France's professed neutrality. As Clio points out, French workers made a contribution to the German war effort: does this count as being a combatant? In a total war, are there any noncombatants? But there are other traditions in the moral analysis of war: utilitarians, for instance, would argue that means are to be judged by their (predicted) effectiveness in bringing about good results. If attacking civilians saves lives or increases total welfare in the long run, that's what should be done, and the principle of discrimination is irrelevant. Apologies if this rambling isn't of any use to you, I just find the issue interesting. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Just saying you are neutral doesn't make it so. A nation's actions determine whether they are really neutral. On the other side, the US was "officially neutral", but quite obviously favored the British, as demonstrated by the Cash and carry and Lend-Lease programs. StuRat 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, if the UK had lost the Battle of Britain and either come to an accommodation with the Axis or been invaded (unlikely), the Nazis wouldn't even have had to put on a sham trial; Winston Churchill could have been convicted of being a war criminal! Clarityfiend 16:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes; it's possible. He was on a German arrest list, along with a great many others, politicians, artists and intellectuals, including H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw. Clio the Muse 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I read an account of Eisenhower's war years recently, and I recall reading that after the French territories in Africa voluntarily came over to the Allied side, the Germans invaded Vichy France and took direct control, so that by the time of the D-Day landings there was no pretense of French covereignty there. Does this square with history? Edison 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Edison. Actually the allied take-over in North Africa was not completely 'voluntary': there was some French resistance. On your second point, the Germans occupied Vichy France on 10 November 1942, two days after the beginning of Torch, in fulfilment of a contingency plan laid down by Hitler in Case Anton. They and the Italians also occupied Tunisia. Case Anton was, of course, undertaken almost two years before the D-Day landings in Normandy. It's worth pointing out, though, that Vichy was officially the government of all of France, including those parts in the north and west that came under German control after the armistice of 1940; and so it remained even after the country was completely occupied. In the wake of the liberation of most of France in 1944, Petain and the rest left for Germany, taking up residence in Sigmaringen, where a 'government in exile' was established. If you are interested, Celine, an active supporter of Vichy right to the end, covers this period in his novel, D'un château l'autre. Clio the Muse 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive what may seem like an incredibly obtuse remark on my part, and forgive me once again for using my tired old Swift analogy, but honestly, to me, this entire discussion is nothing more than an incredibly overintellectualized Houyhnhnm debate, unsuited for a world populated by Yahoos. War is indeed hell, yet most of the above commentators seem to be all too concerned with that mother of all oxymorons "The Laws of War". Once again, war is hell. There are no "Laws of War" per se, yet, admittedly, there are certain bounds that conscience alone provides. No "Geneva Conventions" no silly "International Conventions" on how war can be "legally" conducted. Human conscience alone is the only "Law of War" I recognize.

Early on, the British begged the Belgians (as well as the Norweigians, yet the situation was different) to allow them to reinforce their border with Germany, yet the Belgians insisted they were "neutral", and refused to allow the Brits to take up positions that early on could have turned the tide of the war and prevented the fall of France. But the Brits, faithful to the "Law of War" respected Beligian neutrality. Big mistake. The Brits should have occupied and protected Belgium like-it-or-not, and perhaps several tens of millions of lives could have been saved.

Was there a "legal justification" for an Allied attack on Vichy France? To me at least, the question is irrelevant to all but the truest of the world's Houyhnhnms. Look through all the silly legalities and formalities and what you get to is the fact that Vichy France was a de facto puppet regime, no matter the silly protestations of "neutrality". For her survival, Britain finally seemed to have come to the cold reality that for her survival, all those silly "Laws of War" that she had up to that point paid so much undue respect, were mere absurdity, save of course, again, for those lines for which conscience would not let them cross. The world is made of Nazis/Yahoos/Terrorists &c. and must be dealt with on their own terms, save, again, crossing that line, abandoning one's conscience and actually decending to their level. Loomis 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

When the allies landed in Morrocco and North Africa, there was some valiant resistance bu the French, but there were also negotiatiations with Darlan to join the allies, if I remember correctly. As for Laws of War, the US and Germany each observed certain niceties with respect to the POWs of the other side in WW2. The view was that if they treated our POWs well, we would treat their POWs well. This was not the case in WW2 between the US and Japan.Edison 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And it needn't be mentioned that it was most definitely not the case with the Nazis either! Loomis 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, the trouble with refusing to be a Houyhnhnm is that then the Yahoos take over the argument. As you demonstrate in your post, there is no option of refusing to think about what to do, and no option of not asserting what ought to be done. You say that 'the Brits should have occupied and protected Belgium like-it-or-not' despite any laws of war and that 'the world is made of Nazis/Yahoos/Terrorists &c. [who] must be dealt with on their own terms, save, again, crossing that line, abandoning one's conscience and actually decending to their level'. What are these apart from moral claims? The alternative to discussing such moral claims rationally is not 'being realistic' - it's discussing them irrationally. Yours, Sam Clark 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a believer in "reciprocal laws of war". That is, follow the rules of war so long as your opponent does. If they violate a rule, then that rule no longer applies to that war. This would apply to things like use of chemical weapons. The object here is to get the enemy to follow those rules of war by the threat that they will suffer the same fate as their victims if they ignore them. However, there are some deeper laws of humanity which should never be violated, even if the enemy violates them, like not murdering civilians in your custody. StuRat 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, but why do you believe these things? Equivalently, what reasons are there for anyone else to agree with you? Why does one use of (your example) chemical weapons legitimate chemical weapons for the whole rest of the war, and not just for one retaliatory use? Where exactly do these 'deeper laws of humanity' come from, and how do we find out what they are? Why is 'not murdering civilians in your custody' one of them? What if, by doing so, we could shorten a war and save many more lives? Sam Clark 09:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say the goal should be to minimize the number of civilians killed and wounded. While the Geneva Convention is useful for that goal, if both sides follow it, the case becomes less clear when one side doesn't. For example, the Japanese during WW2 committed widespread war crimes against virtually everyone they had any contact with. If the Allies said "we aren't going to sink to their level", and refused to engage in widespread bombing of civilian areas (the only way to knock out factories with the available technology) then Japan likely would have won the war and killed billions more. So, bombing Japanese cities, even with the small nuclear weapons available at the time, ultimately saved lives by bringing the war to a quick end. As for your example, I can't think of a case where murdering civilians in your custody would save lives, can you ? StuRat 11:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Loomis. At the risk of 'overintellectualizing'-Houyhnhnm as I am-there are one or two points that really do need answering, for the sake of clarification, if nothing else. Now, I realize that thrust of your submission is directed at another war altogether, but my response is confined here to the point under examination. First, a word in defence of poor old Belgium. My goodness, what a burden you are making her carry! Belgium was, in fact, part of a western defensive alliance, to the threshold of the war. Even after withdrawing , in the empty hope of preventing violation of her borders, the country remained in a strong defensive position, ready to fight a conventional war, in much the same fashion as in 1914. In that conflict, even as a neutral, Belgium made a vital contribution in delaying the Schlieffen Plan. But in 1940 the Germans were not intending to campaign in the conventional sense. At no point did the British 'beg' the Belgians, as you put it, to 'reinforce the border' with Germany, nor would it have served any constructive purpose if they had. No sooner had the Germans crossed the border on 10 May than the whole of the British expeditionary force-a mere ten divisions-was drawn into Belgium, which is precisely what the Germans wanted. Hooking with the right in the old Schlieffen style, they also hooked to the left through the 'impassable' Ardenne towards Sedan, then thrusting westwards towards the sea, catching the Belgians, British and some of the French in the north. Neither Britain, nor Belgium nor yet still France were in a position militarily to counter the Germans in 1940. The British, moreover, did not always observe the rights of neutral nations. They were busily mining Norwegian waters before the Germans invaded in April 1940. Your remarks on the political standing on Vichy France are also wrong; but rather than carry on here to excessive length I will let that pass. However, if you care to raise a separate posting on this I would be happy to tackle the question.

On your wider point, forgive me for saying so, but you are showing signs of some serious intellectual confusion. War is a dirty business, true; but over the centuries there have been some attempts-not entirely without success-to define what is right and what is wrong. We no longer openly massacre prisoners, as Richard I of England did at Acre in 1191. The rules may not always be observed, but they-including the Geneva Convention-have at least established the bounds beyond which it is not permissible to go. Otherwise anything, literally anything is possible. British, American and French soldiers did benefit from the Geneva Convention. Without its protection the Russians suffered appallingly. The very first gassings at Auschwitz, incidentally, were not of Jewish people, but of Russian prisoners of war. If you have no laws, no attempt at laws, then you tumble into barbarism, a world populated by yahoos, no distinction at all remaining between good or bad, not even an attempt at a distinction.

I think it might help you, Loomis, if I drew to your attention one of my favourite passages from Robert Bolt's A Man for all Seasons. It concerns a debate between Sir Thomas More and Will Roper, his son-in-law, on the function of law, which is relevant, I think, to the position you are taking, and the terrible dangers of that position. Anyway, I've cast you in the part of Roper, with me-of course-as Sir Thomas:

ROPER. Now you give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE. Yes. What would you do? Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER. Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

MORE. And when the last law was down and the Devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted with laws from coast to coast, man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own saftey's sake. Clio the Muse 09:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll begin with a note to Sam. I'm not advocating any resort to a "Yahoo" mentality. Swift was equally disgusted with the Yahoos as he was with the Houyhnhnms. One needn't choose between the two. I've taken great pains to mention the high value I place upon human conscience. For what it's worth, to myself at least, it's our conscience that defines our humanity and is our best protection against our descent into inhumanity. No positive law can do that, rather, I would argue, some of these positive laws can actually serve to provide ourselves with a sense of false legitimacy for our descent into inhumanity. All I'm saying is that we have to be aware of the Yahoos in the world, and govern our action accordingly. Think of all the atrocities throughout history that were legitimated and rationalized due to this or that twisted manipulation of some "Holy Book". Yes, many of these books contain great wisdom, yet their abuse has led to the most enormous of atrocity. To me, today's "Holy Books" come in the form of International Conventions on Human Rights, Geneva Conventions, UN Resolutions &c. I say we look into our own hearts and minds-our conscience-for guidance, and, if necessary, rely on these other "texts" as secondary sources.

Please forgive my factual innaccuracies, Clio. Having checked my favourite source, (Churchill's "The Gathering Storm"), I recognize that it's been too long since I read it and so I have a few of the facts confused. Indeed, the British apparently did not beg the Belgians to give up their neutrality and let the Brits defend their border. Yet, though I may have erred in my facts, and for that I apologize (especially to the Belgians!), nonetheless, my broader beliefs on the subject remain unchanged. I find the following words of Churchill to be magnificently apposite:

"The advantage which a government bound by no law or treaty has over countries which derive their war impulse only after the criminal has struck, and have to plan accordingly, cannot be measured. It is enormous...Hitler, unhampered by any restraint except that of superiour force, could strike when and where he chose; but the two Western Democracies could not violate Belgium's neutrality...Of course, if British and French policy during the five years preceding the war had been of a manly and resolute character...Belgium might have adhered to her old allies, and allowed a common front to be formed. This would have brought immense security, and might perhaps have averted the disasters which were to come. Such an alliance properly organised would have erected a shield along the Belgian frontier to the sea against that terrible movement which had nearly compassed our destruction in 1914 and was to play its part in the ruin of France in 1940. It would also have opened the possibilty of a rapid advance from Belgium into the heart-centre of German industry in the Ruhr, and thus added a powerful deterrent upon German agression." (The emphasis is mine)

Sir Winston seems to speak of a rather formidable "shield", yet you seem convinced that [no British military involvement along the Belgian/German border] would...have served any constructive purpose. Apparently the two of you disagree. Yet the two of you are clearly intellectuals. I suppose you were right on that count at least, I'm truly "intellectually confused"! Which one of you is right?

But you're right, it wasn't the fault of the Belgians. Rather, as Churchill put it as the theme of his work, it was the fault of "the English-speaking peoples, [who], through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm."

Yet "the English speaking peoples" did not heed Churchill's endless drunken rants, but instead, as true devotees to that absurd legalistic fiction referred to as "The Rules of War", felt legally and morally prohibited from taking any action whatsoever against Germany absent the clearest possible casus belli...i.e, not until it was too late for a good 50 million souls. That, to me, is one of the saddest things about WWII. The whole thing could have been totally averted, with barely a drop of blood spilt, had the Allies not been so almost religiously dedicated to that absurd fiction of "The Law of War". True, no doubt the authors of these legal absurdities had the best of intentions. Yet, trite as it is, the old cliché rings true: "The Path to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions".

You also mention, apparently with great satisfaction, that "[w]e no longer openly massacre prisoners, as Richard I of England did at Acre in 1191". Is this really true? The 20th century, despite (and I'd actually venture to say in large part due to) the establishment of all those well intentioned "Laws of War", the 20th century is considered by most historians as one of the bloodiest in the history of humanity. Did Hitler not massacre an unprecedented number of innocents? What about Stalin? Pol-Pot? Saddam? The only difference I see is that in the 12th century, it was considered ok for a victim's family member to take vengeance upon a Richard I, something that must have disuaded many other would-be mass killers no doubt. Today, thanks to that other legal absurdity known as "international law", these monsters are provided a pretence of legitimacy. After all, despite, for example, Kristallnacht, any "foreign" interference would have been considered "illegal". How dare the outside world intervene in a purely domestic German matter! It would be nothing less than a clear, "illegal", violation of the sovereignty of the German State!

As for your assertion that Phillippe Pétain and the Vichy Regime wasn't a mere puppet regime of Hitler, I'm at a complete loss for words.

I realize I haven't addressed all of you points, Clio, (and they were very good ones, some clearly uncontrovertible!) yet I feel I've taken more than my fair share of RefDesk space here so I think I'd better save the rest for another time. All the best! Loomis 02:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from your waffling on the Belgian issue, I agree completely. StuRat 05:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No one can say if WWII could have been averted. I personally doubt it. The root causes wouldn't have just gone away. If the Western allies had been firmer pre-war, Hitler might have had a few more years to prepare, at which point he could have had jet planes, better U-boats, etc. Clarityfiend 06:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Allies insisted on the restoration of the Weimar Republic and insisted on rigid inspections to ensure that Germany wasn't exceeding it's permitted military, and then invaded Germany at the first sign of a breach, the war could have been averted, although it likely would have been necessary to break Germany up and annex it to the adjacent nations. StuRat 07:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your scenario is a non-starter. The Allies had no contingency plan, political will or legal basis to overthrow the democratically-elected government and replace it with the weak, discredited Weimar Republic (kind of sounds like the current Iraqi government). Nor could they invade at the first sign of trouble. The civilian population, particularly the French, would never have stood for it. The western leaders in peacetime simply did not have dictatorial powers. And don't forget who the British PM was - Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain. I just can't see him doing anything remotely like any of this. Clarityfiend 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously, to get a different outcome, different actions would have been required and different political wills would have been needed. StuRat 12:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Loomis. Thanks for your response: less bristling; more reflective! I love Churchill: he's one of my great all-time heroes. But you have to remember that he wrote history as a politician, exaggerating as a politician, simplifying as a politician and justifying as a politician. I love his prose, and I love his rhetoric; but it is precisely that-rhetoric. Yes, I know if we had only done this or done that, and if only Alois Hitler had not met Klara Pölzl then all would have been for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But this is not how history works. History begins from where we are, not where we might have been, or from what we might have done. I agree that if Britain and France had stood up to Hitler in 1936, at the time German troops marched into the Rhineland in defiance of the Versailles Treaty, history might have taken a different path. But they did not stand up to Hitler, and this had nothing to do with fear of violating 'legal absurdities' You are obviously under no obligation to accept my contention that the presence of British troops on the Belgian border in 1940 would not have affected the strategic outcome. All I will say here is that Churchill's strategic vision was among the weaker of his qualities, and he had a tendency to overlook inconvenient facts when they did not fit is vision of the big picture. Italy, contarary to his contention, was not a soft underbelly but a tough old gut.

Loomis, you must understand by now that if I lay out a historical fact it is not because I derive 'satisfaction' from so doing, but to illustrate a point. The massacre at Acre was but one small example of how prisoners were dealt with in the past, before the existence of international law. I could have mentioned far worse examples of bad treatment and atrocity, which might have included the sack of Kiev by the Mongols or the dreadful horrors that accompanied the fall of Magdeburg during the Thirty Years War, with no greater sense of satisfaction. You see, I do not believe that we are any better than we were in the past, any less prone to murder and atrocity; but history moves by degrees, and we have, in formulating international law, at least defined what horror and atrocity are, and what is and what is not acceptable. Your catalogue of all the horrors includes those for whom international law was an inconvenience or an irrelevance. Are we to drape ourselves in their bloody mantle? It's easy when you mention Kristallnacht, and I am sure Will Roper would have rushed into Nazi Germany in pursuit of the Devil. But who would rush in to British India in the wake of Amritsar, or Northern Ireland in the wake of Bloody Sunday? Who would rush into America to protect black people from southern lynchings, quite as dreadful as anything carried out during the Night of Broken Glass? Who has rushed into Iraq and ignited a fire that will not burn out in our life times, or those of our children? The questions are easy; the answers never are.

So my assertion about Vichy France left you speechless? Well, let me see if I can put words back in your mouth. Among the main definitions of a puppet regime is that it has been imposed by some outside force against the will of the majority of the people over whom it has authority, and it has limited international recognition. Vichy falls into none of these catagories. It was not imposed by the Germans, it arose from internal French political processes, had wide popular support and international recognition. You may not like Vichy, I may not like Vichy, the French, in retrospect, may not like Vichy; but this has no bearing on the the political and historical realities.

Loomis, among other things, I am at present working my way through Ruth Scurry's book, Fatal Purity. Robespierre and the French Revolution. Do you know anything of his life? He was a young and promising lawyer at the outbeak of the Revolution: a pacifist, an opponent of the death penalty, a strong advocate for social justice, a warm and loving human being. Yet by 1794 he was sending thousands to their deaths, including some of his closest friends, in pursuit of some abstract notion of virtue. You are a decent human being; I think you mean well; I know the path you take is that of good intentions; but it is still the way to hell. Since you are fond of Swift let me leave you with one of his quotations; A maxim in law has more weight in the world than an article of faith. Let it so remain. Clio the Muse 09:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Stu, I wouldn't call it "waffling", I'd call it openly admitting that I was wrong on a particular fact and correcting it; being intellectually honest with oneself and others. Nonetheless, I really do appreciate your supportive comments.

Clio, as you've said concerning another issue, I suppose our debate is without resolution. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it thoroughly and look forward to future disagreements with you! All the best. Loomis 13:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't get my pun ? Too subtle, I suppose, although I'm rarely accused of that: [4]. StuRat 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

AHH! Belgian Waffles! But of course! Yes, the pun was obviously way too subtle for me to have recognized it. Alas, I suppose my limited wit is incapable of mastering the sheer genius that are puns. Even at this very moment I'm trying to come up with one to counter with, but nothing good comes to mind. Would it count if I mentioned the fact that after the war, in convicting Petain of treason, the French made good on the old proverb "Revenge is a Dish Best Served Cold"? No? Oh well, I tried. :--) Loomis 21:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can't beet a good cold dish pun. :-) StuRat 07:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that one was a reference to borscht, a cold beet soup. Yes, borscht and vichyssoise are both cold soups, yet beyond that I don't see any connection. Perhaps if you let some of your genius to leek out upon me, I'd better understand. God that one was bad! Look at the level you've gotten me to stoop to!:-) Loomis 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Tax Evasion (UK)

If the Inland Revenue fail to tax someone for some reason, and the individual notices this, are they legally obliged to inform the Inland Revenue? If not, then it would be advisable to have the money ready in case it is asked for - in which case, how long after the income, does the Inland Revenue's opportunity to ask for tax expire? --Username132 (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, and I can't give you chapter and verse, but people are definitely legally obliged to pay their income tax.--Shantavira 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have my textbooks to hand, but the rule used to be that in normal circumstances HMRC had six years in which to assess tax, but there was an extended time limit of 20 years where - as in a case like your example - the taxpayer is culpable in failing to inform them of the liability. Since the introduction of self-assessment, the taxpayer is obliged to inform HMRC of his own liability to tax, so HMRC failing to notice something has become irrelevant. What it boils down to is that you are liable to inform HMRC, and to pay the tax plus any interest and penalties, and you are committing a potentially imprisonable offence if you don't. (I think it's unknown for someone to be imprisoned where they disclosed the matter - but there have been a few high-profile imprisonments where they tried to hide things.) I expect you'd find the detail of all of this on HMRC's website - although of course it will all be described from their viewpoint. Your question doesn't tell us how much is in question. There's an informal tolerance which used to be £100 in tax (that is, if you get away with £100 less than your due, they don't care and won't pursue the matter). HMRC have taken to denying that there's any tolerance at all - but as a matter of practicality they must be applying one internally. If it's big numbers, I can recommend some good accountants to help get you out of trouble! AndyJones 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Chateau Mouton-Rothschild's label

I would like to see the Marc Chagall painting that was used as a label for Chateau Mouton-Rothschild wine. I have tried to search and have found nothing. Judith

It's "GOUACHE, WATERCOLOUR AND CRAYON": [5]. StuRat 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Artist is Marc Chagall. His work is readily available as prints and posters. -THB 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Search for poem

Many years ago at school I studied a poem but don't know what it was or who wrote it. From memory it went something like this. The sun went down and the stars came out far oiver the Spanish sea, But never a moment ceased the fight 'tween the one and the fifty three. Ship after ship the whole night long ????????????????????????????????????, Ship after ship the whule night long drew back with their dead and their shame. God of all battles was there ever a battle like this before.

Would anyone know the poet and the poem please? I've been trying to find out on and off foe years now,

--""""

Ian

I don't know the poem, but it seems to refer to the Spanish Armada. See England Under the Tudors, by Arthur D. Innes:

Grenville on the Revenge (Drake's ship in the Armada conflict) of set purpose allowed himself to be entangled in the Spanish fleet; and thereupon ensued that great fight, that glorious folly, which has been told in immortal prose and sung in immortal verse; in which for fifteen hours Drake's favourite vessel did battle, almost unaided, with fifty-three Spaniards.

Wareh 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the poem: "The Revenge: A Ballad of the Fleet", by Tennyson. Wareh 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Six Exercises of the Sage of Rochester

Does anyone remember what "The Six Exercises of the Sage of Rochester" are ? Back in the 60's, during the quest for higher consciousness, someone resurrected these "Exercises", which were originally formulated by the famed Sage in Ancient Greece. They were simple and really worked. You reached a state of higher consciousness without any chemical or herbal help. Unfortunately I have forgotten them and can find no reference to them anywhere. Help please. Thanks, Dennis O'Shea <e-mail removed>

There was a Rochester in ancient Greece? I must say, Dennis, this really is a revelation! Clio the Muse 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry cant be of much help this page mentions the sage of Rochester and four experiments. meltBanana 19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Devine Revelation: Intervention or Self-Communication

Thanks for the help --Tomy 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan

How can I find information about how Religion in Japan has been globalized through it's history?

Try clicking on the link I just made in your question. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You'll find answers much faster by typing in the search box and clicking Go. --Kainaw ^(talk) 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion in Japan has not been globalized throughout the history of Japan. Quite the opposite, as you will find that almost all religion(s) in Japan came into Japan from the outside world. The only religion that Japan exported to the outside world is zen Buddhism and even that is a bastardized version of an imported religion. 202.168.50.40 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

weddings

I am attending a 6pm wedding in the south next weekend. The location is in a church chapel and the recption is located at a Hotel. Can I wear a hat to the 6pm wedding? Thanks Melissa Jones

Is that the Southern US ? StuRat 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette is more about decorum and less about strict rules. In other words, think more about good manners and less about Emily Post - and good manners at a wedding is not wearing anything too flashy or ostentatious and which could serve to take attention off the bride. Thus, a nice, conservative hat is fine. Of course you can always ask the wedding planner.Wolfgangus 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There's also an issue of respect for religious customs. You're speaking of a church (what denomination I'm not sure). I know that, for example, in synagogues, where all males and all married females are by tradition required to cover their heads, when non-Jews are invited, out of respect they do likewise. Among certain Christians the reverse seems to be true. I remember visiting a good Catholic friend of mine and he told me to take off my baseball cap upon entering their house, as wearing a hat in their house would be impolite to his mother, who is a devout Catholic. I also remember being in London with him, also wearing a baseball cap, and when we visited Westminster Abbey he removed his cap and made sure I removed mine. I really don't know all too much about the significance of "hats" in the various Christian denominations, but just to be sure I'd check up on whatever particular denomination you're speaking of, and ask someone in the know about that denomination's position on wearing a head covering in their church. Loomis 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The old tradition in Christian churches was that women and girls always wore hats or some form of head covering, but men and boys never did. It was considered highly disrespectful for a man to wear a hat, or for a woman to go bare-headed. Talk about discrimination - but then, this has always been a special thing with many established religions. Nowadays, you'd be lucky to see 1 woman in 10 in a church wearing a hat; but men are still not supposed to wear one. It might be different depending on whether you're attending a church service, as compared with just visiting the building as a tourist; but even then, I'd err on the side of respect and do whatever the local custom dictates. The tradition of men removing hats when entering a building (whether a church, office, or house) had nothing to do with the religion of the occupant; it was just considered the generally polite thing to do (just as a man holding the door open for a woman, or giving up his seat for a woman on public transport, were the norm). But apart from baseball caps, very few Western men seem to wear head covering at all these days. Btw, I agree with Wolfgangus. JackofOz 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's "discrimination", in the dictionary sense of the term, but I wouldn't say it's sexist at all. I think my example is a case in point. For Jews, generally speaking, men wear hats and women don't, whereas for Christians, apparently, women are supposed to wear hats and men not. Discrimination, of course; in both cases, the sexes are expected to dress differently with regard to headwear. But is this sexism? I suppose it all depends on whether a "hat" is considered a privilege or a burden. To me it only depends on the preference of the individual. I regularly wear a baseball cap, just because I feel comfortable wearing it. I suppose if I were a Christian, any possible "sexism" involved would be anti-male, as I would be required to remove my hat when a female acquaintance wouldn't. In any case, we're just talking about hats here, let's not go overboard, we're not talking Burqas! I suppose that my position is that respect for another's religious tradition should come first and foremost (so long as it doesn't pose a great disrespect for one's own). If it doesn't matter to you one way or the other, I'd stick with my original recomendation: try to find out what the host is most comfortable with, and politely comply. That's what I would do. Loomis 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

St. Paul said that women in church should cover their heads "because of the angels" (unclear what he referred to: would the angels be jealous of women's hair? Would they attack the women?)Edison 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have never seen anyone attacked by an angel. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the tradition in Christian churches is to not wear hats. About entering homes and having to remove them, I have never heard. Back to the original question: if you are a man, do not wear a hat; if you are a woman, choose as you like. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Angel attacks: check the Old Testament experiences of the Egyptians around the time Moses wanted to leave. Edison 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

To Andonico: It seems to be "old hat" now, but that was certainly the custom not so long ago. I forgot to mention that a man wearing a hat or cap out in public would remove it (even if only for a second) as a mark of respect if they stopped to talk to a woman, or a priest, or an elderly person of either sex, or anybody they considered worthy of respect. You'll see this all the time in old movies (by which I mean anything made before about 1965). JackofOz 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And if I can just indulge in a mini-rant: while I applaud many social changes that have occurred in the past few decades, I still hate it when sportspeople front a press conference wearing a baseball cap. Sometimes it's pulled so far down over their face that their identity is almost a mystery. To his shame, the worst offender I know of is Lleyton Hewitt. What does he have to hide? C'mon Lleyton, show us what you've got. JackofOz 00:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)