Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 26

= February 26 =

Changes in laws after changes of government (in EU)
First of all, many many thanks to all those above who helped me understand the Reagan mandate (and all other questions in the past)- very interesting and very kind of you all, thanks! I have another thing that's "bugging" me, appreciate any information: When, in Europe, a government swings from left -> right or vice versa after elections, say Tory -> Labour or CDU -> SDP, to what extent can the new government reverse the laws of the previous government if they were strongly opposed to them before? For example, if PP were to win in March in Spain, and they have said they would alter the current PSOE government's legislation regarding the gay marriage, to what extent could they nullify this or does anything remain legally binding that they can't interfere with? Thank you again, --AlexSuricata (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly in British political theory, no Parliament can bind its successors to any course of action - there's no such thing as an "entrenched" law in Britain, and any Parliament can repeal any previous act of Parliament, though things may be complicated where international agreements are concerned. I can't speak for Spanish constitutional theory. -- Arwel (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Like Arwel, I have no idea about the processes in Spain, but the following applies to Austria:
 * The vast majority of laws can be repealed by a subsequent parliament of a different political orientation, assuming it holds the majority in the legislative council and is not a minority government.
 * Some laws hold constitutional rank and require a 2/3s majority in the legislative assembly to be passed or amended.
 * It is thus - almost - guaranteed that laws of significance require a broad consensus between major parties of the Left and Right.
 * The article on the status of same-sex marriage implies that legislation pertaining to marriage (generally or same sex) is indeed of constitutional rank, eg. see Latvia, Portugal and individual states of the USA. In many countries the issue is closely linked to those aspects of the constitution which deal with discrimination.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Holst, The Planets, fourth movement
Why is the fourth movement of The Planets by Holst named after Jupiter, when it is obviously a sailing ship on the high seas? You can hear the wind filling the sails, the glistening of drops of water as the bow cuts through the waves, the scurrying of the deck hands, the ship rocking back and forth, etc. It is obviously a sailing ship on the high seas. Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ...the squeak of rats in the hold...--Wetman (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought he wrote it as the theme song for the National Geographic channel. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Holst chose to structure his piece around programmatic images of the planets. Whether he was really thinking about something else is immaterial, I guess.  I have lots of vivid images I think of when I hear certain music, and they don't usually match with what the composer says they're supposed to.-69.127.18.205 (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the question can be reversed. The Planets is one of those works often imitated in Hollywood. For example, film composers have borrowed from "Mars, the Bringer of War" when scoring science fiction movies. Apologies if I'm completely off, but it's possible that your brain synapses "learned" the visual-auditory associations while watching nautical or pirate movies. ---Sluzzelin talk  06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * so true!-69.127.18.205 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps majestic is the programmatic adjective that fits Jupiter, the sea (with apologies to Neptune), and also mighty ships. ---Sluzzelin talk  07:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Parts of it do have a very majestic sound. I've heard the piece for more than 30 years, and it always brings up images of sailing ships to me, not Jupiter.  If I was making a music video of this music, it would definitely be a sailing ship, and I can picture most of it in my mind.  The first part is casting off, etc.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to expand on what 69.127 said, Morning Mood from Grieg's Peer Gynt is used as the classic evocation of fjords, grassy dew-coated meadows, nordic birds free-wheeling against the rising sun, freshness, and coolness; you can almost hear the cowbells clanking away and see the hot breath escaping from their nostrils and smell the earthy richness of their udders as they proceed to milking - all very lovely and evocative. Except that's not it at all!!.  Grieg wrote it as a depiction of morning in the Sahara Desert, of all places!  We attribute to music whatever we like, but that's not necessarily what the composer had in mind.  --  JackofOz (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Boccherini's minuet to images of C18 high-life bewiggery. --Wetman (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there is no planet in the Solar system which is a sailing ship, so while Saint Saens felt himself free to include "Pianists" in the "Carnival of the Animals", the more literal minded Britisher Holst restricted himself to planets in his Planets Suite. Jupiter is "the bringer of jollity", playing on the joviality of Jove, as well as the majestic king of the gods. Both aspects are present in the Jupiter movement, and it is probably the laughter that you interpret as sea spray. SaundersW (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Britisher? Are you an Indianer? Skittle (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Investment advice from Bill
William Shakespeare "invested in a share of the parish tithes in Stratford." What doth that mean? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My speculation is that this refers to parish tithes being securitised and purchaseable in shares: the investor would pay cash which is used by the parish, and when tithes are received, they are repaid to the investor, like municipal bonds. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the 24th July 1605 Shakespeare invested £440 in 'one half of all tythes of wooll and lambe, and of all small and privy tythes'. Tithes were a tenth of all produce from the land made by a farmer paid to the church. Shakespeare leased the tithes from the Stratford Corporation and it was a common action to secure a steady income, he expected to gain around £60 a year from the tithes. From all evidence Shakepeare, like his father, was a shrewd business man involved in property and usury (cf. The Merchant of Venice). Lord Foppington (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A belated thank you to you both. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Poem about ice skating, the moon, and death
A few years back my humanities teacher read us a poem which I believed was called "A Mate for the Moon" (or something to that extent), but I can't find it anywhere. It is about a young couple that sneaks out at night to go ice skating, but the ice breaks, and they die. Thank you! Evaunit ♥666♥ 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition of misdemeanor?
I am NOT looking for legal advice, but I have a general question about the definition of "misdemeanor" in US state laws. If a person is fined for driving on an expired registration or failing to provide proof of insurance, those sorts of paperwork infractions that usually carry fines of about $100, has that person committed a misdemeanor? I mean, where is the bar for "misdemeanor" vs. simple "infraction" in traffic cases? -69.127.18.205 (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think different states can have different definitions. AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * AnonMoos is correct that the definitions vary from one state to another. In New York, for example, the general rule is that if an offense is punishable by a fine only or by no more than 15 days in jail it is a violation, and if by more than 15 days but no more than 1 year it is a misdemeanor. One would consult the statute creating the offense (the Penal Law, the Vehicle and Traffic Law, or another law) which would indicate the classification for that offense. Copies of state statutes are available on Findlaw, among other places. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Could I get a neutral ONE-PARAGRAPH summary of Israel and Palestine
I don't understand the articles, can someone write a neutral BRIEF PARAGRAPH (not one smart-alec sentence or something, but a real, chunky, neutral paragraph - but JUST ONT) explaining what happened. Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.84.247 (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please clarify your question -- what happened in exactly what time period? AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just read some of our articles on the subject? They're quite readable. Neutrality is in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid, but I think most fair minded people would think our articles are not bad. Knowing where to start might be tricky; I'd suggest you head for Israel. Don't make the mistake of skipping the first section; to understand this conflict you need to get your head round some very long-term issues. After that, I think it's vital you read British_Mandate_of_Palestine and Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finally, the modern preoccupation with Israelis and Palestinians misses an important bit of context, for which you shoud read Arab-Israeli_conflict. --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I told you, I did read them, and I don't find them legible at all. You see, you've already referred me to a long article section, telling me not to make the mistake of skipping the first part!  And then you referred me to three more long and complex articles!  That's not what I was looking for.  It's why I asked for one brief neutral paragraph here, which I've now added to the title too.  A paragraph is a lot!  I got someone to summarize the history of mankind in a paragraph...  I was very satisfied with the summary and want the same 1 neutral paragraph for Israel and Palestine.   ONE PARAGRAPH.  Not a reading list!  Thank you for your help and understanding.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.84.247 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So...you're just lazy? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a bit bite-y, don't you think? It's not an unreasonable request, IMHO (but I'm not the person to do it).  Boiling down complex issues into brief statements is a valid and important skill.  --Richardrj talkemail 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I was being "bitey" but it takes more than a paragraph for this kind of thing. Nevertheless I would boil it down thusly: the Palestinians are everyone's problem - note how often they are mistreated by Egypt or Jordan, for whom they are little more than an excuse to complain about Israel. Everyone wants a Palestinian state because then they won't have to worry about Palestinian migrants/refugees. Also, it all has to do with water. There is very little of it, and Israel, being a rather modern bureaucratic state, is better organized at accessing water supplies. To cover the embarrassment of having relatively backwards governments (who, among other things, are not good at supplying their population with water), the surrounding Arab states find it easier to blame Israel for, well, everything. As usual religion really has nothing to do with it. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Here goes:
 * 1. It was mine once.
 * 2. But it hasn't been for a long time.
 * 3. It's our's at the moment. Tell you what, we'll chop it in half and give that chunk to 4!
 * 1. Erm, but you didn't give us any.
 * 2. Or us.
 * 3. Oh yes. Silly me. OK. Hmm. The bit that's left over? I'll chop it in two and give it to 1 and 2.
 * 1. Great.
 * 2. Not fair.
 * 4,5,6,7. If you're gonna do that, we'll take it.
 * 1. Please don't.
 * 2. Erm, is this good for us?
 * 4,5,6,7. Don't worry about it.
 * 2. OK.
 * 4,5,6,7. Oh. Why are our noses bleeding?
 * 1. Phew. That was close.
 * 2. Erm. Can we have something now?
 * 1,4,5,6,7. NO.
 * 2. OK. We'll make trouble for all of you now.
 * 4,5,6,7. Erm, we'll leave you alone, 1, if you give something to 2.
 * 2a. We might leave you alone, 1, if you give something to us.
 * 2b. We won't leave you alone, 1, until you give everything to us.
 * 1. Ah. Erm...

Hope that's short enough, though it's not a paragraph. Tried my best to be neutral, but we all carry bias, even if we're unaware of it. But really, if you want to understand big, grown up issues, it's worth being, erm, big and grown up about it. I've no idea how old you are, but I wouldn't insult a 10 year old's intelligence with that summary. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to try:
 * Prior to WWII there was a movement to give the Jews a homeland in the middle east (ie in the Palestine some of which is now in the state of Israel). The Palestine at the time was a Britsh Protectorate (ie associated with the then British Empire). The experience of the Jews in WWII added more weight to this movement (plus WWII produced large numbers of Jewish refugees). Eventually the Jews were given a place to live in that region .. Creating the state of Israel. So far so good. Unfortunately nobody checked with the people who already lived there and the decision to give this land to the Jews was made by people who didn't live there. The people who already lived there were on the whole the 'Palestinians' Effectively their country was cut in half without their consent. To further exascerbate this the state of Israel recieved large amounts of support from western countries (especially the USA) - whilst the Palestinians were less lucky. This left the palestinians in a vaguely similar situation to the one the jews were in ~50 years before. Now the Palestinians need a homeland... Two peoples, one place, and unbalanced treatment of one side have created the situation there is to day - with the palestians effectively living as 'bandits' in what was once their own country. And all this due to Foreign Meddling .87.102.42.162 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's as amusing as it is misleading. It wasn't that "nobody checked"; there was protracted violence between the more radical Zionists against both the British and the Palestinians during the period of WWII itself if not earlier. If you want to see exactly how complicated this history can get, check out the article on Stern gang, and see how much of that vibes with the paragraph up above. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In celebration of the abpve pair of posts, and those that I anticipate will follow them, I have created a new essay, How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle. Thank you for inspiring me. --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Was it the but where I underlined 'foreign meddling' that you realised I might not be the wholly neutral commentator you had hope for?87.102.118.114 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another try. It's long but tries to be evenhanded and to sum up the situation:


 * Long, long ago many peoples lived in the lands that now belong to the Israelis and the Palestinians. For a period in ancient times, the region belonged to the Jews.  Later, most Jews were driven out of the region, but it remained sacred to them.  Some Jews believed that God had given them the region, and it was sacred to the Jews.  Over the course of many centuries, other peoples inhabited these lands. For about a thousand years, until the 1900s, most people in the region were Muslim Arabs, for whom the city of Jerusalem was sacred.  In the late 1800s, a movement developed among Jews in Europe to escape discrimination in Europe by moving to the land then known as Palestine.  After World War I, Palestine came under British control, and the British permitted more Jews to move into Palestine, where they bought up land from the Arabs.  Conflicts over land began to develop between the Jews and Arabs. During World War II, Jews in Europe suffered displacement and genocide.  After World War II, many moved to Palestine, where they threatened to outnumber the Arab population.  Jews declared independence for their state of Israel, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were driven or fled from lands within Israel to become refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, or neighboring countries.  Meanwhile, Arab countries launched attacks against Israel, sometimes from the West Bank, Sinai, Gaza, or the Golan Heights.  In 1967, Israel responded to these attacks by occupying these formerly Arab territories, which were home to most of the Palestinian Arab population.  Palestinian Arabs continued to fight Israeli control from outside and within Israeli-controlled territory.  Some Palestinian Arabs used terrorist tactics against Israel.  Meanwhile, Israel responded aggressively to the Palestinian resistance and killed many Palestinian civilians.  Israeli economic blockades also resulted in the impoverishment of the Palestinian population.  Also, Israel built Israeli settlements across the West Bank, where most of the Palestinian population lives.  The Israelis set up security barriers to allow Israelis to travel relatively safely to settlements in the West Bank, while Palestinian residents were denied access to neighboring towns and faced sometimes deadly waits for medical attention.  Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel continued, and Israel refused to improve conditions for the Palestinians until the Palestinians stopped these attacks.  However, Israeli constraints and divisions among the Palestinians left the Palestinian government largely unable to provide the security that Israel demanded.  Marco polo (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Briefest of all (or Dweller reduced): 1: We live here and want it to be our country. 3: Okay. 2: We used to live there and want it to be our country. 3: Okay. DEATH DEATH DEATH 2: We have a country. 1: We don't have a country. DEATH DEATH DEATH 2: We have a slightly bigger country. 1: We don't have a country. DEATH DEATH DEATH Skittle (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

First, there were Jews. Or rather, first they were the people modern Jews claim to be descended from, not all of them followed a religion that we today would recognise as Judaism, and large parts of the population were non-Jewish, (imported slaves, economic migrants, etc.). Then, the Roman Empire took over, some Jews thought this was okay because it gave them free economic access to the entire Mediterranean world, other Jews didn't like this because all Roman citizens where obliged to believe in the Roman pantheon of gods. So there were a number of revolts, untill Emperor Hadrian, (of -'s Wall fame), decided to kick all the Jews out of Judaea, knock down their temples and rename the province after his middle name, 'Palaestinus'. Many Jews did leave Judaea, settling in Poland and Russia (where they arrived before the Poles and Russians), the Caucasus and elsewhere along the silk road - however, the effectiveness of this expulsion was almost certainly inflated, the Romans lacked the beurocratic skills needed to fully dislodge an entire ethnicity, many Jews probably stayed behind, and just kept their faith to themselves. Later, Christianity became the state religion, and the government in Rome, (and later East Rome, aka. Constantinople), made it their business to inform a strict compliance with official state dogma. Around the same time, a man named Mohammad emerged from the desert preaching a religion that was, comparatively, much more rational and permissive than Byzantine Orthodox Christianity, the Byzantine Palestinians (many of them believing in some degree of Judaism) began to interact both materially and philosophically with the Muslims, and throughout the Byzantine Empire, Islam slowly grew in popularity. And so, Palestine saw itself placed between two cultures, one facing terminal decline, the other experiencing a meteoric rise. But Constantinople's primary enemy was the Persian Empire, who invaded Palestine in the 600s, the invasion was expelled, but the Byzantines never really reasserted control, (they're sporadic butcherings of local peoples didn't really help) - so, in came the Muslims. The Palestinian Christians swiftly surrendered to the Muslims, and conversions to Islam became commonplace, partially due to the economic and legal benefits of doing so, but also due to the logical inconsistancies that plagued Byzantine Orthodoxy. Western Europe, meanwhile, is essentially a giant warzone, anyone who professes any faith other than Roman Christianity is denied of any human rights whatsoever, Jews especially, are often massacred, among this mess the Papacy emerges as a power that desires to exercise supreme authority. The Papacy is supported by the knightly class, (which itself is mostly comprised of politically and economically disenfranchised nobles). The Papacy offers a novel solution, the European knights who are denied their inheritance, (under medieval law, land always went to the eldest son), may fight under the banner of the Papacy for the purpose of once again placing the Holy Land (ie. Palestine) under Christian control, and, what's more, carve out a suitably sized fiefdom for themselves - these networks of economic, military and clerical interests lead to the Crusades. The Crusaders ebb and flow into the Holy Land for over 200 years, before finally being ejected by the Egyptians, who reassert Islamic rule. At this same time, hoardes of invading Turks start invading the Middle East from their ancestral homelands in Central Asia, they eventually wash away the last remnants of the Byzantine Empire, and the Ottoman Caliphate is established. And from this point, Palestinian history gets boring for a bit, the Ottomans acheive direct control over the region, and bring with them economic development and inter-religious peace, Muslims are the majority, but there are significant numbers of Jews and Christians in the province. Its not untill the 20th Century that the Ottoman Empire starts to die, after losing its imperial holdings in Europe, the Ottoman Turks pick the losing side in World War One, and are left entirely at the mercy of the victorious French and British. Messrs Sykes and Picot decide to divide the Middle Eastern Ottoman Empire into French and British zones, the French gaining Syria and Lebanon, and Britain getting, essentially, the rest. Britain sets up a Mandate of Palestine, consisting in the west of 'Palestine' and in the east of 'Transjordan', the land across from the Jordan river. In Europe meanwhile, a number of Jewish ideologues are beginning to see the benefit of settling in their ancestral homeland, and a gradual trickle of immigration begins. An important thing to realise at this point, is that due to centuries of apathy from the land's Turkish governors, this land is of very poor quality, and does not allow many people to live off of it, the early Zionists take advantage of this by purchasing very poor quality land, (swamps and deserts, etc.), for a very low price from the Palestinians, and drain/irrigate it using the most advanced European technologies - Palestinians often feel cheated about this, and civil strife begins to spark up. Then, due to the unfavourable climax of WWI, WWII begins, the psychotic leadership of Nazi Germany scapegoats the Jews and attempts genocide against them - WWII ends with 6m Jews murdered, the rhetoric of the Zionists has never sounded so convincing... Jews can only be safe if they are being governed by fellow Jews. The British government agrees with this analysis, and pledges to create a Jewish homeland in the western half of the Palestinian Mandate, whilst handing the rest over to the Hashemite royal family. In 1948, the Zionist State of Israel became independent, a constitutional convention was called but was never completed, meaning that Israel failed to establish from day one exactly who was eligible for Israeli citizenship, many Secularists believed the indigenous Palestinians should be, whilst many hard-core Zionists believed all non-Jews should be expelled, as it happened, the inability to decide proved more damaging than any other decision could have been... The main reason this convention failed to be completed was the military invasion Israel endured from its neighbours, known as the War of Independence by the Israelis, and The Catastrophe by the Palestinians, this saw Israel assert from day one its military superiority - and lead to the Palestinians living within the core Israeli territory fleeing, settling in Transjordan and throughout the region. Following this victory, the Jewish population of Israel rapidly increased. However, the Cold War touched the region just as it did every other region, specifically in the form of the Six Day War, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, armed backed by the Soviets, launched a simultaneous invasion - the war was, as the name suggests, rather swift, the invading armies were disarmed (providing Israel with a huge stockpile of Russian weapons that helped cement the state's reputation as an arms-dealer of choice), and Israel pushed forward its borders to more strategically secure positions, (the eastern border, previously disecting the city of Jerusalem, was now moved all the way to the River Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights were also captured, the latter being one of Israel's most important sources of drinking water). Whew, I have to go now, I think other people will be better at taking care of the more modern stuff! Ninebucks (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As Tim Minchin sang..."You don't eat pigs and we don't eat pigs, it seems it's been that way forever, so if you don't eat pigs and we don't eat pigs, why not not eat pigs together?" ny156uk (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny you should say that. In ancient China, despite the Jews being present since at least the 2nd century AD, for a long time they were seen as a sub-group of the Hui, or muslim-Chinese. Specifically, Jews were called the Blue-hat Hui. From a Han Chinese perspective, the most distinctive identifiers of a Jew and a Muslim are the same: skull cap, not eat pigs, and one god. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Salome"
I was recently cast in the school play of Robin Hood as "Salome", the Sheriff's daughter. Everyone keeps calling me "suh-low-m" but I don't think that's right. What's the pronunciation of this name? --Candy-Panda (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The American Heritage Dictionary suggests two pronunciations and has a WAV soundfile too. Both use three syllables, though the emphasis shifts, and both articulate the final -me, unlike "suhl-low-m". ---Sluzzelin talk  12:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you can say that "suh-LOW-mee" is the fully Anglicized pronunciation, and it will do for most purposes. The rhyme with "home" is just plain illiterate. Write "epitome" on a piece of paper and ask them how they'd pronounce that. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And then write "microtome" next to it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never heard it pronounced "suh-low-m" or "suh-LOW-me". "SALL-oh-may" is the standard pronunciation in English. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For clarity (I assume the anon will agree with me) I'd have spelled that SAL to rhyme with the first syllable of "Calgary", rather than to rhyme with "fall". --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rhymezone has heard it pronounced my way. As I said, it's the fully Anglicized pronunciation, so you don't hear it much in this day of PC accent diddling. How do we say "Quixote"? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Rhymezone" is not a reliable source. For example, it claims that "marry" rhymes with such words as "cherry", "prairie" and "Macquarrie". 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Marry" doesn't rhyme with "cherry"? --NellieBly (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The vowel in "marry" is IPA /æ/. The vowel in "cherry" is IPA /ɛ/. So no, they don't rhyme. Incidentally, the vowel in "prairie" is IPA /eɪ/ and in Macquarrie it is IPA /ɒ/. None of these words rhyme. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that Rhymezone is a reliable source, I'm claiming that their page constitutes proof that my pronunciation is heard in the world outside our heads; you have never heard it, others have. Are you saying that the rhyme with "foamy" is not a possible pronunciation? --Milkbreath (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Greek form of the name, the "e" was actually a long Eta vowel, which was also the feminine ending of the word. That's why the "e" in this word is a little different from the typical English word-final silent-e situation.  We have an article Salome (disambiguation) (though currently without English pronunciation information). AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this may be one of those classical words / names pronounced differently in different places. In the UK, it would definitely be SAL-O-ME, and Quixote would be KEY-HO-TAY. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in the UK, and I defiantly stick to DON KWIX-ut, though I suspect I'm part of a dying breed. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably eligible for a government or EU grant. Or at least a preservation order. --Dweller (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard Strauss wrote an opera called Salome. It's sung in German, and pronounced ZA-lo-may, although anglophones when referring to it usually say SA-lo-may; and then they open their Bibles and read about suh-LO-mee, the person on whom the opera was based.  The libretto is a German translation of a play written in French by Oscar Wilde, and he spells her name Salomé, as the Frenchies do, to indicate three syllables, not two.  The only real issue for anglophones is whether the stress is on the first syllable or the second - it can be either, but you can't get away with less than three syllables.  The people who call it "Sa-loam" are probably the same ones who've never heard of the Beatles (or if they have, spell it Beetles).  On Don Quixote, I remember precisely the very first time I ever heard anyone pronounce it ki-ho-tay: my English teacher when I was about 14.  I had no idea what he was talking about and he had to explain.  Until then, to me, it was simply kwix-ote, and that pronunciation survives even in these days of sophisticated vulgarianism.  I would thoroughly dress down anyone who pronounced "quixotic" as ke-hot-ic.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I once had a university professor, a specialist in drama of the general Congreve era, who insisted on "Don Kwicks-zote" and "Jay-queeze" for Jacques. He claimed it was right for the time. He also claimed that "kwick-zah-tick", alone, was sufficient proof of how it all began in English. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He probably was right for the time, at least for Quixote. The OED gives /ˈkwɪksət/ as pronunciation for Quixote, n., in reference to "An enthusiastic visionary person like Don Quixote, inspired by lofty and chivalrous but false or unrealizable ideals." Citations for this usage are from 1648 to 1896. Dforest (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely 'sa-lo-me (rhymes with month-of-may) for me. It's interesting to me that I say Quixote as Ki-'ho-te, but Quixotic as Kwi-'sot-ik. Steewi (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Suh-LOE-mee and QUICK-sote. I can live with SAL-uh-MAY. I have an idea this sensible professor would have preferred Jakes to Jay-queeze. I understand that people who say Ki-HOE-tay have been brought up that way, but, as Talleyrand says, those who did not live before the revolution will never know the sweetness of life. Xn4  01:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a late thought. "Ke-ho-tay" (for Quixote) is of course the correct Spanish pronunciation, and it's fair enough to want to emulate the way the hispanophones say it, being a Spanish character written by a Spanish writer and all. But "kwix-ote" is just as acceptable in English as "Mek-si-ko" is for Mexico (the Mexicans pronounce it "Me-hi-ko"). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dietary laws and categories.
I'm writing a program for a company producing soy bars and drinks and fruit juice, and they've asked for the following check boxes in their ingredients setup database entry screen (not yet used, but to be filled in during ingredient data entry):
 * Kosher
 * Parev (no meat or milk)
 * Halaal
 * Organic
 * Vegan (no animal products)
 * Vegetarian (no meat)
 * Contains an allergen
 * Dairy origin
 * Animal origin

I'd like to give them the option to automatically have contradictions fixed and mark sub specifications. At the moment I have

Any other that I missed? Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-26t17:43z, [...] -- Jeandré, 2008-02-27t14:14z


 * Presumably you're aware that Parev is a subcat of Kosher? As such, anything that is Parev should also be Kosher. But not necessarily vice-versa. --Dweller (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's quite right. As far as I know, all foods are pareve, milchig (dairy) or fleishig (meat), kosher or not. It's just that it's generally only people who keep kosher to some degree who use those terms. So for all intents and purposes, you can classify foods as kosher-dairy, kosher-meat, kosher-pareve or non-kosher. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Parve means that it can be eaten with both meat and dairy. Seperately, of course. AllenHansen (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is for future use on labels, so it's all about certification: how about "Certified kosher" and "Certified kosher parev"?


 * -- Jeandré, 2008-02-27t10:46z


 * You can't just say "kosher" and "kosher-parev." If it's not parev, you have to point out whether it's meat or dairy. Also keep in mind that there are competing kosher-certification marks. The purchaser may want to know who is certifying it kosher. There's also "Glatt kosher," which is like an even higher standard of kosher-ness than usual. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure, but I believe, and the Halal article seems to back me up on this, that vegetarian food is always Halal. moink (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, unless it contains alcohol! I suppose that is a possibility.  moink (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Animal Origin is an unusual classification. I think that strictly speaking this is the same as vegan. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The opposite of vegan. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-27t13:11z

Some new classifications:
 * Kosher Milchik
 * Kosher Passover
 * Non-genetically modified
 * Genetically modified
 * Contains gluten
 * Classified allergen (the thing itself is classified as an allergen)
 * Contains an allergen (the thing contains an allergen and its name is not in the list of allergens)

Anyone know of GM or gluten affecting Kosher or Halaal status? -- Jeandré, 2008-02-27t13:11z, [...] -- Jeandré, 2008-02-27t14:37z
 * GM doesn't affect Kosher status. Pushing this as far as it'll go, I suppose you could probably find a Rabbi somewhere who'd bar consumption of GM on the basis that Judaism forbids anything that might be harmful to onesself, but even that extreme position would be nothing to do with Kashrut per se. --Dweller (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Passover: A kosher-for-Passover product, like any other food product, is either meat, dairy or pareve. So there are actually seven possible variables for the kashrut status of a given product:


 * Kosher, meat, not for Passover
 * Kosher, dairy, not for Passover
 * Kosher, pareve, not for Passover
 * Kosher, meat, OK for Passover
 * Kosher, dairy, OK for Passover
 * Kosher, pareve, OK for Passover
 * Not kosher
 * An Orthodox Jewish family might have four sets of silverware: Regular meat, regular dairy, Passover meat and Passover dairy. (Either meat or dairy silverware can be used with pareve food.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-03t10:01z

Ecclesiastical History
What was Bede trying to achieve in writing his book?86.147.184.13 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read it? It's a right riveting read. --Dweller (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean this one Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum - answer - exactly what it says on the tin (ie cover).. plus a little amount of propaganda/publicity for the roman church..87.102.118.114 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, 86.147, The History of the English Church and People has a clear polemical and didactic purpose. Bede sets out, not just to tell the story of the English, but to advance his views on politics and religion. In political terms he is a partisan of his native Northumbria, amplifying its role in English history over and above that of Mercia, its great southern rival. He takes greater pains in describing events of the seventh century, when Northumbria was the dominant Anglo-Saxon power, than the eighth, when it was not. The only criticism he ventures of his native Northumbria comes in writing about the death of King Ecgfrith in fighting the Picts at Nechtansmere in 685.

This defeat Bede attributes God's vengeance for the Northumbrian attack on the Irish in the previous year. For while Bede is loyal to Northumbria he shows an even greater attachment to the Irish and the Irish Celtic missionaries, whom he considers to be far more effective and dedicated than their rather complacent English counterparts.

His final preoccupation is over the precise date of Easter, which he writes about at length. It is here, and only here, that he ventures some criticism of St Cuthbert and the Irish missionaries, who celebrated the event, according to Bede, at the 'wrong' time. In the end he is pleased to note that the Irish Church was saved from error by accepting the 'correct' date for Easter. And for men like Bede this was no trivial matter. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's now in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

school memorials
Who has information on how much money was spent erecting two memorials? I'm referring to the one at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and the one at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. Please let me know. Thank you.72.229.136.18 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Legacy of the Nazis
What things invented or developed by the Nazis are still in use today? Rocket technology may be one example - both the US and the Russians studied the V2 rockets. I understand that horrific "research" in concentration camps on the ability of people to survive floating in cold water is still used in air-sea rescue. I thought the A4 and other paper sizes used in almost every country of the world except the US was invented by the Nazis, but in fact it was developed in the 1920s and was also invented earlier by the French. 80.2.200.96 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Nazi regime had a role in developing the Volkswagen. Rockpock  e  t  00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As well as the Autobahn(not inventing but implementing it), which influenced an American version called the freeway. Anynobody 02:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a little tangential, but mass organization of information...sort of. See History of IBM. Adam Bishop 03:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)


 * As well as the first long-range military rockets, the Nazis also produced the first jet airplane (the Me-262) and the first cruise missile (the V-1), which was also jet-powered. (The jet engine itself was invented in England, but development was slower there.)  At the time of the Persian Gulf War, it was noted that three weapons of the war corresponded neatly with the three V-weapons: the cruise missiles were like V-1's, the Scud missiles were like V-2's, and Project HARP was like the V-3 (not only in concept, but in that neither of them was completed).


 * Another Nazi legacy is not an invention but, so to speak, a disinvention. Until the Nazi era, German was commonly printed in blackletter typefaces such as Fraktur.  In 1941 the Nazis declared that these should no longer be used, and German switched to the same sort of typefaces used in English and other Latin-alphabet languages... which it still uses today.


 * Also developed in Nazi Germany was the Z3, which is one of the machines that could be called the world's first-ever computer (depending on what characteristics you consider essential to call something a computer). However, today's computer industry generally owes its origins to US and British developers.


 * --Anonymous, 06:51 UTC, February 27, 2008.

Sarin. Magnetic tape. Methadone. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 08:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * oh and Fanta Bp E ps - t @ lk 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its so interesting that Coca-Cola (Genrmany) kept going during the war and then apparantly seamlessly re-integrated into Coca-Cola afterwards. 80.2.213.89 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While invented before the war and the rise of Nazism, the Fischer-Tropsch process was essential to Germany during the war and so I presume a lot of the early refinements and developments of the use of the process to make synthetic fuels on the industrial scale occured then Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anti-smoking campains? Keria (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the first things the Nazis did after occupying the Czech lands was to make the traffic drive on the right, as in Germany. Czechoslovakia never went back to driving on the left. It's likely they would have switched to the right eventually anyway, as did Sweden in 1967. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

sometimes the Joystick is claimed to have been first used to guide this rocket: Ruhrstahl X-4--Tresckow (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)