Humanities desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 26

Type of truck?

Can someone identify the make/model of the pickup truck in this picture?

I don't know, but I just uploaded a much higher res version so folks can get a better look at it. If you don't get any help here, maybe try a car/truck/4-wheeler-buff forum. --Sean 12:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the better upload; I would always upload larger images, but my computer doesn't want to download the TIFFs. My only reason for asking here, by the way, was so that I could label the picture better and put it in better categories at Commons; if nobody here can identify it, I won't care at all. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it to be a Jeep, but the headlights don't match. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's a Dodge M37 --JGGardiner (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. Compare to this photo of a Dodge m37: [1]. I spent quite a wile searching images of old trucks without finding it. The fenders looked more like a typical 1930's truck. Edison (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not surprised that it's some decades old; the community is now a ghost town. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

famous composer who did not know how to play any instruments well

I remember reading something about a famous composer whose only wrote music and never learned how to play an instrument beyond a novice level. Who is he? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart was only really good on the piano and violin, the latter of which he learned well of his own enthusiasm, surprising his father... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.197 (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's clearly not going to be Mozart, then, is it? 209.251.196.62 (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by "composer", but it might be Irving Berlin? --81.170.13.77 (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember back in high school reading something about Wagner 'playing like a composer'.
As 81.170 points out, it depends on what you mean by composer. If you count popular music, I'm sure that there are lots. If I'm not mistaken, Sid Vicious had song writing credits for the Sex Pistols, but couldn't play well. You might want to count artists such as Michael Jackson and Madonna. Both write some of their own material but hire studio musicians to actually play the music. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Viscious's "songwriting credits" were likely a fiction for monetary purposes only (he wanted equal cash for being in the band). It wasn't just that Sid "couldn't play well", he couldn't play at ALL. The earlier recordings (and indeed, much of the songwriting and arranging) were handled by original bassist Glen Matlock. Glen quit/was fired because he basically was TOO good of a musician, and he and the rest of the band didn't get along all that well because of it. Sid replaced him, only because he was a friend of John Lydon. The band at first tried to incorporate Sid in the band musically, but it quickly became apparent he couldn't play at all, and had no real interest in learning. All of the recordings made while Sid was a member of the band featured guitarist Steve Jones overdubbing the bass parts instead of Sid. During live performances, the didn't even plug in Sid's bass guitar; he was pure eye candy. Most of the time, a musician was playing bass along back-stage, usually Chris Spedding if I remember correctly... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between not being able to play at a professional level (i.e. not good enough to perform or record your own material) and playing at a novice level. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is, and I sense that's what the OP is asking about. One name that comes to my mind is Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Afaik, he could only play the piano. He could play it well enough to compose his symphonic works while sitting at the keyboard, and well enough to write probably the most popular piano concerto ever written as well as 3 other major works for piano and orchestra, the Piano Trio in A minor, and a whole pile of often very tricky solo pieces - but not so well that he would ever have contemplated being the soloist in the performance of any of the aforementioned works. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puplic Relation

Define the puplice relation,Discribe Puplic relation as an inertactive process between an organization and its puplic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidkhan89 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably find it easier to find information on this if you spell it public relations. Your best bet is probably to start with what you have written in your book or notes, since that will give you the definition your teacher is expecting. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Communication

Junaidkhan89 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Communiction is an integral part of human civilization and Culture Elaborate[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate means you can use your brain. You can actually do this very easily. Just think about the different types of communication and how people do them. The article on Communication may help you see what different kinds there are. Then, just think about what it would be like if we didn't have each. There is no reason you can't think of a few good ideas yourself.209.244.187.155 (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

facts about mexico

could you please tell me whether children in Mexican schools wear uniforms and whether or not girls get the same education as boys in Mexico. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.99.69.244 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Education in Mexico? The answer is probably in there somewhere (although, I haven't read it). --Tango (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we don't answer either question directly in that article. However, a few quick Google searches (such as 'school uniforms in Mexico' suggest that uniforms are widely but not universally used. As for gender equality in education, I find it unfathomable that it would not be equal (at least in the eyes of the law), and I've not searched to this end. I'm certain Google would quickly verify this, however. — Lomn 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish religious beliefs about Jewish leaders

Are there special beliefs in Jewish religious belief regarding Jewish leaders? If so are these only valid "historically" (for historical Jewish leaders) or in the present day as well? I understand there can be variation in jewish religious thinking but I would like to know the basics. (This is not homework). Thank you. 79.122.75.197 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is too broad. What kind of beliefs do you refer to as "these" that are only valid historically? Anyway, if you are interested in the historical leaders, you can start with the articles on Moses, Joshua, Biblical judges, King Saul, King David, King Solomon; and then ask more specific questions. If you mean modern political leaders, you can start with the Prime Minister of Israel#List of Prime Ministers and folllow the links. I actually suggest you read about every one of them, as IMO no two Prime Ministers of Israel were treated the same way by the public and the press. If you mean modern (last 100 years or so) spiritual and religious leaders, you can start your reading with Abraham Isaac Kook, Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel, and Shlomo Goren to name just a few. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP was not asking about leaders, religious or secular, as such. The OP was asking about anything prescribed/discussed in Judaism with regards to national leaders.

Have no idea what the answer would be, but I'd imagine it might be the religion's views on church-state relations (e.g. "render unto Caesar..."), or perhaps on suitability of candidates for high political/national office (cf mandate of Heaven)?

The historical vs modern part of the quesiton, I imagine, is asking whether Judaism says anything about modern politicians as opposed to ancient kings (or Caesars). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this is my (the original poster's) exact question. it's what I'm looking for. Sory if I used jewish instead of judaic, I meant the latter. 94.27.157.5 (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Do you mean Jewish attitudes to politicians who happen to be Jewish? It's hard to answer your question if you don't explain it. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your restatement of the OP's query is inexact,PalaceGuard008: the query is specifically about Jewish leaders. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-stated "Jewish" as "national", on the basis that Judaism's views on Jewish leaders are equivalent to Judaism's views on national leaders. This is because Jewish religious laws, if I understand correctly, apply only to Jews; they do not, for example, apply to Arab Israelis. Thus, whatever may be Judaism's views on leaders in general is, in terms of application, the same as Jewish leaders. I know next to nothing about Judaism, though, so you are probably right in making that point. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 613 Mitzvot contain several commands as to how Jewish kings should act... AnonMoos (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty broad question. It would help if you better defined what kind of "leaders" you mean. The answer would be very different if you specified one or more of Kings, Prime Ministers of Israel, Prophets, Rabbis, Warriors, First-borns, Heads of households, Priests (High) or Priests (regular). --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Salesman - Whistling in an Elevator

In Arthur Miller's play, Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman tells his son (who is about to go for a job interview) not to whistle in an elevator. Why does Arthur Miller include this as part of the play? Whistling in an elevator (even if impolite or rude) seems to be a fairly trivial matter. Is Miller using this as a device to illustrate that Willy Loman and his sons are so detached from reality that they are focusing on a trivial matter instead of more valuable interview advice such show up on time, give a firm handshake, sit up straight, etc.? Or am I reading meaning into something that isn't there? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you (or someone else using the same IP address) asked this in December of last year, and were answered at great length here. You might check your contributions' log for that date. // BL \\ (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me. But the questions are different. The first question was basically what's wrong with whistling in the elevate. This question is about whether it has any symbolic meaning in regards to the Lowmans' disconnection with reality. It does tangentially come up towards the end of that thread, but by that time, it had scrolled so far up the page, I don't think many people noticed it. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

There's quite an interesting analysis of this question, as part of a wider discussion of the music/whistling motif in the play, here (particularly paras 4 - 8). Ka renjc 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Arthur Miller has any reason for including this in the play. I think whistling in an elevator is entirely irrelevant to any of the important points made by the play Death of a Salesman. I think it is just an interesting point that is included to keep us entertained while the important points are made. I'm not sure what the important points are in the play, but I'm sure they are more important than just whistling in an elevator. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]