text:
Gustave Charpentier

Gustave Charpentier (25 June 1860 – 18 February 1956) was a French composer, best known for his opera Louise.

Life and career
Charpentier was born in Dieuze, Moselle, the son of a baker, and with the assistance of a rich benefactor he studied violin at the conservatoire in Lille before entering the Paris Conservatoire in 1881. There he took lessons in composition under Jules Massenet (from 1885) and had a reputation of wanting to shock his professors. In 1887 he won the Prix de Rome for his cantata Didon. During the time in Rome that the prize gave him, he wrote the orchestral suite Impressions d'Italie and began work on the libretto and music for what would become his best-known work, the opera Louise.

Charpentier returned to Paris, settling in Montmartre, and continued to compose, including songs on texts by Charles Baudelaire and Voltaire. He eventually completed Louise, and it was accepted for production by the Opéra-Comique. A realistic portrait of Parisian working-class life, it is sometimes considered a French example of verismo opera.

The premiere of Louise on 2 February 1900 under the baton of André Messager was an immediate success. Soon this work was being performed all over Europe and America, and it brought Charpentier much acclaim. It also launched the career of the Scottish soprano Mary Garden, who took over the title role during an early performance. In late 1935 the composer supervised the abridged score used in a studio recording of around 70 minutes of the opera, conducted by Eugène Bigot. A film adaptation of the work followed in 1939 with Grace Moore in the title role. At the revival of Louise at the Opéra-Comique on 28 February 1950, celebrating the 50th anniversary of its creation and the 90th birthday of its composer, it was hoped that Charpentier himself might conduct the performance, but André Cluytens did so, with the composer conducting the "Chant de l'apothéose" after the third act.

Louise is still occasionally performed today, with the soprano aria "Depuis le jour" a popular recital piece.

In 1902, Charpentier founded the Conservatoire Populaire Mimi Pinson, intended to provide a free artistic education to Paris's working girls. However, he became unproductive as a composer. He worked on a sequel to Louise, Julien, ou la vie du poète, but it was quickly forgotten after its tepidly received 1913 premiere. Thereafter, Charpentier wrote very little.

He was, nevertheless, no recluse. During World War I, he started the Œuvre de Mimi Pinson and Cocarde de Mimi Pinson to aid wounded soldiers. He was awarded the Légion d'honneur in 1900, became a Commandeur in 1930, and a Grand Officier in 1950. In 1934, he conducted a recording of his Impressions d'Italie with a Paris symphony orchestra. He died, aged 95, in Paris.

Charpentier's brother Victor (also born in Dieuze, on 23 July 1867) was a cellist in the orchestra of the Paris Opera and later a conductor of popular symphony concerts in Paris. In 1931 Marc Delmas published a biography of Charpentier entitled Gustave Charpentier et le Lyrisme Francais.

Compositions

 * Didon, Scène dramatique – 1887
 * Impressions d'Italie – 1892
 * La vie du poète – symphonie-drame – 1892
 * Sérénade à Watteau (words by Verlaine) – 1896
 * La couronnement de la muse – spectacle – 1897
 * Louise – 1900
 * Munich – symphonic poem – 1911
 * Julien, ou La vie du poète – 1913
 * L'amour au faubourg – 1913 (unperformed)
 * Orphée – 1931 (unfinished)
 * Songs

title: Gustave Charpentier


text:
Kodachi

A kodachi (小太刀, こだち), literally translating into "small or short tachi (sword)", is one of the traditionally made Japanese swords (nihontō) used by the samurai class of feudal Japan. Kodachi are from the early Kamakura period (1185–1333) and are in the shape of a tachi. Kodachi are mounted in tachi style, but with a length of less than 60 cm. They are often confused with wakizashi, due to their length and handling techniques. However, their construction is what sets the two apart, as kodachi are a set length while wakizashi are forged to complement the wielder's height or the length of their katana. As a result, the kodachi was too short to be called a sword properly but was also too long to be considered a dagger, thus it is widely considered a primary short sword, unlike the tantō or the wakizashi which would act as a secondary weapon that was used alongside a longer bladed sword.

The exact use of the kodachi is unknown; it may have been a companion sword to normal sized tachi or it may have been a sword for an adolescent. Kodachi appear to have been produced only in a certain time period by specific schools of swordmakers.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Kodachi


text:
Talk:Salsa (food)

'English' versus 'British English'
The article currently states "In English it is pronounced /ˈsɑːlsə/, while in British English it is pronounced as /ˈsælsə/"

Which 'English' is the first mention referring to? This entire sentence seems inconsistent/ignorant of the way the English language is organised. Is it suggesting that ALL other English speakers around the world pronounce it the same way? If so, it should say 'all other English speakers'. Since this is not likely, it should probably say something like:

In American (???) English it is pronounced /ˈsɑːlsə/, while in British English it is pronounced as /ˈsælsə/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.6.79 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Spanish article
Why is there no Spanish version of this article? You might think that something like that should have one. How do Spanish-speaking people call it since it just means "sauce" in Spanish?--2001:16B8:2E21:F200:616D:F7FC:331:D33 (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 * In the Spanish WP, there are articles like es:Salsa_roja_picante_(M%C3%A9xico), es:Pico de gallo (redirected from es:Salsa mexicana), etc. I suppose there could be an article on salsas mexicanas or salsas crudas mexicanas, but that's up to the editors of the Spanish WP. --Macrakis (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Scope of article
Should this article contain information on Italian salsa, or should the two languages be separated and the title of this article be changed to something such as "Sauce (Hispanic-American sauce)"? Infinite mission (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia article titles are based on the English names of things. This article is not about all things called salsa in Spanish (or for that matter in Italian), because in English, salsa refers specifically to Mexican-style raw sauces used with Mexican and Mexican-American food. --Macrakis (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed some of the non-essential translations of modern dishes, but you can't just delete the entire history of salsa from the article. It's the same in English or Spanish (next time check OED for this before you remove content from the article). The article you are thinking of is pico de gallo, we already have a separate article for that. Spudlace (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Obviously the modern English word salsa meaning "the stuff you put on chips and tacos" comes from the Spanish word salsa, which means sauce in general. But the English word salsa does not mean sauce in general, or the sauce in a stew.
 * The OED article on salsa was last updated in 1982, and talks about "A variety of sauce served with meat." Interestingly, only the oldest quotation they give (from 1846) supports the idea that it's a sauce served with meat -- actually, it seems to mean the liquid part of a stew. The term salsa is also italicized in the quote, indicating that it's not naturalized in English. The 1935 quotation talks about salsa pura (not italicized), but the context doesn't tell us what that means, and I can't find any Spanish-language sources that talk about it. On the other hand, I see that there was a commercial salsa (apparently the Mexican kind) called Salsa Pura. The 1973 quotation mentions salsa verde, which in context pretty clearly means the Italian salsa verde, which is a cold, raw sauce, which is in fact served with meat; but there is no reason to believe that in English, salsa means Italian salsa verde. Finally, the 1978 quotation from Tucson Magazine is almost certainly referring to the Mexican-style sauce.
 * The Merriam-Webster is more up to date, and only gives two definitions for salsa, "a usually spicy sauce of chopped tomatoes, onions, and peppers that is commonly served with Mexican food", and "popular music of Latin American origin that has absorbed characteristics of rhythm and blues, jazz, and rock" (covered in our article salsa music).
 * I am not sure what you mean by "you can't just delete the entire history of salsa from the article. It's the same in English or Spanish (next time check OED for this before you remove content from the article)." Please remember that this is the English wikipedia, and the Spanish meaning of salsa is not relevant to the article title (see WP:TITLE).
 * I don't see any evidence that "salsa" has been widely used in English in the past to mean "a reduced cooking sauce served with meat" or a Catalan base for thick stews. (The source for the Catalan sense is in Spanish.)
 * As for pico de gallo, that is one particular salsa in the modern sense. As the article itself shows, there are many others, including salsa roja, salsa crude, salsa verde, etc. --Macrakis (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OED is not out of date and there are many other reliable sources. Spudlace (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The OED article on "salsa" was last updated in 1982, and does not reflect contemporary usage. Kindly supply the reliable, recent, English-language sources which show that salsa, as a naturalized English word (not a quotation of Spanish usage) normally means "a reduced cooking sauce served with meat" (i.e., the liquid part of a stew).
 * If you are correct that salsa in English normally means the liquid part of a stew, then you should remove all of the article starting with "Cultural varieties". Then, of course, we'd need another article to cover the current sense of salsa as the sauces (usually raw) served with Mexican food and with tortilla chips. What would you propose to call that? Pico de gallo is only one such sauce. --Macrakis (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Salsas are not usually raw, salsa verde is not raw, etc. The sources are all cited in the article. I will make some changes to the lede momentarily to address this. Spudlace (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, some things called "salsa" are not raw -- notably most of the prepared salsas in jars. But the definition of salsa as "a reduced cooking sauce served with meat" is as far as I can tell obsolete in English and was never very common. I still see no evidence in the article that reduced cooking sauce is normally called salsa in English. --Macrakis (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You make a good point and I think we have to cover both definitions in the lead sentence, so I've added it. It's an encyclopedia article and erasing peer-reviewed journals is not the right way to fix something like this. Let me know if you see any other problems! Spudlace (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're converging. Your sources clearly document the Spanish word salsa, meaning the broth or liquid of a stew, but none of them show this as a modern English meaning. Of course scholarly articles about the Spanish reality will use the Spanish term, but that does not demonstrate that it's a common meaning in English. Even if it were, there's a good case to be made that there should be two different articles for the two different meanings. WP is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, so even if the two meanings use the same name, they should be two articles. That said, I do not think you've made the case that the "stew broth" sense is used in English at all. A single citation from the OED in 1846, in a Spanish context, doesn't help.
 * If you continue to insist on this peculiar definition, I'm afraid I'll need to invoke Dispute resolution procedures. --Macrakis (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this needs dispute resolution. This is not a single citation to OED. There are 13 reliable sources cited in the article that disagree with the arguments you have made on this talk page. Spudlace (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 * This article should primarily be about the salsa most english speakers are familiar with, that is the one that they buy at the grocery store next to the tortilla chips. Spudlace, the more traditional/spanish usage seems to be a notable topic as well, but it is not the topic that this article should be about. Maybe you should start a new article on it (Sauces in Spanish cuisine is available) rather than taking over this one? - MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 * This article is salsa (sauce). If it's decided we need an article devoted to the dip (and we may need a separate article based on the souces I've seen), may I suggest salsa (dip)? I can write the article. Spudlace (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 * You still have not shown that salsa is used in modern English to mean the liquid part of stew. And if we were to have an article about it, it should surely be called by an English name, not a Spanish one. Pretty much every cuisine in Europe (and beyond) makes stew, although I don't know if there's much to say about the liquid part that wouldn't better be said in the stew article. --Macrakis (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Where in the article do you see that? I don't think it's "the liquid part of stew" and that isn't in the article as far as I know. Spudlace (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From your own sources:
 * OED 1846 quote:"What sort of a stew is it? Let me smell and taste the salsa." If you read the surrounding text, you'll see that the author first smells and tastes the stew's juices (the salsa, italicized because it is a foreign word) and then he takes his fork and sees that the meat is tender.
 * Your second reference is in Spanish and in Catalan, so doesn't give any evidence about the meaning of the English word 'salsa'. But your own description of it is "the cooking base of thick potaje stews", which in this case consists of garlic, almonds, spices, rosewater and broth (if I got the Catalan right).
 * All your other references are in Spanish, as well, giving no evidence about the English meaning.
 * In any case, combining the sense of cooking sauce with that of dip or condiment is problematic. In Greek, we'd say τάκανες σάλτσα... (lit. you made sauce out of it, i.e., a mess). --Macrakis (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, I see the line you are talking about and I've removed it. Spudlace (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your choice of which things that are called salsa in Spanish to include in this article seems completely arbitrary. After all, salsa simply means "sauce", and includes salsa mahonesa (mayonnaise), salsa Worcestershire, and even salsa ketchup. I hope you agree that that would be absurd -- those all belong in the sauce article, regardless of their name in Spanish -- or perhaps the Catalan and Spanish cuisine articles.
 * So why should salsa de pagó, salsa mirraust, etc. be covered in an article called "salsa", and not in the main sauce article or the appropriate cuisine articles? --Macrakis (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read the sources for this article? These are not random Spanish language uses of the word "sauce". Your arguments are not adding up and they are not going to add up because you are choosing to disregard reliable sources. This is taken from reliable sources like Gastronomica and Oxford Symposium (which don't discuss salsa Worcestershire) because they are considered by scholars to be the origin of the modern dishes this article is discussing. If there is a debate about this, like Pre-discovery salsa in the New World, it can be added with needed citations. The article as it is written reflects the current view of every reliable source I have seen,  without exception. Maybe dispute resolution will help, because I don't seem to be getting through to you. Spudlace (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've made another attempt to improve the lede based on your comments. If you are still unhappy then I think the next step is dispute resolution. Spudlace (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 * And I don't seem to be getting through to you!
 * The issue isn't whether what you're writing is true or interesting or well researched; it's whether it belongs in this article and what exactly the central topic of that article is. I also see that you have now radically changed your definition from "a reduced cooking sauce served with meat" to "an ingredient [???] that is used as a dressing or accompaniment for many dishes, and is prepared with a combination of vegetables, oil, wine, vinegar and stock". So now I'm completely lost as to your intent.
 * More minor point: many of your citations don't include page numbers, which makes them very difficult to use. --Macrakis (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion on the Third Opinion page. --Macrakis (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's ok, but I don't agree with your statement of what the dispute here is about. OED is a reliable source and shouldn't be removed from the article. Spudlace (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The OED is certainly a reliable source, but it is not perfect. In this particular case, their 1846 citation supports the idea that salsa (italicized as a foreign word) is the liquid part of a stew; their 1935 citation is unclear; their 1973 citation talks specifically of salsa verde (not salsa in general), and their 1978 citation is almost certainly misinterpreting the source. Also, this entry in the OED dates from 1982, before the word salsa became widely popular in the meaning of "the Mexican sauce used on tacos and as a dip for tortilla chips". --Macrakis (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and I think I understand your argument a little better now. If a sauce has become widely established in English language as sauce like your example of "Worcestershire sauce" then we would remove it. I've made one such removal per this discussion for Romesco sauce. In other cases, reliable sources have chosen to maintain use of the word salsa because it is culturally significant as in the case of the Judeo-Spanish language communities retained the original names of foods after the exile from Spain. Spudlace (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 * No, I still think we haven't reached a meeting of the minds. From your edits on this and other articles (e.g., salsa verde), I think I see where the disconnect is.
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not organized around words, but around concepts or topics. One topic, one article. For example, "the family of Mexican sauces used on tacos and as a dip for tortilla chips" is a topic. Another topic might be, say, "cold, uncooked sauces based mostly on chopped herbs". Yet another might be "a Mexican sauce based on tomatillos and chiles" (which is a subtopic of the first topic). Yet another might be "a family of sauces in Spanish cuisine made with vegetables, oil, wine, vinegar, and stock" (though I'm not convinced that that is in fact a family of sauces in Spanish cuisine).
 * The names used for things do not determine the organization. The fact that there is an Italian sauce called salsa verde (based on herbs) as well as a Mexican sauce called salsa verde (based on tomatillos) does not mean that they should be covered in the same article. Conversely, the fact that a German sauce that is related to the Italian sauce is called Grüne Soße does not mean it belongs in a separate article.
 * The names of articles are the English name of the topic if it has one. The article on Mexican salsa verde is under that title not because that is the name in Spanish, but because that seems to be the most common name in English. If it's the case that the Mexican salsa verde and the Italian salsa verde are both commonly called by that name in English, that's not a reason to put them in the same article -- they ought to be under salsa verde (Mexico) and salsa verde (Italy). But in fact the Italian name is not that common, and anyway fits into a larger category of green sauces.
 * Conversely, the general topic of sauces is covered in the article sauce, whether they're from Spanish cuisine and called salsa in Spanish or from Chinese cuisine and called 醬 or 醬油 or whatever. (That said, the current Sauce section is a bit of a mess.)
 * Well, enough for now. I think the above is a correct summary of WP policy. Do you agree? --Macrakis (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please believe that I welcome your input and contributions. I feel we have improved the article by our work together in this discussion and at salsa verde, but I hope you can understand that we can not delete OED as a source for dispute about the English language. I think that you will not agree unless the article is limited to the post-1980s American English definition, but I will have ask you to Please reconsider this is not in the best interest of the article. Your participation in this article has helped me to see things in a different way and I would like it if we can work together again. Spudlace (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with your argument: first of all, this article is not about the word "salsa", but about some topic which is called "salsa" (in English). Secondly, sources are sources, not gospel truth. In this particular case, we have two normally reliable sources which disagree: the OED definition 1 isn't mentioned in M-W, and vice versa. This is a good indication that there's an issue we need to resolve in some other way. That said, more specialized sources, like the Oxford Companion to Food are often better sources for food-related issues. As it happens, the OCF doesn't have a headword 'salsa' at all (which is interesting in itself), though it mentions the use of salsas (rojas and verdes) for tacos under tortilla.
 * The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink, on the other hand, does have a headword salsa (p. 517), and covers only the Mexican-style condiment. The second paragraph of that article talks about the origins of that word in the Spanish word salsa, which of course covers all sorts of sauces, smooth and chunky, raw and cooked, hot and cold (unlike this salsa article).
 * I love the OED and have used it heavily in editing Wikipedia, but (a) it's not normally useful to quote it in the lead (as opposed to in the etymology section); (b) the fact that it's the OED belongs in the footnote, not the running text; (c) when the OED makes a mistake or is out of date, we have no obligation to follow it. --Macrakis (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about it and I am starting to agree that there are two articles here. However, my problem is that I can not change a 13th-century food term described as salsa by many reliable sources to sauce so it is pointless to keep asking me to do this because the answer will be no, and please to not ask me to make changes against the policies.

 * Most of the sources used in this article describe the style of salsa you are talking about as a dip or condiment. I offer to split this article to salsa (condiment). Spudlace (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Salsa (condiment) makes sense to me for the thing that is usually called salsa in English, namely the Mexican family of sauces.
 * On the other hand, I am not sure what the other article would be about, or what it should be called. There are, as you point out, many sauces in Spanish and Catalan cuisine (medieval and otherwise), and they are very variable. Is the topic "sauces in Iberian cuisine"? Maybe it would be better to add a section to the Sauce article on Spanish and Catalan sauces, and also a section on sauces in the Spanish cuisine article. Those sections would cover romesco, allioli, etc. (leaving the detail to the main article, of course) as well as the various sauces you have documented in Salsa (sauce). If those get too big, then they can be split off into a Template:Main article.
 * As for the title of that article, it pretty clearly should not be called anything with salsa in the name, since that is not the English name of Iberian sauces (not to mention that salsa is also a perfectly good Italian word).
 * I am not sure what policy you think requires using the title "salsa" for an article about a topic which is called salsa in Spanish (and usually used in italics in English to denote a non-assimilated word). After all, there are usually many possible titles for articles. --Macrakis (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No it's not sauces in Iberian cuisine because there is too much overlap with other salsas. The new article will have to have salsa in the title but I am not sure what it will be yet but I don't want to work on this article right now. I'm just going to revert back to the previous version before I started editing, but with the unsourced content removed. Does that work? Spudlace (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be interested to see how you define the topic. --Macrakis (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When I started editing this article I thought the connection would be clearer between the salsas dishes as it is for some other types of foods in Mexico, but during our discussion I became convinced that salsa was a loan-term used for a dish that already existed in Aztec culture. In this situation, I believe it is an important point that they are separate articles and I appreciate that you have brought this to my attention. At the same time I believe we don't erase the term salsa from the communities that continue to use it (like Greek Jews), I think we are moving towards separate articles. That should carry us some way towards resolution. Unfortunately, for this article there is not a good version we can go back to. If it were possible, I would have agreed to it already. The earlier version of the article states that salsa is "raw" and then goes on to describe how it is cooked (to avoid E.Coli) in the text. Any suggestions? Spudlace (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the earlier version is imperfect in many ways, but it's fine as a starting point. Here is the relevant page of the Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink in case you want some ideas (not that the OCAFD is perfect, either).
 * I also agree that the local name for things should be mentioned in articles, but that doesn't mean it has to be in the title. After all, many things have different names in different contexts. See the doughnut article for example -- some variants have their own articles, some are covered only in the general article. I tend to find that too many food-related articles are split up by national lines, when they don't need to be -- the commonalities are far greater than the differences in national variants. --Macrakis (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources don't have to be perfect but it's better than just making stuff up. I've seen articles that were split up for solid reasons and others that were done poorly. If it was a good idea, it would be in published. Aachener Printen are just gingerbread cookies but they are made according to certain requirements and ingredients so we have them a separate article. But it's not for this article. Did you rewrite the first sentence when you reverted my additions? Spudlace (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As you can see in the edit history, I last edited this article on July 6, which is the version we should to revert to. Medieval Catalan and Spanish sauces don't belong here. Salsa golf doesn't belong here. The material on Jewish cuisine doesn't belong here. Salsa blanco doesn't belong here. As I said above, WP is not a dictionary, and not organized by words. The only things all those items have in common is that they are sauces, so they belong in the sauce article. The fact that the Spanish word for sauce is salsa is irrelevant -- we don't put information about French bread under pain, either. --Macrakis (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to copy the Pico de gallo article here because we don't need two articles about the same thing. Spudlace (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * We may want to merge in pico de gallo here -- what Diana Kennedy calls salsa mexicana cruda in her classic Cuisines of Mexico-- but this should be the umbrella article for all the different kinds of table sauces (as opposed to cooking sauces) typically served on Mexican tables and in Mexican-American restaurants:
 * "A dish of sauce or relish is as indispensable to the Mexican table as our salt, pepper, and mustard..."
 * --Macrakis (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Diana Kennedy is a fab source and we can limit the scope to Mexican cuisine, but the article title should be Salsa (Mexican cuisine). The article I started editing was "Salsa is the Spanish word for sauce" and included hundreds of salsas in the broader Hispanophone world. Then you wanted to remove content I added that was well within the scope of the article, or so I thought. When reverting my edits you also redefined the scope without indicating that you had changed it. I wish that you had not done that. The association of salsa with Mexican cuisine is huge in reliable sources and it is possible to limit the article, but the title and scope must be clear to our fellow editors and readers. I want to do what is in the best interests of the article, not to force my own views in but I think I am getting in the way of your productive work and it's not what I enjoy. I really have to log off now, I have a lot of family obligations (more than usual during the pandemic). Spudlace (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I reverted your edits exactly once, and after that discussed here on Talk, while you continued to edit. I agree with you completely that "Salsa is the Spanish word for sauce" is not appropriate in the lead, and in fact my version of the lead (the one you reverted en bloc) started "Salsa, in English, is a variety of raw sauces used in Mexican, Mexican-American, Central American and South American cuisine." (It turns out I was wrong about the raw part, and I left in the Central and South American parts, which are probably wrong, too.)
 * I don't believe I ever "redefined the scope". I tried to focus on the core content of the existing article, which was admittedly a bit of a mess. --Macrakis (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I came here via WP:3O, but there are more than 2 editors discussing here, so it's not really an appropriate third opinion request. But I'll give an opinion anyway, which is that the truth seems to lie somewhere between. Salsas come in many varieties, and are used in cooking, not just as table condiments and for dipping; not especially for tacos, not especially pico de gallo, which is a particular uncooked (fresca) salsa. Keep in mind that a large part of the US is much more deeply influenced by Latin American culture and cuisine than Cambridge, Mass, is. On the other hand, I don't think that mentions going back to unrecognizable salsas of Catalonia or Italy are very relevant here. And I see no good reason not to leave a separate article on pico de gallo, a very distinctive salsa with a name worth discussing. And salsa picante, or "hot sauce", is for the really spicy ones, often in skinny bottles like Louisiana's Tabasco sauce or Thailand's Sriracha, but more Latin in origin, like Cholula or Tapatio or many more; even a spicy pico would not be called salsa picante, I think (and according to this article, a salsa picante is prepared by cooking the ingredients). Also, I generally agree that we should be using mostly modern English-language sources, and that the OED is not very helpful for such things as this, though they are great on relatively archaic usages. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Dickly(on) (and any other editors wandering in), there is consensus between me and Macrakis for the current version. Objections to current version should be directed to Macrakis. This was the version he proposed and I've already agreed to it - so he is the one you will have to convince to make changes. I'm afraid I won't be much help - I don't look forward to reopening a settled dispute so soon!

 * As for OED, I just read our article on OED and I see that it does have a historical bent. That explains some other weird definitions I've come across recently like relish. I'll certainly keep this mind! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.Spudlace (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been called a lot of things, but not Dickly as far as I can recall. Anyway, you're welcome on the opinions, and maybe they'll help someone make improvements.  Or not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Gah! I am so sorry, what an embarrassing typo! I've fixed it but I added parentheses around the addition to make it clear. Spudlace (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward
These are some options:

 * 1) It has been argued forcefully on this talk page that the meaning of salsa in English is usually for salsa Picante. I don't dispute it and reliable sources confirm it. Salsa verde is usually called salsa verde, salsa golf, etc. There is no reliable source connecting these salsas into one single article. Some have entered the English language as salsas (salsa golf) others are called Romesco sauce, etc.
 * 2) We should redirect salsa (sauce) to salsa Picante to abide the English language meaning (per forceful arguments made above by user Macrakis
 * 3) Mr. Ollie has argued this article should only cover the jarred "salsa" used as dip for tortilla chips (what most Americans mean when they say Salsa with no qualifiers).
 * 4) Second part of the proposed solution would be to create this at salsa (dip)
 * 5) The leftover content would be merged into relevant articles.

If this is ok for others here we can move forward.

Spudlace (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Per WP:COMMONNAME this should not be moved to Salsa Picante - it should remain where it is (once it has been reverted back to the former coverage of the topic, that is). - MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, can we redirect Salsa Picante here? I've restored the previous version but have removed the unsourced content and the content that is out of scope/COMMONNAME, based on this discussion. It's a bad decision to have two articles about the same thing. Spudlace (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Salsa picante currently redirects to Pico de gallo which also seems to be a valid target. Salsa Picante (note caps) is about an album and shouldn't be touched. The Pico de gallo article has been around a long time, it would be prudent to start a merge discussion rather than redirecting that one unilaterally. - MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think we've reached consensus to adopt your proposal stated above "This article should primarily be about the salsa most english speakers are familiar with, that is the one that they buy at the grocery store next to the tortilla chips." Spudlace (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. It should not include only the commercial red version in a jar, but all the other sauces (raw or cooked) that are typically served with tortilla chips, tacos, etc. in restaurants or homes. Of course, there should be cross-references to any varieties that have their own articles, like salsa verde. --Macrakis (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You just told me you wanted to remove all of that stuff like salsa golf. I have to log off for now, but the scope of the article was narrowed to tomato-based sauces (the commonname) by YOUR request. Maybe figure out what you want before creating a big dispute? When I copied the article to the new one we agreed to it had a new talk page so I am no longer watching this one. Spudlace (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, salsa golf is not in the family of "Mexican sauces served at table and usually used on tacos, etc., and in the US associated with tortilla chips." At least around here (Cambridge, Mass.), taquerias offer several different salsas, not just the tomato-based one. Heck, even Wal-Mart sells salsa verde. But it is certainly true, as earlier versions of the article made clear, that the most common one is the tomato-based one. --Macrakis (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Having just returned from a Mexican restaurant - where, incidentally, all dips (not only Pico de gallo) were referred to as salsas - I stopped by this page. I'm surprised at how long this debate has gone on for and hasn't actually moved forward, despite the section heading. I'm a novice editor, so take this for what it's worth. There are a few issues, IMHO:

 * 1) The History section says "fans do not consider jarred products to be real salsa cruda", although this name wasn't mentioned before. It should then say "the name it is known by in Mexico" or something along the lines. Alternatively, the lead could state that what is commonly known as salsa outside Mexico, is known in Mexico as pico de gallo or salsa cruda. The lead does (helpfully) state that salsa means any kind of sauce in Spanish, but it's not clear what THESE Mexican table sauces are.
 * 2) The dollar value of salsa sales is mentioned twice (exactly the same wording) in History and Types.
 * 3) As mentioned above, the Syrian Jewish kibbeh reference doesn't belong in the lead and should be moved to Types.

I'm afraid to make any edits myself considering the hot debate above. Cheers guys. Leoseliv (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The current article emphasizes too heavily pico de gallo. This article should have been more like the kebab article including all culturally relevant salsas (like sofrito). We wouldn't merge kebabs to grilled meats because it's not done that way by reliable sources. The recognition of cultural spheres in the broad sense is of encyclopedic significance and we should not make big change what reliable sources have done. It's not equivalent to claims of ancient national origins that are mostly legendary unverifiable claims to unique possession of the common cultural exchanges and domains of human history. (After much debate we agreed to split the American-Mexican style of restaurant table sauce as the common meaning of the term in English. I'm not sure that it was the best outcome for the article.) Spudlace (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Spudlace I understand that the way the article has turned out is not to everyone's liking. But taking it as it is at the moment, it can still be improved. Yes, it is too focused on one kind of salsa because it's been decided in the discussion above to abide by the English language meaning, and this should be made clear in the article - that following the English terminology we focus on one type but acknowledge that there are many. My suggestions above which are copy-, rather than content-, edits are still relevant. Please let me know if I can have a go at it or you would like to do it. Leoseliv (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Go for it. What's been rejected is the broad use of the term salsa for sauces. My main objection was that where its culturally relevant the terminology salsa has been preserved by the communities that use it (Sephardic Jews as a sourced example) and reliable sources. There is overlap between green sauce and salsa verde chimchurri and several reliable sources describe the use of red salsas as cooking sauces, not only table sauces. The decision to focus this article on table sauces served at Mexican American restaurants was a poor one, and contrary to reliable sources, but I got tired of arguing about it. Spudlace (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Another note on this that is still unresolved is the article name. It should not be disambiguated to "Salsa (sauce)" when it's insufficient for editors and readers to know what the article is about based on the title. I wasn't happy to be told I would have to remove several hours of work from the article because it was not about "Salsa (sauce)" but only about "Salsa (Mexican American cuisine)". Spudlace (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Cut and paste page move
I just reverted a cut and paste move of this article - even if we should retitle this page (which does not appear to have consensus behind it), the move should be done via the software to preserve the article history. To gauge consensus for a possible move, see WP:RM - MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Salsa (food)


text:
Get a Grip

Get a Grip is the eleventh studio album by American rock band Aerosmith, released in April 1993 by Geffen Records. Get a Grip was the band's last studio album to be released by Geffen before they returned to Columbia Records.

Get a Grip featured guests including Don Henley, who sang backup on "Amazing", and Lenny Kravitz, who offered backup vocals and collaboration to "Line Up". As on Permanent Vacation and Pump, this album featured numerous song collaborators from outside the band including: Desmond Child, Jim Vallance, Mark Hudson, Richie Supa, Taylor Rhodes, Jack Blades, and Tommy Shaw.

Get a Grip became Aerosmith's best-selling studio album worldwide, achieving sales of over 20 million copies. The album became the band's first album to reach number one in the United States and tied with Pump for their second best-selling album in the U.S., selling over 7 million copies as of 1995 (Toys in the Attic leads with nine million). This also made it their third consecutive album with U.S. sales of at least five million. Two songs from the album won Grammy Awards for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal, in 1993 and 1994. The album was voted Album of the Year by Metal Edge readers in the magazine's 1993 Readers' Choice Awards, while "Livin' on the Edge" was voted Best Video.

Production
The album originally had 12 songs and was scheduled to be released in the third quarter of 1992, but Geffen A&R executive John Kalodner listened to what had been recorded and thought it lacked variety and a radio-friendly song. So the band went back to write more songs with collaborators such as Child.

Regarding songs that reflect on the band's history with drug abuse such as "Get a Grip" and "Amazing", Steven Tyler declared: "We were saying you can point it back to some of those old beliefs about the crossroads and signing up with the devil, that you can look at the drugs as that: It can be fun in the beginning but then it comes time to pay your debt, and if you're not sharp enough to see that it's taking you down, then it really will get you."

Many songs were written and recorded for the album that were either used as B-sides or never released. "Don't Stop" and "Head First" were released as B-sides, as well as "Can't Stop Messin'", which also appears on several special editions of the album as an addition in the track list. Alternate versions of other songs recorded during the sessions including "Deuces Are Wild", "Lizard Love", "Devil's Got a New Disguise", and "Legendary Child" have since been released on various albums and soundtracks.

Other songs were listed on the official Aerosmith website in the late 1990s. "Black Cherry", "Dime Store Lover", "Meltdown", "Rocket 88", "Wham Bam", and "Yo Momma" were listed on the lyrics page of the website. In 2005, Kalodner confirmed the existence of several of these songs, as well as "Trouble", "Strange", "13", and "Keep on Movin'". "Deuces Are Wild" was possibly recorded again during these sessions. Several songs are also listed on copyright repertoires, including "Ain't Gonna Break My Heart", "Good Thang", and "Jake". These songs can be traced to the year 1991.

Cover art
Get a Grip's cover art, depicting an image of a cow with a captive bead nipple ring through its udder and a brand of the Aerosmith logo, was designed by noted album-cover artist Hugh Syme. Music critic Steven Hyden has referred to the album's cover art as "the worst album cover ever", expressing surprise that Syme was responsible for it given his other work. An animal-rights group objected to the cover art, but the band confirmed the image had been digitally altered and did not depict an actual act of animal cruelty.

A special edition of the album was released in a fabric-covered case made to resemble cowhide.

First digital download
On June 27, 1994, Aerosmith became the first major artist to release a song as an exclusive digital download, making "Head First" available as a 4-megabyte WAV file to CompuServe subscribers. Around 10,000 users downloaded the song in the first few days, even though at the time, most users accessed the service with a modem, meaning the download would have taken the better part of an hour. "Head First" was earlier used as the B-side for "Eat the Rich".

Critical reception
Reviewing for Rolling Stone in 1993, Mark Coleman said he enjoyed the title song and compared the introductory track to the band's 1986 rendition of "Walk This Way" with Run–D.M.C. However, he found much of the rest unadventurous and too "somber", negatively comparing "Livin' on the Edge" to a Bon Jovi song, and lamenting the outside contributions from songwriters and collaborators. Ultimately, Coleman determined that, "for a spirited half-hour or so, Aerosmith pretty much gets over on sheer awe-inspiring technique". Robert Christgau was more positive in a contemporaneous review for Playboy, saying that while it "occasionally exploits their rap connection", remains faithful to Aerosmith's template of "fast ones and slow ones; lyrically it's fuck me and fuck you", but with such superpro crunch and commitment that no good-timing headbanger will give a shit. Christgau highlighted "Cryin'" as "the classic" on the album, while saying that "the closest thing to a duff cut [is] the 'meaningful' Livin' on the Edge, which could be a hit anyway." He later ranked it 64th on his "Dean's List" accompanying The Village Voice's annual Pazz & Jop critics poll of the year's best albums, and assigned it an A-minus in his 2000 book Christgau's Consumer Guide: Albums of the '90s.

Track listing

 * Immediately after "Amazing," a snippet of "Who Threw the Whiskey in the Well", by Lucky Millinder, is heard as if being tuned in on an old radio. Tyler says, "So from all of us at Aerosmith to all of you out there, wherever you are, remember: the light at the end of the tunnel may be you. Good night." The music then fades out.

Personnel
Aerosmith
 * Steven Tyler – lead vocals, keyboards, mandolin, harmonica, additional percussion, arranger
 * Joe Perry – guitar, backing vocals, lead vocals on "Walk On Down"
 * Brad Whitford – guitar, lead guitar on “Fever”, “Gotta Love It”, and “Flesh”
 * Tom Hamilton – bass guitar, bass solo on “Gotta Love It”
 * Joey Kramer – drums

Additional personnel
 * David Campbell – orchestra arrangements on "Crazy" and "Amazing"
 * Desmond Child – keyboards on "Crazy"
 * John Webster – keyboards
 * Richard Supa – keyboards on "Amazing"
 * Don Henley – background vocals on "Amazing"
 * Lenny Kravitz – background vocals on "Line Up"
 * Paul Baron – trumpet
 * Tom Keenlyside – saxophone
 * Bruce Fairbairn – trumpet, production
 * Ian Putz – baritone saxophone
 * Bob Rogers – trombone
 * Liainaiala Tagaloa – log drums on "Eat the Rich"
 * Mapuhi T. Tekurio – log drums on "Eat the Rich"
 * Aladd Alationa Teofilo – log drums on "Eat the Rich"
 * Melvin Liufau – log drums on "Eat the Rich"
 * Wesey Mamea – log drums on "Eat the Rich"
 * Sandy Kanaeholo – log drums on "Eat the Rich"

Production
 * Engineers – John Aguto, Ed Korengo, Ken Lomas, Mike Plotnikoff, David Thoener, Karl Heilbron
 * Pre Production Engineer – Tony Lentini
 * Mixing – Brendan O'Brien
 * Mastering – Greg Fulginiti at Masterdisk
 * Mastering Supervisor – David Donnelly
 * Programming – John Webster
 * Production coordination – Debra Shallman
 * Guitar technician – Dan Murphy
 * Art direction – Michael Golob
 * Cover design – Hugh Syme
 * Photography – Edward Colver, William Hames
 * John Kalodner – John Kalodner

Awards
Grammy Awards

Metal Edge Readers' Choice Awards

title: Get a Grip


text:
Talk:Durham Cathedral

Bede
I think the venerable Bede was buried here also. Can anyone confirm? Mr. Jones 16:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes. Quote from the front page of the Cathedral's website http://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/ "It contains the remains of Cuthbert, the saintly seventh-century bishop of Lindisfarne; it also holds the tomb of Bede, the chronicler of Cuthbert's life and the first English historian".

 * Bede's tomb is at the west end of the cathedral, in the Galilee Chapel. Cuthbert's tomb is in a special sanctuary between the high altar and the easternmost chapel, the Chapel of the Nine Altars. Gareth Hughes 13:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No - noone knows where Bede's remains are, the tomb is empty.

Bailey/Peninsula
Anyone who has an interest in contributing to Durham related articles may like to look at the discussion going on at Talk:The Bailey Robdurbar 10:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dan Cruikshank
Dan Cruikshank argued in "Britain's Best Buildings" that the essential features of Gothic architecture were pioneered at Durham, not (as in the traditional account) at St Denis, and that Muslim craftsman may have been involved in its construction. We should find room for these arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.103.184 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good argument, it's more Gothic than many other Gothic buildings. Flying buttresses were used already in ancient Greece and by the Byzantines, though. It all depends on how much is original in the Durham cathedrals construction and what's added later. It features the oldest ribbed vault, but apparently the pointed arched windows are of a later modification. It can be seen that the oldest section (east) has the lastest design windows, while the western end has round arches in the windows, which means it must've been added later. However, it does mean that the current building has many Gothic features, it doesn't really matter how it was originally.109.59.52.2 (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume that the source mentioned was a UK television programme which was broadcast in or before 2008? Not an ideal source if it's not available online or via a disc? The use of Muslim craftsman would also need a more robust source I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Cruikshank is a good writer and creator/presenter of tv programmes, but his specialism is firmly British architecture of a much later period. Probably there is some academic support for this line of argument, but I'm pretty sure it remains a minority view at the moment. Last Sunday was the 10th anniversary of the start of this section, btw! Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah well. That just sounds like Wikipedia, doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fancy finding you two here! I love the way the Film, TV and Lego sections are stuffed with cites, and the Architecture section has absolutely none at all. Again, only on Wikipedia. Have just found a wonderful Pevsner quote and am looking for somewhere to put it. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Architectural project rating
Despite the quotation, no-one reading the architectural description given here would gain the impression that Durham Cathedral is one of the finest Romanesque buildings in the world. Hence its "top" importance and start rating. Amandajm (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of steps.
Why isn't there a reference to the number of steps in the cathedral tower? I suppose it isn't must know information but it should be included somewhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewr05 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Bells
From the intro to Bells on Sunday this morning:

"5 of the bells date from 1693. The ring of 8 was augmented in 1980 to bring the bells to 10. The 2,800-pound tenor is tuned to D."

If you are interested in cathedrals and stuff, you might want to update the article with this information. —Tom Morris —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

A bigger floor plan
A bigger floor plan than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Durham_Cathedral_plan.jpg is available on http://www.medart.pitt.edu/image/England/Durham/Cathedral/Plans/durham-cplan-g01-b.jpg.--24.186.223.176 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A version of it is already available on commons, as seen on the right. I think the current plan is much better as it shows more of the cathedral, while the added detail is unreadable in the article. I found a third one while looking for that which perhaps looks better than both, the lower of the two to the right.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Name
The article currently claims the formal name of the cathedral is "The Cathedral Church of Christ, Blessed Mary the Virgin and St Cuthbert of Durham", which may very well be true, but... Is the cathedral's dedication to St Cuthbert an official and recent thing or is this just a typo we're presenting as a fact? — Llywelyn II   17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) that's completely unsourced and
 * 2) the COE pages are fully committed to the branding as "Durham Cathedral. The Shrine of St Cuthbert." and
 * 3) the sources I can find that aren't obviously cribbing our material (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...) seem unanimous that the cathedral itself is only dedicated to Christ and Blessed Mary the Virgin (alt. the Blessed Virgin Mary, alt. the Blessed Virgin) and it was the priory that preceded it that was dedicated to St Cuthbert.

Well, hell, the thing's original official listing with the British government uses the format "Cathedral Church of Christ and St. Mary the Virgin" and so does it's 2004 renewal at the local city council. I'm just going to emend the page to that fact pending some very authoritative sourcing (i.e., links to the COE's formal rededication.)

See also Henry quite pointedly excluding Cuthbert's cult from his establishment of the diocese and the university's charter. See also this, just because it's a great picture we should upload as soon as the copyright lapses. — Llywelyn II   17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Cathedral's Constitution and Statutes document (available offline) includes St Cuthbert in the dedication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R J Hilton (talk • contribs) 12:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Should add a photo of the classic view of the cathedral and mill across the river
This well-known view shows how magnificent and grand the cathedral is. Without it, the current article does not convey how impressive the cathedral is. 92.3.76.249 (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which view? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - This one, I'd guess. KJP1 (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd that guess too. I'm sure it's equally impressive, even after 2 years. Martinevans123 (talk)10:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it was when I used to cross Prebends on a regular basis, thirty-five years ago, so I doubt it's changed much in the last two! KJP1 (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If it still looks impressive today, it's hard to imagine how impressive it the early 13th century when those towers were first built? There's also a mill there?... don't see any mention at Durham. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the building with the orange-tiled roof, to the bottom left, was/is a mill. Don't think it's operated for many decades however. I shall see if Pevsner mentions it. KJP1 (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As it does - the Fulling Mill of the priors, now an archaeological museum. Derelict and empty when I was there. KJP1 (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, not the kind of mill I had assumed. How fascinating. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Durham Cathedral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604234201/http://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/introduction/news/160 to http://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/introduction/news/160
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720003456/http://www.ofchoristers.net/Chapters/Durham.htm to http://www.ofchoristers.net/Chapters/Durham.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909144430/http://paradoxplace.com/Photo%20Pages/UK/Britain_Yorkshire_and_North/Durham_Cathedral/Durham.htm to http://www.paradoxplace.com/Photo%20Pages/UK/Britain_Yorkshire_and_North/Durham_Cathedral/Durham.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Durham Cathedral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112173805/http://www.widdisons.co.uk/tour/ to http://www.widdisons.co.uk/tour/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216092907/http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/usp.nsf/pws/Council+and+Democracy+-+County+Durham+Books to http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/usp.nsf/pws/Council+and+Democracy+-+County+Durham+Books/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Durham Cathedral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308020110/http://www.churchofengland.org/media/40671/chapter5.pdf to http://www.churchofengland.org/media/40671/chapter5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Priory not Abbey?
I'm surprised to note that the Cathedral is described as a Priory, given that in most cases where it is in the Benedictine tradition, the Bishop is the titular Abbot of the monastery. I'm not claiming this is impossible, I'm just surprised. Anyone got any evidence one way or the other? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Durham Priory was associated with the cathedral...see that article. This one might need to be revised to make that clear. Peter K Burian (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 * I did some more research. The cathedral was indeed part of the priory, which was dissolved in 1540; it then became an independent (and C of E) cathedral.

Durham Priory: ''Durham Priory was a Benedictine priory associated with Durham Cathedral, in Durham in the north-east of England. Its head was the Prior of Durham. It was founded in 1083 and when dissolved in 1540 was succeeded by a chapter of secular canons led by a dean.''

Also see https://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/heritage 1541 – Durham Cathedral is re-founded with the last Prior becoming the first Dean, and twelve former monks becoming the first Canons

Also see http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=1441: ''Durham Cathedral started life as a monastic cathedral, part of a Benedictine priory. ... The Reformation of the Monasteries in Tudor times resulted in the dissolution of the priory and its community. In December 1539, the Roman Catholic monastery was surrendered to the Crown. In May 1541, the cathedral was re-established as a Church of England (Anglican) place of worship. St Cuthbert’s shrine was dismantled, his coffin opened and the body — reportedly still incorrupt — interred in a plain grave behind the altar.'' Peter K Burian (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sophie Jelley
She is now the Bishop of Doncaster, so the list of canons is out of date. Mdrb55 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Prince bishop
@A.D.Hope has removed all references to "prince bishop" from this article on the grounds that the term is anachronistic. But the term is widely used by sources - scholarly writings and the cathedral's own publications - so this seems to be a mistake. We use anachronistic terms on WP when they are in common use (eg Byzantine empire). Furius (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 * In my opinion it's only appropriate to use 'prince bishop' if it's already been explained that the term is an anachronistic but convenient way to refer to the bishops who had palatine jurisdiction. Even then we need to be careful, as the palatinate developed slowly – the term palatinus wasn't applied to the bishop until 1293 – and so using the term for the early post-Conquest bishops isn't straightforward. If we were discussing this at Bishop of Durham I'd definitely be open to a paragraph on the popular use of the term, but it doesn't seem worth it in this article.
 * On academic writing, as far as I'm aware 'prince bishop' isn't widely used, although it does crop up in popular history and in contexts like the World Heritage Site website. For example, it doesn't appear in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entries for Walcher, William of St Calais, Antony Bek, John Cosin, or William Van Mildert (all by different authors). As far as I can tell it doesn't appear in Robert Surtees' History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, the county's 1911 Britannica entry, or more recent articles such as 'Lordship and the Urban Community: Durham and Its Overlords, 1250-1540' or 'Fifteenth-Century Durham and the Problem of Provincial Liberties in England and the Wider Territories of the English Crown'. The history of the term is discussed early on in Christian Liddy's Bishopric of Durham in the Late Middle Ages, but he doesn't use it himself. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Tidy and images
I've done a little tidying; trimming the very lengthy media section, converting bullet-point lists to prose, and cutting a few of the less-strong images. I'm still not sure about the images. There is a long right-hand side string, most of which don't seem to relate to the aligned sections, and aren't all of great quality. I'm also not certain about the lead image - with no disrespect to the author and acknowledging it does show the building quite well - I'm not sure it quite conveys the building's grandeur. I intend to try swapping a few in/out. Any concerns, just shout here. At some stage the Architecture section also needs a complete overhaul. KJP1 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Durham Cathedral


text:
STS-60

STS-60 was the first mission of the U.S./Russian Shuttle-Mir Program, which carried Sergei K. Krikalev, the first Russian cosmonaut to fly aboard a Space Shuttle. The mission used NASA Space Shuttle Discovery, which lifted off from Launch Pad 39A on February 3, 1994, from Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The mission carried the Wake Shield Facility experiment and a SPACEHAB module, developed by SPACEHAB Inc., into orbit, and carried out a live bi-directional audio and downlink link-up with the cosmonauts aboard the Russian space station Mir.

Mission highlights

After External Tank (ET) separation and main engine cutoff (MECO), a 2.5 minutes OMS burn was initiated at 12:52 UTC that circularized Discovery's orbit from a 74 by orbit to 353 by. Shortly after liftoff, pilot Kenneth S. Reightler Jr. experienced problems with his portable headset. The problem was traced to the Headset Interface Unit (HIU) and that unit was swapped with a flight spare. The payload bay doors were opened and around 13:45 UTC the crew was given a go for on-orbit operations. Shortly after reaching orbit, the STS-60 crew began checking Discovery's systems and activating the commercially developed SPACEHAB laboratory module and several of its experiments. The crew also activated one group of the payload bay Getaway Special (GAS) canisters.

SPACEHAB module experiments that were activated included the Organic Separations payload, which is designed to investigate cell separation techniques for possible pharmaceutical and biotechnology processing, and the Equipment for Controlled Liquid Phase Sintering Experiment (ECLiPSE) package, a furnace designed to explore the possibilities of creating stronger, lighter and more durable metals for use in bearings, cutting tools and electronics. SPACEHAB middeck experiments that were activated included Immune-1, which will look at the immune systems of rats in orbit, and the Commercial Protein Crystal Growth package, which is attempting to grow large, well- ordered protein crystals so that their structures can be more easily studied. The crew sleep period then began at 6:10 pm EST.

At 11:30 UTC on February 5, 1994, Discovery inadvertently flew through a cloud of wastewater ice crystals. Flight controllers determined that approximately one tablespoon of wastewater leaked out of a waste dump nozzle.

The Wake Shield Facility deployment operation was canceled on February 5, 1994. This delay was the result of several factors, including radio interference and an inability to read the Wake Shield Facility's status lights when the orbiter's payload bay is in full sunlight. Deployment originally was scheduled for 16:00 UTC, but after grappling the free-flyer and lifting it out of the cargo bay and into the pre-deploy position, crew members and investigators on the ground were unable to tell whether power and transmitter status lights were giving the proper indications. After determining that the problem was not a systems failure, but difficulty in reading the status lights, the crew and flight controllers prepared for another release attempt. Interference between the radio transmitter on the Wake Shield Facility and the receiver on its payload bay carrier resulted in a one-day delay.

Wake Shield Facility deployment was also canceled on February 6, 1994, during its orbit 53 opportunity at 17:25 UTC, WSF and flight controllers worked on problems with the Pitch and Roll sensors on WSF's Attitude, Direction and Control system. Astronaut Jan Davis moved the wrist joint on the Remote Manipulator System (RMS) arm (Canadarm) to try to point WSF's Horizon Sensor into the Sun in an attempt to warm up the sensor's electronics package. The last deployment opportunity for on February 6, 1994, was a 50-minute window beginning at 19:23 UTC on orbit 54 but WSF was not ready. It was left mounted on the Canadarm during the crew sleep period while ground controllers considered their options. On its perch at the end of the RMS over night, WSF was able to grow 2 Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) thin films. The next deployment opportunity on February 7, 1994, would have been during orbit 67 but payload controllers and flight controllers determined that there would be insufficient time to safely develop contingency procedures in the event that WSF was unable to maintain stable attitude control without the use of its Horizon Sensor. It was decided that for the remainder of the mission, all WSF operations would take place at the end of the Canadarm and there would be no WSF free-flying operations on the mission.

On February 7, 1994, work had been progressing in the SPACEHAB-2 module on a number of experiments. These included the Three-Dimensional Microgravity Accelerometer (3-DMA) experiment, Astroculture experiment (ASC-3), Bioserve Pilot Lab (BPL), Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus experiment (CGBA), Commercial Protein Crystal Growth experiment (CPCG), Controlled Liquid Phase Sintering-Hab (ECLiPSE-Hab), Immune Response Studies Experiment (IMMUNE-01), Organic Separation experiment (ORSEP), Space Experiment Facility (SEF), Penn State Biomodule (PSB) and the Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) Experiment. Sergei Krikalev had been operating the SAMS experiment.

At 12:38 UTC on February 8, 1994, Good Morning America performed a live bi-directional audio and downlink video hookup between astronauts on board Discovery and 3 cosmonauts on board the Russian Mir Space Station. Discovery was over the Pacific Ocean and Mir was over the southern United States. Afterwards, work progressed with SPACEHAB-2 module and middeck experiments while Wake Shield Facility continued operations at the end of the Canadarm. A slight problem developed with the status indicators on the 3-DMA experiment and the crew downlinked video to aid in troubleshooting. The astronauts ended Flight Day 6 at 00:10 UTC (February 9, 1994).

Flight Day 7 (February 9, 1994) began at 08:20 UTC. ODERACS operations were scheduled for 14:55 UTC during Orbit 97 and BREMSAT deploy was scheduled for 19:50 UTC. The WSF experiment was brought to an end and a telemetry problem with the facility prevented the growth of the 6th and final thin film on board WSF. Five other thin films were grown throughout the mission before Wake Shield Facility was berthed. WSF closeout was completed by 13:10 UTC. At 12:58 UTC, commander Charles F. Bolden reported to the ground that one of the Thermal Protection System (TPS) blankets around Discovery's forward RCS thruster below Bolden's cabin window was slightly peeled back. Jan Davis was directed to halt her power down and stowage of the Remote Manipulator System (Canadarm) and use the arm to perform a camera survey of the front left side of the orbiter. At 19:20 UTC, the BREMSAT satellite momentum wheel was spun up and BREMSAT was ejected into space at 19:23 UTC at the rate of 1 m/s.

On Flight Day 8 (February 10, 1994), the astronauts performed a number of operations to prepare Discovery for its trip home. These included Hot-Fire tests of all 44 Reaction Control Systems jets, Flight control system checkout, SAREX stow, CPCG Stow, ASC-3 Deactivation, ORSEP Deactivation, stowage of all non-essential cabin items and Ku-Band antenna stow. Flight Day 9 (February 11, 1994) operations included the powerup of all critical orbiter entry systems (Group B powerup), SAMS deactivation, CAPL Deactivation and De-Orbit preps. Ground controllers gave Discovery a go to start SPACEHAB deactivation at 13:00 UTC and this was complete by 15:20 UTC. Landing was at KSC runway 15 at 19:18:41 UTC.

title: STS-60