Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 7

= May 7 =

Trotsky, Stalin and the terror
Hi I would like some information on the struggle between Stalin and Trotsky for control of the Soviet Union. Why did Trotsky fade so quickly after he had established such a strong position during and after the revolution? Was the Terror of the 1930s simply born out of Stalin's paranoia? Fred said right 05:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read our lengthy articles on Leon Trotsky and Joeseph Stalin for a start? --Robert Merkel 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting question. One observation before I proceed with an answer: the struggle, Fred, such as it was, was conducted over control of the Party, and the general determination of policy, rather than over control of the Soviet Union, a small but important distinction. Yes, on the face of it, Trotsky should have won any contest with Stalin with a minimum of effort. A senior figure in the party, second only to Lenin at the time of the Revolution, the chairman of the Petersburg Soviet in both 1905 and 1917; a brilliant orator, a Marxist theoretician of some note, a publicist and a writer. He was the first Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and had even dominated the German diplomats at the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations. As creator and commander of the Red Army he led the Reds to victory over the Whites in the Civil War of 1918-1920. Yet, despite all of this, he had two serious weak spots: first, he had come late to Bolshevism, and had left many bitter anti-Leninist polemics in his wake; second, he was intellectually and personally vain to an astonishingly high degree, a man who made enemies far more easily, especially among his 'inferiors', than he made friends. Lenin had recognised his unique talents in 1917, and was prepared to overlook past differences; but Trotsky's personal style and his past career meant that he had no real power base in the Bolshevik Party, nothing to fall back on in times of difficulty. It would have been within his capacity to start building such a base. He was, however, in his unique senatorial style, quite un-collegiate, preferring to make his mark by dint of his well-earned authority, on the assumption that this alone would be enough. It was not. He was also to be the victim of the Bolshevik tendency to draw endless parallels between their own Revolution and that of 1789. In this particular drama Trotsky was cast in the role of Napoleon; the one person the Party most assuredly did not want. Instead they got Robespierre.

Stalin, in contrast with Trotsky, was in many respects, the man least likely to come to the top in a political contest. He had only a fraction of the education of Trotsky, and other leading Bolsheviks, like Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev and Nikolai Bukharin. But Stalin was far from being the 'grey blur' that Trotsky assumed, and was a man of considerable intellect. He certainly used his power base within the party, particularly after his appointment as General Secretary in April 1922, to further his own set of ambitions. Beyond that, though, he was a superb networker, and throughout the 1920s built up a talented personal following: men like Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze, Andrei Zhdanov, Sergey Kirov, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich and others, who while not of the first rank, were also skilled political operators, with deep roots in the Party. He also managed to make clever use of the middle ground in the inner-party struggles, never going too far in his early triumvirate with Zinoviev and Kamenev, and never associating himself too closely with the specific views on the peasantry of his later allies, Bukharin and the party right-wing, in the struggles of the mid-1920s. In the end he outmanoeuvred them all, establishing a pre-eminent political position by 1929, the year Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union.

The victory, though, was not that of Stalin as such, but the Stalin faction. His authority, in other words, was still open to question. At the Seventeenth Party Congress, held in early 1934, he even appeared about to loose pre-eminence within his personal faction, the Party, and the State to his old friend and ally, Sergy Kirov. The assassination of Kirov, which Stalin may very well have arranged, though this has never been proved conclusively, was the trigger for the Great Terror. The Terror, therefore has to be viewed as a political instrument, much in the same fashion as the Terror in the French Revolution. The targets may have looked as if they were chosen in some arbitrary and paranoid fashion, but in fact they were quite specific. The Old Bolsheviks, including some Old Stalinists, many of whom had attended the 1934 Congress, were amongst those who suffered the most. The beneficiaries were a new class of specialists and technocrats, those who were identified implicitly with the Stalinist path, men like Pavel Nikolayevich Rusanov in Solzhenitsyn's novel, Cancer Ward. Stalin emerged from the Terror not simply as the leader of a faction, primus inter pares, as he had in 1928-9, but as a man with unparalleled dictatorial powers. Clio the Muse 08:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is wonderful! Once more my thanks, Clio the Muse. Fred said right 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edward III
Can Edward III be considered as the father of the English nation? Janesimon 10:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect you must be reading, or have read, Ian Mortimer's book, The Perfect King: the Life of Edward III, Father of the English Nation. Yes, there is much in Mortimer's thesis that stands up to scrutiny.  Perhaps the most common perception of Edward's reign is one that brought England success in war, from the Halidon Hill and Neville's Cross against Scotland, to the even greater victories against France at Crecy and Poitiers.  In 1356 England had two enemy kings in captivity: David II of Scotland and John II of France. In some ways the country had reached the high point in its Medieval history.  But success in war brought two more innovations: the enhanced role of ordinary people in attaining military success, and the rise of Parliament as a unique English political institution.


 * Before Edward England had continued to rely on the feudal levy for its military arm, which meant, in essence, dependency of the great feudal nobility and the armed knight. But Edward's wars saw the recruitment of professional armies, where the decisive arm was not the knight but the plebeian archer.  It was through Edward's wars that the ordinary people of England (and Wales!) acquired a direct interest in the course and the outcome of the nation's foreign adventures, which did much to forge a common sense of nationhood, distinctly lacking at earlier periods.  Even more important, the wars demanded money, and money meant Parliamentary grants, and Parliamentary grants meant detailed scrutiny of expenditure, as well as the granting of petitions.  By the end of Edward's reign the Commons were able not only to introduce legislation, but also to hold officials to account.  His successor, Richard II was to discover just how assertive Parliament could be.


 * It was Edward who raised England from the nadir of the reign of his father, and created a sense of common identity and purpose. More than that, it was his patronage that turned St. George into a national saint, and he was the first king to give first place to the English language, as opposed to the Norman-French favoured by his predecessors.  Not only did he use English himself in everyday discourse, but also in 1362 he passed legislation recognising English as 'the tounge of the nation.'  Where he led the great nobility followed.  So, the answer has to be, yes: Edward has every justified right to be considered as the father of the English nation.  Clio the Muse 11:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He may have been the father of the post 1066 English nation, but let us not forget those who built the country up which the Normans invaded. Alfred the Great, although not King of all the land now called England (but certainly with power and influence over it), must have a very similar claim to Edward III. After all, he also created a standing army (half the time on, half off so people could still tend crops), had one of the first 'navies', that would grow later to be the most important part of the military of our island nation. Alfred also used English as a language to communicate with every day people, translating religious texts from Latin personally. The support of the 'nobles' or Witan was important for Anglo-Saxon kings, probably years in advance of the Norman barons, John, for example had trouble with. This lead the way for Alfred's grandson, Athelstan to become the first official King of England (in some accounts anyway). Not denying Edward's acheivements, but I don't think he is the sole claimant to the title of 'father of the English nation'. I would as always be interested to hear Clio's thoughts.137.138.46.155 12:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that useful and perceptive contribution, 137. What is there to add, other than that there may not have been an England, as we understand it today, if it had not been for Alfred, and he did indeed create the foundations on which the nation was to be built.  But England, as Alfred understood it, an Anglo-Saxon England, belonged more to a Norse and Germanic world, standing apart from the main currents of European civilization.  This England came to an end politically and culturally in 1066.  Thereafter we have two Englands: that of the ordinary people, an Anglo-Saxon sub-world, evolving and adapting to new conditions, and the England of the Norman-French monarchy and aristocracy, more of an appendage to European power, than a vital entity in itself.  It was Edward who brought these two distinct elements together, to forge a new and confident nation, in war and in peace. From citizen armies to growing Parliamentary institutions; from the use of the vernacular, to the adoption of our national saint with the attendant symbols, all of this dates to the reign of Edward III.  But I have too much respect for Alfred to wish to cross swords with you on this issue, and am happy to admit him to the pantheon, perhaps as the grandfather of the nation! Clio the Muse 22:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, I have to completely agree, while Alfred may have been largely responsible for England's birth, Edward was an important figure in it's rebirth. 137.138.46.155 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although on second thoughts, I believe the Anglo-Saxon world was more closely connected to Europe than often imagined. Alfred himself visited the Pope on more than one occasion, and based a lot of his ideas for education on the earlier Carolingian renaissance. The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms support of the Roman interpretation of Christianity was vastly important, and Germany was largely converted by English missionaries on behalf of Rome, such as Boniface. Viking raiders expelled from England (as much as it existed at the time) would often cross the channel to raid Francia, and vice-versa. And I am sure there were inter-royal family marriages as there are now, for example Judith, daughter of the King of France married both Alfred's father and his brother in law! Although culturally we were then certainly Germanic, with the written law codes largely based on the Germanic idea of wergild, I think the continental connection, as with so much in a relatively advanced society tends to be underplayed. Not relevant to the original question of course, but interesting to note all the same.137.138.46.155 08:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it certainly is. I should make it clear, though, that I was not suggesting that Anglo-Saxon England had no connections with Europe; it clearly had, on several levels.  However, without 1066 it may have remained part of a peripheral and Scandinavian polity, unconnected to the main stream of European feudalism.  It was once said, I cannot remember by whom, that the Norman invasion was the end of England's freedom and the beginning of its greatness, or words to that effect.  You should get a Wikipedia account, 137; you are an obvious asset to the whole project.  Clio the Muse 10:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am flattered indeed! Although this really reflects recent reading rather (Anglo-Saxon alliteration!) than underlying knowledge on a variety of topics. Just to correct myself though, Judith of France married Alfred's half-brother not his brother-in-law. I did know that just got my words muddled.Cyta 11:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a hilarious page called Father of the Nation which is on of the best illustrations of the limitations of the Wikipedia method. jnestorius(talk) 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right about that page, jnestorius, it is hilarious. Clio the Muse 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Churches in Towns
Does anyone know where I could get a list of the number of churches in American (or otherwise) towns?

--Grey1618 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you want? A list of all the towns in the U.S. and the nomber of churches in each, which would be an enormous list, or a source which tells you the names, addresses and phone numbers of churches in a given town? Areaconnect can give you the churches in a town, such as  for one small town. ARDA has statistics for the U.S. as a whole at , but not sorted by city. If you query Google for churches near each town, you will get double (or more) counting because it lists the churches IN the town then the churches NEAR the town, including those in the next town.  Edison 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ideally it would be a list of as many towns as possible, their total population and the number of churches. But if I could cobble together that from many sources, that would be OK.  --Grey1618 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The ARDA site I listed above has listings down to the county level, that is, how many congregations of each faith with how many member,s in each county. There are hundreds of thousands of congregations in the US.There are 3,141 counties (and parishes) in the U.S, so copy and paste would be an excruciating exercise. You might contact the ARDA with your research proposal and ask their experts for guidance in finding the info you need. I have found that many churches are outside the town but have a given post office, so that would be one way of classifying them. That said, some churches have multiple campouses within a town (especially megachurches). Likewise, they might have mailing addresses in multiple towns for whatever reason, and a careless tabulation (like a Google search) would include the daycare center, the school, and the parish hall as "churches." Edison 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. Do you know then if it's possible to get an estimate of the number of churches in each state? --Grey1618 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hostile Takeover?
When a company say lists 20% of it stock in the stock exchange, the shareholders of this 20% are asked in the hostile takeover to tender their shares. But how can the take over be completed, considering the founders still own 80% of the unlisted stock? --Goingempty 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In this scenario, assuming that the "founders" are united in opposing the takeover, I don't see how it could happen. It could only happen if more than 3/8 of the private shareholders can be induced to sell.  Marco polo 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your question is a rather confusing one. What exactly do you mean when you say "when a company lists 20% of its stock"? Is this a new issue or is it previously owned stock? If it's previously owned, who are the previous owners? I may be wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that a company can own its own stock. That's...well...impossible. I'm further confused about what this has anything to do with a hostile takeover. Also, corporations can either be public or private, but not both. You seem to be implying that somehow the corporation is 80% public and 20% private. In a takeover bid, hostile or friendly, all shareholders are given the same offer. There seems to be a very interesting question in there, but I can't for the life of me quite figure out what it is! If you'd try to rephrase it, or describe what your speaking of in a step-by-step fashion, I'd be more than glad to do my best to answer it! Lewis 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression, that many companies which are listed on the stock exchanges, are public compnies, but many are controlled by the founding families, and their stock is not listed as outstanding shares in the stock exchange? --Goingempty 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was definitely under the impression that a company can be partially owned publicly and partially privately. For example, Ford Motor Corporation is mostly publicly owned stock, but the Ford family does still retain a substantial portion of the stock.  I suppose the difference between public and private stock is largely a matter of opinion, however, as the Ford family members can sell their stock at any time, just like any other stock.  They are subject to additional concerns about stock manipulation, however. StuRat 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ford is a completely public company, and by no means a private company. The terms "private" and "public" are legal designations. With regard to stock manipulation, anyone capable of stock manipulation is subject to laws restricting it. The reason the Ford family is subject to these laws is because they have sufficient control to abuse their power, not because their last name is Ford. Lewis 01:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All companies listed on stock exchanges are public companies. Yet just because a company's stock is publicly traded and is therefore a public company, it can still be controlled by its founders. For example, Berkshire Hathaway is a publicly traded company completely controlled by Warren Buffet (though technically speaking, he didn't actually "found" the company). Likewise, Microsoft is a publicly traded company controlled by its founder, Bill Gates.


 * Also, I don't think you quite understand what is meant by the term "outstanding shares". A company's "outstanding shares" are basically all the shares that have been issued by the company. For example, say Mr. Smith founds a company called Smithco, and as sole shareholder and director he causes the company to issue 1,000,000 shares at a par value of 1¢ each, and then buys them all for a total of $10,000. The number of outstanding shares is now 10,000, and assuming the company hasn't done anything yet, it's a private company with "contributed capital" of $10,000. Now say that after 10 years of hard work, because everyone knows that hard work is the key to success and luck plays no part, right? :) Mr. Smith builds the company into a phenomenal success. The market is just dying to invest in his company, so he causes the company to issue an additional 900,000 shares and offer it to the market in an IPO. As a result, 900,000 very eager investors each buy one share each for $100 a piece (I realize how overly simplistic and unrealistic I'm making this, but bear with me!) Now the company is a public company with 1,000,000 outstanding shares, and with its shares trading at $100, its market cap is now $100,000,000. Mr. Smith, with his mere 10% stake still by all accounts controls the company. And that, simply put, is pretty much all you have to know to become obscenely rich. It's quite simple actually. :-) Lewis 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But then again, as Sexta-feira once said, I really don't ever contribute anything of value, so might as well ignore the above nonsense. :-) Lewis 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote from Yahoo News "The board of directors for Dow Jones & Co. announced late Wednesday that it will take no action on the surprise five-billion-dollar bid launched by Rupert Mudoch's News Corp.

The prize asset of Dow Jones & Co. is The Wall Street Journal, which dates back to 1889 and is the most prominent daily business publication in the United States.

Michael Elefante, a board member who represents the Bancroft family -- which owns the shares that make up 52 percent of the company's outstanding voting power -- told the Dow Jones Board of Directors Wednesday that they oppose the bid.

The Bancrofts would "vote shares . . . against the proposal submitted by News Corporation to acquire Dow Jones," the statement read.

Approval of the merger according to Delaware law "requires approval of a majority of the outstanding voting power of the corporation.

"Accordingly, the Dow Jones Board of Directors has determined to take no action with respect to the proposal".

Widely spread out, the Bancroft family holds 24 percent of the capital but more than 62 percent of the vote in Dow Jones. So if only 52 percent were opposed to the Murdoch bid, that means the family is split on the offer.

Murdoch's bid led to the Down Jones stock spiking more than 60 percent by the time the markets closed on Monday, the day the bid was made public.

According to a source close to the transaction quoted on The Wall Street Journal website late Wednesday, the family appears to be split among generational lines, with the younger members seeking to sell and the older ones resisting.

Murdoch's offer of 60 dollars per share led to intense speculation on Wall Street, with Dow Jones shares finishing the day Wednesday at 56 dollars, a five-year high."

I quote from Vancouver Sun "Widely spread out, the Bancroft family holds 24 per cent of the capital but more than 62 per cent of the vote in Dow Jones." I suppose they have a different class of shares, which has a higher voting power, but is not listed on the stock exchange? --Goingempty 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The corporation is listed on the exchange. The family shares are not available for trading on the exchange.  Marco polo 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Elaborate please? So then what happens during an hostile takeover by another company? And aren't there laws to prevent the founding family from holding a different class of shares with higher voting power? --Goingempty 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a large part of the problem here is that you don't seem to understand that a corporation is, legally speaking, a person. It has absolutely no special legal relationship with its founders qua founders. I realize that calling a corporation a person just doesn't make any rational sense. Of course it doesn't, a corporation isn't a "person" in the ordinary sense of the term. Rather, defining it as such is a legal fiction. Notice the terminlogy of the noun "corporation" and the verb "to incorporate", both stemming from the latin corpus, or body. When one incorporates, one is, legally speaking again, creating a legal person.


 * So before answering your question, you must understand that your reference to the "founding family", qua "founding family" is legally meaningless. It's just as I said above with regard to Ford. In case your wondering, I keep using the term "qua" to emphasize the fact that founding families indeed very often do control companies. However the reason they control these companies has all to do with the fact that they haven't sold off enough of their share of them to others to effectively lose control, and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they founded the corporation.


 * In fact, to illustrate my point even further, very often lawyers "incorporate" or "found" corporations for no other reason than to have them available for clients who wish to own them at some future date for whatever purpose. These lawyers basically keep the corporations in a sort of intangible inventory of theirs. They, in an intangible sense, are said to put these completely inactive corporations on a "shelf", until they're required for a client. Unsurprisingly, these corporations are termed shelf corporations. The reason why I'm bring all this up is because, for all we know, the Ford, or the Dow Jones corporation, may have indeed been "founded" long ago not by the Fords or the Bancrofts, but rather by some lawyer in Detroit or New York. The whole point of this is to once again make it as clear as possible that the status of the "founders" qua founders is legally meaninless.


 * Now that I got all that out of the way, the answer to your question is a rather short one. Corporations can issue whatever types of shares their directors' please. Common shares, preferred shares, voting shares, non voting shares, shares that carry, say, 100 times the voting power of other common shares, etc. This may seem unfair, but it really isn't. When buying a share, you know what you're getting. If, for example you want to invest some money in Ford for speculative purposes only, and with no intention of using them to vote with, then why would you care if your share happens to be a non-voting share?


 * I hope I've helped. Feel free to come back with a follow up if you're unclear on anything. Lewis 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, have you read the article Time Warner which is the world's largest media and entertainment conglomerate, and on February 7, 2006, a group led by "Corporate raider" Carl Icahn and Lazard Frères CEO Bruce Wasserstein unveiled a 343-page proposal calling for the breakup of Time Warner into four companies and stock buybacks totaling approximately $20 billion. On February 17, 2006, the Icahn-lead group agreed with Time Warner to not contest the re-election of TW's slate of board members at the 2006 shareholders meeting. In exchange for the Icahn group's cooperation, Time Warner will buy back up to $20 billion of stock, nominate more independent members to the board of directors, cut $1 billion of costs by 2007, and continue discussions with the Icahn group over their proposal, particularly on the future of Time Warner Cable.

Lewis in other words Carl Icahn is a shareholder activist, who's main attemt is to change the direction of the Directors (board of directors) way they are doing business, so it's more profitable.

Consider this, if Carl Icahn wanted to "corporate raid" Dow Jones, by his means, he would certainly not be successful because the Brancroft family has more voting power than 100% the common shareholders, because they have a different class of shares, with higher voting power; thus, allowing the Brancroft family to place whoever they want as the Board of Directors.

I read on the news also that the common shareholders can start a class action suit against the Board of Directors? But what would that lead to? I mean what can the judge do to remedy the situation? Can the judge force the Brancroft family to list all classes of shares on the stock exchange? --Goingempty 19:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NYSE stocks - alternative trading methods?
I was reading in the news, I quote from Globe & Mail

"TSX Group Inc., whose stock suffered its biggest drop yet yesterday after a group of Canada's largest securities dealers said they will create a rival trading system, may have to deal with even more competition as exchange industry sources say there is at least one more alternative trading system in the works.

Even before the announcement of project Alpha - as the alternative trading system (ATS) proposed by the Big Six banks and Canaccord Capital Inc. is known - the TSX already faced plenty of competition, with alternative systems available to enable buyers and sellers to trade large blocks of stock outside the exchanges.

But the development of full-fledged alternative trading systems that enable trading of all stocks, in blocks of all sizes, had been slow in Canada since regulators changed the rules in 2001 to make it possible. "

NYSE trading is still not completly computerized like other stock exchanges. Are there full-fledged alternative trading systems that enable trading of all NYSE stocks (outside the exchanges), in blocks of all sizes, and is also popular with the business community?

--Goingempty 01:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.pipelinetrading.com/default.aspx
 * This is probably EXACTLY what you're thinking of. I don't know much about it except that you can trade blocks of NYSE-listed stocks directly with other large traders without ever touching the exchanges. It's advertised on CNBC all of the time.


 * NByz 05:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Goingempty 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter circles neighborhood for 3+ hours every few days. FAA, police, etc. won't do a thing even to find out who it is
A helicopter too high up to read any numbers off it circles my neighborhood for over three hours every few days. The FAA, police, etc. won't do a thing even to find out who it is. I just see a helicopter and can't see numbers off it and I can't tell visually whose it is. What can I do to find out who is doing this? SakotGrimshine 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That used to happen in a former neighborhood of mine. During that period, I read in an article that police were using helicopters for infrared photography to try to locate indoor marijuana farms.  It may be some kind of police operation, in which case the authorities are unlikely to tip anyone off on the exact nature of the surveillance.  I suppose that you could try training powerful binoculars or a telescope on the helicopter to look for markings, but if they want to be covert, there may be none.  Marco polo 16:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The police still have to follow FAA regs if they want to fly, including having a tail number. The supreme court recently ruled in Kyllo_v._United_States that infrared scanning of houses without a warrant is unconstitutional. I suggest that the OP get the tail number, look it up themselves, and contact the operator of the aircraft, and then their governmental representative. -- Diletante 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If they're doing infrared imaging, that's a pretty tenuous per Kyllo, but they don't necessarily have to be doing infrared imaging. Standard aerial photography from helicopters at around 1000 feet has been upheld; see California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1984) (flying at 1000 feet in public airspace to do a naked-eye survey of marijuana crops in a house's curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment) and Dow Chemical v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1984) (EPA's use of enhanced photography is balanced by lower expectation of privacy when flying over plant complex in publicly navigable airspace).  Good aerial photography can be a tremendous aid in figuring out
 * I'm not really surprised the FAA et al. are being close-mouthed; I wouldn't be surprised if there were exceptions made for law enforcement agencies. As for figuring out who this is, the earlier advice is probably your best bet--take some photographs with the best equipment you have, and then see if you can enhance them in Photoshop or some other image editing program.  If you're lucky, maybe you can match it up to some other similarly colored helicopter picture (or if you're unlucky, it'll be more or less unmarked). –Pakman044 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You need binoculars. If it's that high it might be one of a hundred things - aerial photography (and there's no need to call out the tinfoil hat brigade - this is how Google Maps updates), police surveillance (common in high-traffic areas), the local radio station's chopper, security, etc., etc. Use your binoculars to find the N-number on the aircraft (if it's military, it may not have one, but otherwise it will) and look it up online. The FAA isn't going to tell you anything about any aircraft - even if it's Joe Traffic up there giving reports to the local radio station, the feds will still consider identification a restricted matter and won't tell you. -- Charlene 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree you need to get the binoculars. If you have the N number, you can look up who the aircraft belongs to on the FAA website. (Try  http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_inquiry.asp).  Crypticfirefly 02:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are under or near controlled airspace, you might try listening to the air traffic control frequencies. anonymous6494 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You may not neeed binoculars, if you have a camera with a lens that lets you zoom in to see distant images. Corvus cornix 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Auld Alliance
Was the former alliance with France a good thing for Scotland? SeanScotland 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume you have read the page on the Auld Alliance, which treats of this subject at some length, and in a fairly authoritative fashion? The short answer to your question is that it really depends on what point in time you care to make a stand and draw a judgement.  The Alliance seems to have operated to optimum effect for both countries during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; for Scotland during the Second War of Independence, and for France  during the second half of the Hundred Years War, especially the early part of the reign of Charles VII.  But it was not, nor could it ever be, a partnership of equals.  Scotland was a small and poor country, standing on the fringes of European civilization: France, after the victory over England in 1453, emerged as one of the great powers of the day, involved in a whole variety of political and diplomatic schemes.  Against this background the Scots tended to be pulled into matters in which they had little direct interest, and were used by monarchs like Louis XI in a cynical and potentially harmful fashion.  By the sixteenth century it was obvious to most that Scotland's best interests lay in an accommodation with England, and James IV recognised as much when he concluded the Treaty of Perpetual Peace with Henry VII, which led to his marriage with Margaret Tudor.  But a few years later, in pursuit of the alliance with France, he was pulled into what was conceivabaly the most unecessary and tragic war in Scotland's history, and to his own death in 1513 at the Battle of Flodden.  In the end, during the early part of the reign of Mary Queen of Scots, with the onset of the Reformation, the French connection had, in itself, become a serious threat to Scotland's liberty.  It was the English who came to the rescue, in what must be one of history's greatest ironies!  Clio the Muse 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Israel and India:Connection?
Armenians were Indians who migrated to Armenia. Is there any connection between indians and Israelis?

Also, is it possible for purebred indians to have light eye colors? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.152.229.96 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Why do you think that Armenians have anything to do with India? And even if they did, what would that have to do with Israelis? I think you need to set out your assumptions (or your sources).


 * And what do you mean by 'purebred indians'?--ColinFine 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Armenians have been living in Armenia since the dawn of time. Of course Indians can have light eyes; Aishwarya Rai has naturally light eyes. You find green and blue eyes all over northern India, Pakistan, into Afghanistan, and northern Iran/Iraq. -- Charlene 01:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The only think I can get from this is that if the OP meant "American" instead of "Armenia", what he is talking about is reminding me of the Jaredites and the Lamanites and the Nephites.--Kirby♥time 02:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In the early years of Indo-European studies it was sometimes assumed that India was the original IE homeland (since Sanskrit was supopsed to be the most perfect IE language). Presumably then the Armenians would have emigrated from there like everyone else. Apparently one of the other hypothetical IE homelands is Armenia itself. As for Israel, well if you can think of a crazy theory about the origins of the Israelites, there are dozens of even crazier theories. I remember reading once that Abraham was actually a brahmin. Adam Bishop 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What does the legal acronym CRO mean?
EOM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.3.198.200 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC).


 * A possible meaning is "Criminal Records Office". However, it might also mean "Crime Reduction Officer", and many other things. If the foregoing does not fit, it might help other people to identify this if you could say a bit more about the context. --Lambiam Talk  21:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If this was something you heard (instead of viewed or otherwise...) it might have been TRO. This is especially likely if you heard it over the phone from someone such as your ex-girlfriend. dr.ef.tymac 21:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proficiency in World War II
I'd like to achieve expertise in World War II. Which books would you recommend me to read? I have basic knowledge from school and various readings, including several Wikipedia articles. --Taraborn 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My goodness, Taraborn, you have set yourself potentially a huge task! Is there any particular aspect of the war in which you are interested?  The Wikipedia page on World War II has a short bibliography, though one hardly adequate to the importance of the subject.  If you are looking for a good general introduction you could do no better than get hold of a copy of Martin Gilbert's Second World War.  There are simply too many books that deal with specific parts of the war to mention here, though one of my personal favourites is Alan Clark's Barbarossa: the Russian German Conflict, 1941-1945.  And if you are looking for a superb account of a battle in that campaign I would suggest that you read Stalingrad by Antony Beevor.  However, if you would like information on any other topic do come back and I will try a little fine-tuning.  Clio the Muse 23:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help :) Good thing is that I'm particularly interested in the Eastern front and, specifying even more, in the Battle of Stalingrad. I knew it would be hard work but... you know, I'm tired of wasting time reading random articles about the war without seeming to improve much. Thank you again Clio :) --Taraborn 21:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rule, Britannia!
As the song has 6 verses, which verse did Bryn Terfel sing in welsh at the Last Night of the Proms 1994 (mp3, he only sung four verses). He did not sing verse 2/6, but he sung 1/6, 3/6, and 6/6 in english. So the welsh ist either 4/6 or 5/6, but which? Is ist common to leave out 2 verses, and usually which one's? Are there welsh lyrics? Thanks Cherubino 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't quite distinguish most the words, to make out which verse they might have come from - there's a bit "hwn oedd..." ("this was..."), and "a chodi [..] y tonnau" ("and raise [..] the waves"). I can only suppose it was a fairly free translation! -- Arwel (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)