September 8

I just got a notice for jury duty as a "transverse juror". What is a "transverse juror" - I can't find it anywhere? Bubba73 (talk), 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Websearch finds several copies of a news item from 1963: the Columbia County (Georgia?) Transverse Jury awarded damages in what appears to be an eminent domain case. Are you in Georgia? —Tamfang 01:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more usually called a "traverse juror". A traverse jury is a trial jury in a criminal case. In practical terms, it means you may be needed for several days. Xn4 01:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am in Georgia. And you are right - it is "traverse juror" (my error). Bubba73 (talk), 01:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about traverse juries is that they normally have the traditional number of twelve members, so they are petit juries as opposed to grand juries, which are bigger. Xn4 02:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this will be my first time as a juror. I just don't want to be the foreman - I don't think I'm ready for that. Bubba73 (talk), 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that has interested me immensely, I was wondering if there were any tangible and documented rehabilitation of the Communist era, most pertinently in Eastern Europe, whereby a sense of nostalgia and desire for the stability of the decades of Communist rule overrides the privations that era entailed? Any articles would be greatly helpful.

AlmostCrimes 04:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a few to start [1] [2] [3] Rockpocket 04:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on Ostalgie and Yugo-nostalgia might be of interest to you also. Rockpocket 04:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Moldova, the communist party tends to get about half the votes, which is a big anomaly in a multi-party country without a winner-take-all democracy (such as the US). And the Communist Party of the Russian Federation got up to 1/3 of the votes in the 1990s and their presidential candidate has always come in second. Note that the 'safety before freedom' idea is not specifically a state socialist thing; it's always (?) been advocated by right-wing parties (Franco was revered by many in Spain for the safety he brought) and is gaining a very strong foothold in the world since the US discovered terrorism. DirkvdM 06:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy a night in a genuine

You lost me. Are you sure you posted this in the right thread? DirkvdM 07:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. The key here is Ostalgie. You will find reference to the movie I linked here on that page. Clio the Muse 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the external link threw me off, because that's hardly an example of Ostalgie. Excuse me for missing your sarcasm. :) Had I remembered I have seen that film then I might have gotten your point. Funny film, by the way. But that (and Ostalgie, I gather) is about the little things in life, not really about stability, which is to do with politics. DirkvdM 05:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there was a variation on that in western Europe too, in the early nineties with people traveling to the east to buy Trabants, which the eastern Europeans were then still happy to sell. But that's not really nostalgia, more about the exotic. Oh, and a more surprising variation; in the US, I drove through a military town (which was a new phenomenon to me) and when I saw an army surplus store there I just had to have a look. My 'culture shock' increased when I saw a Soviet army belt for sale. I just happened to need a belt, so I bought it. Funny thing is, I traveled through the US for another two months, and no-one commented on me having a hammer and sickle on my buckle (except for one Ukranian guy). DirkvdM 05:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: the urge to stay in a Stasi prsion is still based on a desire to recreate the past, in both a positive and, in this case, a negative sense. And the desire for stability is to do with much, much more than simple politics. One might even say that a particular form of politics is only held to through the belief that it is a precondition for a more secure and integrated way of life. I can see no other justification for Ostalgie. By the way, Dirk, Please forgive me for saying so, but I think the word you may be looking for is 'irony' rather than 'sarcasm'. Irony is far more subtle! Clio the Muse 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but maybe I was being sarcastic ... or was it too subtle for that? :) DirkvdM 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll allow another spin-off, what about the many questions about 'communism' (usually really meaning state socialism) here at the ref desk? Might it be that people have grown more 'comfortable' with it now that the cold war is 15 years in the past, and start to develop a genuine interest in it? And some more speculation, might that even lead to a revival of communism in the West? Not that I see any signs of it just yet. DirkvdM 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the revival of Fascism a far more likely danger. Who, now, could believe in the promise of Communism, the sheer idealism from which it took shape? It would be a little like trying to recreate the mood of primitive Christianity, a belief that the second comming was not a distant but an immanent prospect. On that particular theme you may care to familiarise yourself with the story of The Grand Inquisitor. Clio the Muse 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be right. There are sort of the same negative connotations with both fascism and communism, but the former is much longer ago, which makes a revival more likely, and there are indeed signs. Then again, there is this theory that fads come in 50 year cycles and if that is an exact number (which of course it isn't), then the heyday of the revival should already be in the past. Maybe, just like an overview of the development of communist parties, we should have such a list for fascist parties, but that would be trickier because I don't know of any parties that call themselves fascist. Does this indicate a higher 'shame factor'? DirkvdM 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging. Clio the Muse 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Right - out of roughly 250 listed parties, only 19 have 'fascism' in their name.

Centrumdemocraten. The present representative of ultra right is PVV, which has the audacity of having the word 'freedom' in its name. This time it's not the Jews but the Muslims. The war on terrorism is very fertile breeding ground for such parties (it's a conspiracy against humanity, no really!). I wonder who wrote/vandalised that article - Islam is mentioned only once, even though it's the main theme of the party. DirkvdM 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

how important was propaganda in wars of the roses? R D York 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, as the support of the people didn't count for much. But

Actually, that is not quite true, Eamonn, or at least the evidence shows that governments of the day were more than anxious to 'get the message across', so to say, in one form or another; by written hand-bills, or by public pronouncements; most often from church pulpits or from the market cross. But it is during the

Edward V, his nephew. In 1485, with Henry Tudor about to invade, Richard issued a proclamation against him and his followers, denounced as "open murderers, adulterers, and extortioners, who contrary to the pleasure of God, and against all truth, honour and nature, have forsaken their natural country." Written propaganda, sometimes in Latin, but increasingly in English, had been appearing since the early days of the dynastic struggle. Clio the Muse 02:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Can anyone give me a detailed, maybe even contemporary account of what a noble groom and bride might have worn to their wedding in mid seventeenth century France? Thanks Adambrowne666 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They would have dressed very much as if they were to appear at Court. No veil for the bride. The young duchesse de Bourgogne simply happens to be in white and gold: the "white wedding dress" is a C19 tradition. --Wetman 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the white wedding dress derived from Queen Victoria's wedding? It became popular in British society because she started the whole thing? Corvus cornix 03:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Victoria and the white dress thing--no, though she certainly added to its popularity. As for the question of veils, note that the bride would wear some kind of headcovering when in church, as any good Christian woman of the time would. (Depending on the time/place the church service might follow the wedding.) If you look closely at the painting so thoughtfully linked above you will see that the bride is wearing a pink cap. Crypticfirefly 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Wetman - interesting painting by the way - it looks as if people are depicted larger according to rank - the bride is tiny. Adambrowne666 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis, Dauphin of France was fifteen-ish and also rather short (Saint-Simon says something like long face, short). Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

but then Louis XIV was around 5 foot, so adambrown is partly right. Johnbod 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Gladstone and Disraeli take such opposite views over the Bulgarian Massacre of 1876? Pacific231 10:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See

April Uprising, National awakening of Bulgaria and Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878). Gladstone, in opposition, robustly condemned the atrocities and supported Bulgarian independence, leading much of public opinion in Britain. Disraeli's views weren't exactly opposite on the question of the massacres - he didn't support them - but in government he took the more pragmatic view that in the long term there was a greater threat to British interests from the expansionist intentions of the Russian Empire than from the status quo in the Balkans. This had also been the British view at the time of the Crimean War. Disraeli thought (and correctly) that by supporting the Ottomans he could also extract concessions from them on the humanitarian front. In the longer term, of course, the fall-out from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in Europe led to disaster, though it may be fanciful to see Disraeli as having anticipated it all. Xn4 22:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It was the contrast between what is most commonly viewed as the 'ethics of opposition' and the 'pragmatism of power.' William Ewart Gladstone famously called for the Turks to be removed 'bag and baggage' from the areas they had devastated in the Batak massacre; Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of the day, held steady to to the established British position in maintaining the Ottoman Empire as a counter to the expansionist ambitions of Russia. Would Gladstone in office, it is fair to ask, have behaved any differently? Yes, I think he may very well have, and not purely for reasons of moral outrage. There was simply no reason to suppose, as Disraeli did, that an independent Bulgaria would have been little more than a Russian puppet. In fact, there was a pragmatic dimension to Gladstone's whole perception of the issue, and it is this: a line of vigorous independent Balkan nations would, in the long run, have served the British purpose far better than a weak and weakening Turkish Empire.

Not many years after the Treaty of Berlin had greatly reduced the Bulgarian borders previously established at San Stephano the country was behaving in a determindly independant manner, much to the frustration of the Russians. Indeed, when Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia joined to together in 1885, in defiance of the Treaty of Berlin, the move was opposed by Russia, though it was supported by Lord Salisbury, the British Prime Minister, who had been Disraeli's Foreign Secretary at Berlin Thus the diplomatic world was turned upside down. So, in the end, even the Tories recognised that the Grand Old Man had not been entirely wrong! Clio the Muse 03:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli is justly perceived as the personification of 19th-century

Assassination in Sarajevo among its long-term repercussions. As I noted in the appropriate article, Disraeli effectively capitalized on Victoria's well-entrenched fears for the safety of the vital route to India, the gem in her crown. After securing the British control of the Suez Canal, Disraeli was anxious to get hold of the strategically placed island of Cyprus. The Great Balkan Crisis of 1877 allowed him to do just that, by forcing the Turks into the Cyprus Convention. It was all about land grabs. One may argue that the current inter-communal stand-off in Cyprus is a result of Disraeli's blatantly imperialist policies in the East. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, indeed. It is also true to say that Bismarck's attitude at Berlin was a poor return for the support previously given by Russia in the build up to the Franco-Prussian War. Though he managed to keep Russia 'on side', so to speak, for some time after in a diplomatic balancing act, his decision to shackle Germany to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in many ways the new 'sick man of Europe', was eventually to open up a rapprochment between Russia and France, thus creating the conditions for the very nightmare that he had taken pains to avoid. Clio the Muse 23:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• what is the impact of communication on organisational performance?
• what is consumer behaviour?
• what is market segmentation?
• what is marketing environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinmusi (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some good places to start would be our articles consumer behaviour and market segmentation, as well as our article marketing. Please feel free to return and ask any further questions you have after reading them. DuncanHill 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Roman chair (a piece of exercise equipment; no article yet, I may write one if I find sources) so called because it was used by the ancient Romans? —Keenan Pepper 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. On seeing the header I (not being that familiar with the exercise equipment) instantly thought of the

Curule chair, but I'm not really sure that the two are related. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Images of a modern "Roman chair" are more suggestive of a piece of torture equipment.  --Lambiam 06:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone at random on the web says, The roman chair was originally called the roman column device. It was so named (supposedly) from someone using a prop roman column in either a vaudeville show or strongman show to do situps and layouts across it, while someone held his feet secure. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a complicated one. My brother runs a granite/marble countertop business, and he's looking for a prospective manager. Where could he find someone interested in and qualified for that job? Thanks.--The Ninth Bright Shiner 16:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertise in a

trade journal?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Little witch girl

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: Katharina Kepler Please consider contributing

While reading about the killing of children in present-day Africa as suspected witches I came across a passing reference to the story of the witch girl of Rothenburg, a case that dates to the Thirty Years War in seventeenth century Europe. I came here looking for further information, though I have not been able to find any mention of this on your witchcraft pages. Does anyone know any more? Admiratio 17:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book Witchcraft Narratives in Germany: Rothenburg, 1561-1652 by Alison Rowlands seems to focus on the absence of witch craze in Rothenburg ob der Tauber during and around the Thirty Years(') War. Only one capital case reported between 1561 and 1652. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site (unfortunately in German) has a bit more: Between 1500 and 1700, 65 people were involved in 28 witch trials in Rothenburg o.d. T. Of these, three were executed as witches. A Margaretha Horn of Bettenfeld is mentioned who was tried for witchcraft and developed an extraordinarily complex strategy of resistance during her cross-examination in Rothenburg's prison. This happened in 1652, after the war. One famous witch trial before and into the Thirty years war, happened in Leonberg, not that far away from Rothenburg. Katharina Kepler, Johannes Kepler's mother was indicted for witchcraft along with 14 other women. Her son did all he could, took her away to Linz for a while, but when she returned to Leonberg, she was arrested and imprisoned for a few months, until Kepler was able to effect her release in october 1620, shortly before one the War's famous early battles. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rothenburg to Leonberg is not thaaat clos. More like close to 160km.--Tresckow 21:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that close in far away times, not that far closer to now, 150.7 km from center to center, according to MapPoint. One and a half hours by car, two days on horseback or even more on foot. You have a point, the aside on Kepler was just that and off-topic. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know of this case: the little girl in question was seven-year-old Brigitta Hörner, who lived in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. In the summer of 1639 she began to make claims that she was a witch; that she had attended sabbats, flying to these occasions on a fire-iron. She further claimed that while there she had promised herself to the devil, who was present dressed in black. The devil, so said Brigitta, told her to curse rather than pray. The little girl further said that she had no choice but to become a witch, because she had been baptised in the name of Satan rather than God by the pastor of Spielbach, the village where she was born. In much the same fashion that was appear later that century during the Salem witch trials Brigitta began to identify the members of her 'coven', adults from both Rothenburg and Spielbach. This added to the social tensions in the area, with people asking her to identify those whom they suspected of witchcraft. It was concerns over public order that caused the city council of Rothenburg to have Brigitta arrested on 8 July. She was now widely known in the area as the 'Little Witch Girl.'

It's an altogether tragic story. We simply do not know why she began to tell these tales, though Alison Rowlands in her work on the subject, alluded to by Sluzzelin above, suggests that it was simply attention seeking born of neglect. Brigitta's mother and father were both dead, and her remaining relatives, including an uncle by the name of Hans Hörner, did not want to take responsibility for her, leaving her to wander around Rothenburg, managing as best she could. Her stories gave her some degree of power over an uncaring adult world.

The city councillors treated her kindly. After a brief interrogation they decided that her stories were not plausible. She was released into the care of the local hospital, a charitable institution used in the support orphans and the elderly. In the official report on the matter, Georg Walther, lawyer to the council, wrote that Brigitta's stories were a fantasy, most likely caused by the influence of the devil on her imagination, which is quite remarkably when one considers that was a time when the witch-craze across central Europe was at its height; a time when children were used without hesitation-as they were at Salem-to implicate an ever widening circle of people; a time when even the youngest children could be executed on a charge of witchcraft. Brigitta was simply told not to repeat her stories and take religious instruction from the hospital's pastor.

Sadly, poor little Brigitta only remained in the custody of the authorities for three months, whereupon she was released into the care of her uncle, Hans. An unwanted responsibility, she was passed between him and other relatives for some time after. Hörner started to beat her to force her out of the city. She was later discovered dead in a barn near Rothenburg in October 1640. Clio the Muse 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Pennsylvania criminal case established whether PA would follow Wardlow v. Illinois? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjohn10e (talk • contribs) 18:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One point that is not entirely clear is whether you know that such a case exists, and you are just looking for the citation in order to refresh your memory, or whether there is some other purpose you have in mind. If it is the former instance, you should have no trouble finding it with a Pennsylvania Citator and a reference to 528 U.S. 119. Any good PA-specific reference on Criminal procedure should also prove adequate. Just ask your nearest law librarian. dr.ef.tymac 01:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between

I would say that civil rights give a citizen influence over his government, while civil liberties keep the government from overly influencing his life. EamonnPKeane 20:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberties are sometimes called negative rights, by the way. —Tamfang 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's still not really clear to me, but many thanks for your replies anyway. :) 86.56.48.12 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a bit – a positive right obligates someone else to do or provide something, and a negative right obligates someone else (typically everyone) not to do something. —Tamfang 05:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Now it's becoming clearer to me! Thanks a bunch! :)

PS: Maybe someone knowledgable in these matters can appropriately cross-reference the

civil rights and civil liberties articles, putting an explanation somewhat like the above into the articles? 86.56.48.12 14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That is a lot of power: for a sustained period it would take about 4 ordinary perple or 1.5 world class athletes to produce it. Edison 01:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the US have an equivalent of the EU's Council of Ministers made up of State governors? If such a body exists what are its powers and is it strong enough to influence Congress and the Senate. On a related note, is there a formal body in which State legislatures co-operate and co-ordinate activities, I've found National Conference of State Legislatures but that seems to be a lobbying thinktank type body rather than a practical body. Thanks.KTo288 21:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no body with legal powers. There is the National Governors Association[5] and smaller groups like the New England Governors Conference and the Southern Governors Conference. Rmhermen 21:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.KTo288 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

U.S. Senate originally was something along those lines at first, since each state had the same number of senators, and they were appointed by the state legislatures. The 17th Amendment established direct election of senators by the people. But the US has never had a "council of states" simplar to the German Bundesrat. That may be in part because the states, like the US federal government, do not have European-style "governments" that can speak with a single voice, but rather governors and legislatures that are often at odds with each other. -- Mwalcoff 00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Running with Mwalcoff's observation about the Bundesrat — Has there ever been a notable effort to convert one of These United States to parliamentary form? The tradition of separation of powers might well be too strong. —Tamfang 04:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. As far as I know, there's never been any kind of organized movement toward the complete overhaul of the system of government in any of the states. I think some of the trappings of a parliamentary system, such as strict party discipline, would strike Americans as undemocratic. -- Mwalcoff 07:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might fall afoul of the Constitutional requirement that every state have a republican form of government. Corvus cornix 03:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A parliamentary republic is still a republic. I agree that the courts might rule as you suggest; it wouldn't be the first time the courts ruled unreasonably. —Tamfang 05:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've got an art identification question here. What is the name of this painting, as seen on this [6] book cover? I've seen it a million times, but I have no idea what it's called. Thanks, GhostPirate 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Melancholy and Mystery of a Street by Giorgio de Chirico. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed; and isn't it a fascinating painting, full of threat and hidden meaning. Why is the street so empty? Who is the unseen figure casting the shadow? Is this a parent or protector waiting for the little girl, or is it something altogether more sinister? It's really creepy! Clio the Muse 23:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is the difference between the likeness of an object and the representation of it?

shankis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankis (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[:Image:Chicks-from-avignon.jpg|thumb|120px|right|Les Demoiselles d'Avignon]]

To illustrate, one could say that this

Picasso painting is a valid artistic representation of women, but is not a very good likeness of them because no women actually look like that. -- JackofOz 01:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Some women who have been in car wrecks or plane crashes or have been the subjects of experiments by demented surgeons have perhaps looked a bit like some of the Picasso paintings. Edison 01:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just my two cents, but i've always felt that cubism is an attempt to depict the likenesses that occur in part of the brain - the mess and overlay of images and meanings from which one builds an understanding of the world - they're subjective likenesses, you might say. Of course, this is just me guessing, indulging myself. Adambrowne666 11:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone, Adam! One famous Picasso quote goes "Art is the lie that reveals the truth." And

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran had similar thoughts you did. He outlines them in The Artful Brain (pdf-file!!!) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You're a legend, Sluzzelin. Adambrowne666 08:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it relevant to mention symbols here? '$' represents a dollar but is not the likeness of one. Or am I just confusing the issue? --bodnotbod 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Shankis did head the question "art history". Is money art? Some would probably say so. -- JackofOz 02:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]