Humanities desk
< May 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	June 1 >

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.

May 31

icing but not the cake (metaphor for gaining qualifications without having knowledge)

Is there some underlying factor like race or wealth or sex that would allow someone to go through the education and political system and have the icing but not the cake? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the icing and the cake, respectively, in this scenario? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I might hazard at a guess at what the cake might be, but I'd have a tougher job coming up with what the icing is. Far better if you just tell us what you're talking about and then we can address your question. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 202. The original question makes no sense. There is no need to be ambiguous and/or coy. Just ask directly what you want to know. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Icing=credentials or records, cake=knowledge without icing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.8.229 (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine what references we could give you on this question. --Lgriot (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that there would be any possibility in the USA or the UK, but maybe in some countries without a free press to discover the deception? Dbfirs 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reason for lack or cake or lack of icing? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question makes more sense if you consider the cake to be physical work, and the icing to be wealth. In which case, social class has everything to do with it. There is, however, a way for someone to have qualifications, and for someone else to have knowledge but no qualifications: indeed it was quite common in the UK until relatively recently. In people born before the advent of universal free education until age 16 (which came in in the UK in 1974), it would have been possible to leave school without any qualifications, and to work their way up through, say, an engineering firm until they reach the highest level available. In fact, I'm reminded of an old neighbour of mine who did just that, and who now owns the business without a single qualification to his name. -TammyMoet (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about those dates? From at least the sixties or earlier you could stay at school for free until 18, then do higher education at universities or their equivalent, where not only was the education free but you got your living costs paid for free also. On the other hand only about 20% of students stayed at school until 18 in the seventies, much lower than the participation rates now. In the noughties a backward step was made, and since then you have to pay for university education. At a guess the minimum school leaving age may have been raised from 15 to 16 in 1974. 92.28.254.179 (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The school leaving age was raised from 15 to 16 in 1972, according to this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm . It used to be possible for people achieving the age of 16 before the Easter term to leave and not take exams - this did happen in the year I was 16, when one of my friends did just this. It was possible to stay on at school past 15 and take exams before that date, but not everyone had to - hence my phrase "universal free education until age 16". --TammyMoet (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"1971 - The decision to raise the age to 16 to take effect from 1 September 1972 confirmed."[1] Alansplodge (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its misleading to write "the advent of universal free education until age 16 (which came in in the UK in 1974)" as free education started a very long time before that - I'm not sure if it was the early 20th. century or in the 19th. century. Perhaps you meant "the advent of compulsory education until age 16 (which was raised in the UK from age 15 in 1972)". 92.15.1.82 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even in recent times in the UK for example, wealthy succesful parents can still fix their unqualified child up with a good well-paid job, particularly if they own a family business. And give them money to buy a house. 92.28.254.179 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To return the the OP's original question as explained by him/her: Is it possible to go through the education/political system and have records/credentials without have the knowledge on which those records and credentials depend? Of course it is, as many have proven, from institutional support for what are called "social passes" (age-based rather than ability-based) through bullying others to write papers and do homework, to paying others to sit exams, to counterfeiting documents or just lying about having them. Only the first is legal and I am not sure how race could be the principal means, but money and sex can be powerful motivators of persuasion to manipulate others into helping someone on such a sleazy crusade. Bielle (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could I have forgotten such diploma mills as Sequoia University where the likes of L. Ron Hubbard obtained some of his credentials? And that's quite legal in that you pays your money and you takes your piece of paper. Many have been fooled. Bielle (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was thinking, Bielle. There are three factors that I would cite. (1) Those "diploma-by-mail factories" allow an individual to obtain the "icing" (the credential of having a college degree) without the "cake" (the actual work and learning involved to earn a credible college degree). (2) In addition, as you indicate, there is the contemporary notion of social promotion (where kids just get "passed through" the system, whether they learn the material or not). (3) In addition, nowadays there is rampant grade inflation, whereby on paper (in the official records), it is attested that the student has excelled in the knowledge of the content, but in reality the student has not learned the material. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There is also a concept known as "the gentleman's C". I thought that Wikipedia had an article, but I cannot seem to find it. This is the concept in which a professor allows a failing or a "D" (below average) student to more or less "save face" by giving that student the semi-decent (average) grade of "C". For example, if a student is the son of a university's notable alumnus who has contributed millions of dollars to the college, a professor will not want to give that below-average student a "D" or "F" grade. The professor also, in his integrity, would not feel comfortable giving that sub-par student an "A" or "B" grade. So, the "gentleman's C" is an unwritten compromise that allows the professor and student to save face and walk away from an awkward and unpleasant dilemma. George Bush (Junior) was said to have earned many a "gentleman's C" grade in his Yale days. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

See Origins of the Gentleman's C and George W's Love-Hate Affair with Yale. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Is there any evidence of many people with degrees from diploma-mills actually being able to get good jobs with them? (I really don't know - we don't have such diploma-mills in the UK, all universities have to be accredited. There are some further education colleges (just below uni) that have fake courses, but they are more to get student visas as a means of illegal immigration, they often don't even give out the qualifications. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. A person (the job candidate) simply lists the "degree" on his resume. Whether the potential employer actually digs deeper and checks into the matter is anyone's guess. Some employers may determine that the candidate has passed the threshold requirement of holding a degree, period, and be satisfied. Also, some employers may not be aware of the sub-standard nature of the degree. What any individual employer does with this information is up to that individual employer. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Also, to add another wrinkle to this issue. Nowadays, the line is getting very blurry between on-line (distance learning) colleges/degrees and diploma mills. In an on-line degree program, the student never attends any classes ... and simply submits all of his academic work on-line. Whether the student completed the work himself or had his best friend/wife/girlfriend/etc. actually do all the work is anyone's guess. Thus, it is impossible to ascertain the integrity and value of an on-line degree. This factor simply blurries the lines between a legitimate on-line program (if, philosophically, one could even exist) and the completely bogus degree of a diploma mill. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If it's anyone's guess, then the answer to my question is "no, there is no evidence". What I'm asking is whether employers fool for it. In the UK, everyone knows which universities are good and which aren't and if you saw a CV with a uni mentioned that you didn't recognise you would look it up (well, there are probably some lazy people doing recruiting, but that's why I said "good job" not "job" - good jobs usually have good recruitment). --Tango (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your specific question directly ... some employers fool for it ... and some do not. Of course, there is "evidence". But I am sure that no one has done an exhaustive research study that was published in a national journal. (That's probably what you mean by the term "evidence".) Evidence may be simply one employee (or employer) attesting to that fact that this has happened to him. So, yes, that is "evidence". And I am certain that there exists in this country at least one person (employee or employer) who can provide such evidence. Basically, yes, it happens all the time. Otherwise, those diploma mills would not exist at all. Granted, the "better jobs" have "better recruiting methods" and it happens less -- if at all -- in that arena. And the "worse jobs" have "worse recruiting methods" and it happens more in that arena. As a further point ... there may be a job that does not require a college degree. But, perhaps a candidate with a "fake degree" (from a diploma mill) might get hired over a non-degree-holder. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Diploma-mills will exist as long as people think employers fool for them. The target audience are, by definition, not the brightest of people. Your last point is a good one, though - while jobs that require a degree will probably make some basic checks that the degree is real, jobs that don't require a degree but might be swayed by you having one anyway, might fool for it. I wouldn't be surprised if some studies have been done into this, even if it is just an investigative journalist applying for lots of jobs using a degree from a diploma-mill and seeing how many places offer him the job (or at least an interview). --Tango (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor usage note relating to the immediately preceding posts: the more usual phrase is "fall for it", not "fool for it." I suspect the latter may be a new eggcorn. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The worse bit is, I knew that... Thanks for the reminder! --Tango (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note to the above minor note. User Tango indicated that he/she is from the U.K. in a post above. I had assumed that the phrase "fool for it" was merely the British version for the American phrase "fall for it". As in, "making a fool of the employer who believes this nonsense". Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The OP is essentially revisiting the question s/he asked above here, from another angle. Perhaps we could be more helpful if it was a little clearer what was wanted. An easy way to get unearned paper qualifications? A consensus that such qualifications don't reflect the holder's true knowledge and achievements? Ka renjc 17:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A school can not issue a diploma for acquisition by anyone of knowledge it has not taught or does not have, yet such knowledge may be acquired. It is the opposite dilemma of icing without cake. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's only true of a legitimate school. And regardless of credentials, once people get a job they are ultimately judged on performance. Undeserved grades and degrees will eventually catch up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the dilemma. A person, regardless of the amount of cake they have, can not get their foot in the door without the icing and this may not be true if they have icing which is illegitimate. What this suggests is that because we do not have an educational system which has resolved this dilemma that even "legitimate" icing may be spoiled. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a potential employer, if someone comes in and says, "I don't have a degree, but I know this stuff, just trust me", I'm likely to tell him that we might have an opening in the mail room. There's no education-system way around the need for that "icing". However, it's often said that the best jobs are obtained by "knowing someone". That can get your foot in the door either legitimately or illegitimately, i.e. you still have to know your stuff or you'll likely be dumped eventually. There is a way around this problem, though, which is to start your own business. The success or failure of your business will be performance-based one way or another, and then the "icing" won't matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people do just that whether forced by the system or not. The problem is for those who want even higher formal education. There is no system at the upper levels of education that can accommodate a situation which is easily handled at lower levels by a learning lab which upper levels should be able to handle even better. The school I went to used learning labs extensively to cover all sorts of situations from a course missed in high school to classes missed while on the road to film. Polychotomous keys are incredibly efficient in this situation and talk about creating one's own business a fortune could be made. Professors, however, for the most part are too lazy and their students too dumb. No offense Debra if you are following this thread. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand if someone comes in with a resume listing no formal education, but a really kick-ass portfolio of work ... well, that's another matter. I don't know how big companies work, but especially for a technical position, a small company would probably give it a good look. You might say that you don't have time to create work for a portfolio for no pay, especially as your field doesn't usually require one, but compared to four years in school it could be the easy way out,(if you're really as brilliant as all that.)

The worst possible case is a resume that's just a story. I hate those. They tell some sad story that's just a protracted excuse for having absolutely no credentials or other proof of ability. Those are people I wouldn't want to work with even if they were brilliant.

Also resume-death is the phrase "Many people find my work difficult to understand because of my unorthodox approaches and outside the box thinking." I don't even want to meet people who think that's a good thing to put on a resume. APL (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

As fundamentalist Muslim extremists, Iran thinks that the Qur'an orders them to kill all "infidels" and that if they die accomplishing this task, Allah will favor them and send them to Heaven. For example, this is why there are suicide bombers; they think that dieing killing "infidels" will get them into Heaven. So why is Iran deterred by mutually assured destruction, and why hasn't it just nuked as much of the world as it can? --75.28.54.40 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to church how many people sitting in the pues are siting there to be seen rather than becasue they have a life or death devotion to the entitiy they are supposedly there to worship? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider Iran to be made up of "fundamentalist Muslim extremists". Yes, they are an Islamic Republic, with a government that holds a relatively hard Islamic line, but they don't have the problems with suicide bombers and such that are seen in, say, Israel. Additionally, they currently don't have the capability to nuke any of the world, and the world is trying to keep it that way. See Nuclear program of Iran. Finally, Mr. 71's point is a good one. It only takes one person willing to die to carry out a suicide bombing. It takes many, many people in government all willing to die to drop a nuke on someone else. Buddy431 (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran also doesn't have nuclear weapons. (By the way, surely this guy is just trolling? He's asked similar ridiculous questions.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nothing like crass generalisations, broad-brush ill informed assumptions and ridiculous comparisons to stimulate sensible debate...

The rationale for developing nuclear weapons is pretty complex. Iran see themselves threatened by one nuclear state to their South East and another nuclear armed state to the west acting as a proxy for the US.

Those interpretation os Islam that see suicide bombing as an acceptable form of Jihad are actually pretty limited, and they're not mainstream in a Shia dominated Islamic republic.

ALR (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also of note that generally speaking, being willing to suicidally die is not compatible with seeking high political office. Whatever a small minority might be agreeable with at the bottom, you can generally be sure that those at the top are interested in preserving their power/wealth/etc. that they've worked so hard to get. They might be willing to send others to die, but they're generally not willing to do it themselves. Anyway, on the larger question of whether nuclear weapons can deter those with exceptionally strong beliefs in the afterlife, see, for example, Noah Feldman, "Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age", NY Times, linked to in our nuclear weapons article. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the direct political descendant of St. Paul and the infallible representative of God on the Earth, why does the pope need his bullet-proof papa-mobile? Surely an assassination on him would only speed up the process of him getting to sit on the right hand of the heavenly throne? Or is he just a regular person, afraid for his life and willing to do what it takes to prolong it? Or to rephrase an old saying: There are no believers in foxholes. 89.142.179.179 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because the Pope feels he can do his job better if he's alive than if he's dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeees, that usually works best. :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it would be considered sinful within the Catholic church for him to put himself in danger for no good cause, both because of endangering his own life (2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.) and because of allowing someone else to commit murder (2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"). You can see the relevant part of the Catechism here, if you want to understand why a faithful Catholic is not supposed to invite their own death. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

75.28.54.40 -- First off, there's no injunction or requirement in Islam that Muslims simply kill off all non-Muslims. There are some rather "supremacist" passages of the Qur'an and traditional Muslim legal interpretations, but it's all quite a bit more complex and nuanced than just killing all non-Muslims. Second, you seem to be confusing and conflating the Ayatollocracy in Iran with extremist Sunni ideologies (adopted by a small minority of Sunnis). You may be unable to tell these groupings apart, but extremist Salafis/Wahhabis actually hate the Iranian power structure quite as much as they hate "infidels". Third, the leaders in Iran clearly remember the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and though Iran has adopted a foreign policy which is quite aggressive, provocateur, and adventurist in some ways, they're actually not at all eager to start a major war directly involving Iranian territory... AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the chapter entitled "The Problem of Islam" in The End of Faith by Sam Harris. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

African folktales

Where can I go online to read some African folktales? The stuff online is mostly webpages about books of African folktales, but I want to read the actual stories. Subliminable (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Books has a collection of collections in full view. For example: Faffir (Xhosa) Folk-Lore, Folk Stories from Southern Nigeria, Hausa Folk-Lore, Myths and Legends of the Bantu,Yoruba Legends, and quite a few more listed on their folklore/mythology page. Should you have trouble viewing or downloading the "Low Quality PDF" free e-book, Google books has the same collections in full view as well. (Probably easiest if you copy the exact title into the search box of Google books). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legal to circumvent privacy settings on facebook?

ExitRight (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "circumvent" in this case? ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 11:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just any successful attempt by one user to get into another user's profile where settings are private.ExitRight (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend. If there's a bug in the Facebook system which lets you view material that should be private, then it's not your fault. On the other hand, if you hack or do anything naughty to get around the privacy software, then it would be against Facebook's terms of service (so breach of contract) and likely against your country's equivalent of Britain's Computer Misuse Act 1990. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 11:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. That pretty much answers my question. I guess I ask because I've just never heard of anyone being arrested for snooping around in someone else's profile.ExitRight (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a jerky thing to do even if it wasn't illegal. Aaronite (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recently one of the weekly news mags had a cover story about facebook. Basically, abandon all hope of privacy if you're on facebook. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been quite a few newspaper/blog features recently about Facebook's privacy problems (basically, even the privacy settings aren't very private). Gizmodo notes 10 serious issues which you might find interesting. Reclaim Privacy offers a tool to test your privacy settings. (I cannot vouch for this in any way, and merely offer the link, which I came across. Like all internet tools, ensure this is safe and appropriate before using.)
It's worth noting, in answer to your original question, that there are many legal ways for people to access information set on "private". By signing up to facebook's terms & conditions, you have effectively condoned that. For example, applications are an easy way for companies to access your private data. Electronic Frontier Foundation note the things Facebook considers "public", which seems to be pretty much everything. If you link anything on your page, the page might remain 'private' but the links aren't. Gwinva (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the internet explosion really took the world by surprise. We simply have no precedent for the kinds of things happening on the internet. Law, policy and even etiquette are still lagging far behind. There are probably millions of things you can do on the internet which are illegal, immoral or just stupid, but the likelihood of being, reprimanded, arrested or even caught is disproportionably low. Just because you might not get caught does not mean it's not wrong. Vespine (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translating an author's original text into another language, without the author's permission

Dear Editors, In your text, you refer to "Canada's copyright laws and translation. May I ask if translating an author's text (say, by Google), without the author's consent, constitutes a contravention of Canada's laws on copyrights and trademarks? Respectfully submitted, Dr. Adalbert Lallier, author of the term/conceot/idea "sexonomics" (on which I hold a trademark) and of the treatise "The Golden Triangle: Sexuality, Money, Power" (on which I hold the copyright, and which has been published on my website "www.sexonomics.com). {email removed – ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.169.187.174 (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are sorry, but Wikipedia does not provide legal opinions (see Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer). Please consult a lawyer instead. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 April 10#Traduttore, traditore! -- Wavelength (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the burning of the Jaffna library

Burning of Jaffna library says that nearly 100,000 unique books and manuscripts were destroyed. Why would a public library house so many unique documents? I think of public libraries as owning copies of books that are also owned by many other places, and unique books as belonging in university archives or other specialised libraries. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Public Library conserves many irreplaceable unique materials. so did the Sarajevo Library.--Wetman (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As does the British Library. Of course, if my own local library was burnt down I don't think there would be many irreplaceable manuscripts lost. Jack forbes (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would depend on the library and the meaning of "irreplaceable". In some towns, the library also holds the archives - for example, documents relating to the politics and history of the city, local newspapers, original works donated by local authors, etc. None of them might seem as important as losing most of Avicenna's works or anything, but they'd be unique, original, documents, in some cases without extant copies. Matt Deres (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you set up "universities archives or other specialised libraries" as a special category. For all intents and purposes, Jaffna library was a specialized library/archive. The fact of it being public had nothing to do with it having books or getting burnt down. There would be a comparable problem if the main Harvard or Yale libraries were burnt to the ground, or the US National Archives. Whether they are open to the public has nothing to do with whether they provide security to the books contained. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I misunderstood; I thought this was a simple city library, nowhere near the calibre of the NYPL or the British Library, let alone being comparable to the Ivy League libraries. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's nowhere near the calibre of the British Library, which has 14 million books, and 150 million items in total. I wouldn't rank that below the Ivy League libraries, though. Gwinva (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even small libraries do have special collections, depending on whether someone famous (say a big local author who got world famous) or some famous event happened. The small library could hold historically important documents in that case. Aaronite (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, as the article says, "at the time of its destruction, the library was one of the biggest in Asia..." --Mr.98 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend was right to be suspicious. This looks like a WP:V problem. The apparent source says "the barbarous burning, by a security unit, of the Jaffna Library, with its 97000 books and unique manuscripts." The editor moved the word "unique" to make it sound like there were 100,000 unique items but it appears that the author only said there were 100,000 books of all types, and and an unspecified, though presumably small, number of unique manuscripts. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per JGGardiner's finding, I've changed "unique" to "different". I understand that small libraries would have special collections — when in college, I helped to archive the Macartney Collection of unique manuscripts, but (1) it's nowhere near 100,000 documents, and (2) it's a college library, not a large public library. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not all of 100,000 books were unique, a large number of them were unique Tamil manuscripts. Jaffna in late 19th and early 20th centuries was a centre of Tamil scholarship/ Print industry and the library housed a lot of unexamined manuscript collections. It was during this period, Tamil literary works were being published as books sourced from decaying palm-leaf manuscripts. Jaffna library housed several of these manuscript collections and first edition prints. Some of the manuscripts/books lost in the burning incident are now lost forever. -Sodabottle (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

architecture of Domitian

What were the most important buildings Domitian worked on or constructed and why? (not a school question, just curious).--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the Domitian article, he built the odeon of Domitian, the stadium of Domitian, and the Flavian Palace. He restored the Temple of Jupiter, and completed the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, the Arch of Titus, and the Colosseum. He also had a master architect named Rabirius. Why did he do that? Well Rome was still being rebuilt after the Great Fire, and apparently he had bucketloads of money, so why not? Apparently the people loved it, but the Senate didn't like him very much. But that happens when you name too many buildings after yourself... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I attach my curtains to my curtain rings?

How do I attach my curtains to my curtain rings? Here's a picture that shows both. There is a sort of clip on the ring. Do I need to buy something in addition to this or is what I have sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.137.80 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you also need some of these (curtain hooks), which you thread through those loops you have in the stitching at the top of the curtain. You then attach the hooks to those clips you have on the rings. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a guide on hanging curtains like yours, with useful pictures. Note that for use with rods & rings (rather than tracks) it is generally best to feed the hook through the pockets on the top row. Curtain hooks come in a variety of materials, depending on the weight of your curtains: this site offers some advice. Gwinva (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Or maybe more like these, which are a bit longer. Same idea, though. Matt Deres (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of prominent anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracy theorist

I'm trying to remember the name of a Jewish man who, sometime around the '50s and '60s, gave speeches railing against Jewish people, accusing them of all being communists, of conspiring to cause Germany to lose WWI, and of possessing great global power. He may have been a Bircher. Cheers. --superioridad ^(discusión) 23:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Guy Carr? This particular conspiracy nut seemed to have a serious hard-on for Communists and went as far as completely fabricating things they were supposed to have said. He also believed WWI, WWII and the yet to come WWIII were a conspiracy to bring about world-wide totalitarian communism. TomorrowTime (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the guy I'm thinking of was Jewish himself. If it helps anyone, there's a common-ish piece of spam that gets posted on Usenet groups that talks about how the British were facing defeat in WWI in 1916, until Germany's Jews turned traitor, and, in exchange for the Balfour Declaration, lost the war for the Central Powers. It cites a speech by the guy I'm thinking of as evidence. I'm reasonably certain that I read the Wikipedia article on him sometime in the last month. --superioridad ^(discusión) 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does help. Sounds like Benjamin H. Freedman. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thanks. --superioridad ^(discusión) 09:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]