Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 18

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.

February 18

Presidential Insanity ?

In a moment or two of complete insanity does the american president have the ability to send the commands to set off nuclear bombs. and they actually get launched and land ? Or is there some fail safe in place that would tell the president that he cant do that ? If he uses the football to send the bombs to some other country and does all the commands correctly is there any way to stop him in that short period of time. I know if incapacitated the vice president would take over however by the time that takes place he could have killed a lot of people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.4.9 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a procedure under the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That being said, that won't fully answer your scenario. I think much would depend on whether there was unanimous agreement that he was crazy or not among White House and Pentagon officials.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the 25th amendment really covers this scenario. Certainly, yes, the President has the authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons, but that's not quite the same as actually setting off nuclear weapons. Within the time scale of that activity, some means of declaring the President "temporarily incapacitated" in a manner that doesn't amount to mutiny seems unlikely. The question, then, is what happens with the chain of command when a nuclear launch order is given? Will it be executed? Deemed an unlawful order? Mutinied against? This has been the subject of much fiction and speculation (Last Resort (U.S. TV series), Crimson Tide (film), and The Sum of All Fears are recent American media takes on the issue), but I don't know that there's much in the way of firm reference to cite. Certainly the theory is that, once given the proper codes by the President, the relevant personnel will deploy the weapons with no questions asked. Abort modes will vary by type of weapon -- bombers can be recalled, and cruise missiles can probably be remotely self-destructed, and I assume the same is true for ICBMs, but there's not necessarily much time for that last option. — Lomn 02:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The 25th Amendment is exactly on point, and is designed for this scenario, among others specifically. In addition, it's my understanding that the secretary of defense has to also authorize any nuclear retaliation, or something along those lines. That may be incorrect in practice, but it's written at least once here in wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of The Sum of All Fears as well, the article Two-man rule doesn't actually say that another man must confirm the president's decision. I don't know if the book bent reality, or if the article is incomplete. In any case, it's interesting that Harold Hering was discharged for asking the same question as the above. Ryan Vesey 02:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The access controls are [presumably] much better now than they were back in Hering's day. It's frightening when you look at how little of those the Russians had at comparable times. Shadowjams (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There would really have to be some pretext for the president (or any proxy thereof who might be at the head of the chain of command in a time of emergency) to order a nuclear strike; it's not simply a matter of picking up a red phone and ordering such an attack as easily as one might a pizza. There's a strict procedure for establishing readiness of the non-conventional arsenal and even more specific protocols for the actual arming and launching of the weapons. If you have a JSTOR account, you may find this source, though dated, interesting: LAUNCH link! Snow (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have an inkling things have changed since 1985... but other than that, yeah. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The link was not provided to illustrate current readiness procedures but rather because it contains theoretical and hierarchical discussion of scenarios along the lines that OP was inquiring about. And I did note it was dated, but if you have something more contemporary, by all means... ;) Snow (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of stories floating around that James Schlesinger, during the late days of the Nixon administration, sought to ensure that any "unusual" military instructions from the White House would have to be confirmed with him. Interestingly, while many recent commentators take the line of the original poster here and interpret it as trying to prevent Nixon from starting a war, this 1983 Atlantic article suggests that Schlesinger was most concerned about an attempt to use troops to hold onto power in mid-1974 - a very different, and much "saner", problem! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sort of the reverse of Seven Days in May, which was set in May 1974. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Half of the think-tank budget from the 60s onward was dumped into this RAND corporation kinda thought (I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect) and a lot of it led to some interesting conclusions... the most accessible, funny, and frighteningly smart treatment of this topic is probably Dr. Strangelove. I'm either exceptionally stupid for saying that or ahead of my time. Or some combination. Anyway, watch Slim Pickens ride a nuke down with a cowboy hat and your ideas about the issue are sure to have some updates. Shadowjams (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can Futurists Hypothesize when the human race will end and if China will ever become more powerful than the Western_world?

Can Futurists Hypothesize when the human race will end and if China will ever become more powerful than the Western_world What theories or facts can they base on? Venustar84 (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

1) No.

2) China can be predicted to outpace the US in a few decades, but the entire Western world, probably not. StuRat (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to China surpassing the United States, I think you might find this(pdf) to be interesting reading stating otherwise Here's a non-PDF non full text link. It's been too long since I read it to remember the conclusion, but Robert J. Art's "The United States and the Rise of China" was a great read [1]. Ryan Vesey 04:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone's strategically vague about what "outpace" or "more powerful" means... China's "more powerful" if you mean number of people. There's little evidence that China will "outpace" the U.S. in terms of economic development anytime soon, without some powerful political opinions being included. No doubt China is, and will become a huge economy, but there's very little to support the notion that is suggested in this thread. Shadowjams (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be fair theoretically a futurist might be able to make some complicated analysis (on these subjects or others), but not in his/her capacity of being a futurist. --Soman (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Venustar84 might be interested in Timeline of the near future, Timeline of the future in forecasts, Timeline of the far future, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence and shyness

Where did the conception that brainy people, you know, the type of people who have their nose prepetially stick in a book, are shy? Like the Gabriella Montez character in High School Musical. ZEfronbestfan (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Could it be that people who are shy would rather read books than interact with people ? StuRat (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Or they are insecure when around other people and therefore direct their attention at scholastic activities. Either way, it's a stereotype and not always true. I've known many people that are very smart and also very outgoing and engaging. There are some well known examples of people who are both smart and outgoing enough to be on television or in the limelight such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking. Dismas|^(talk) 05:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Most stereotypes are statistically true, which is why they became stereotypes in the first place. A few exceptions out of 7 billion people does not disprove a statistical correlation. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No empirical validity to this statement whatsoever; stereotypes may reflect realistic trends or they may be completely contrived and false. Quantifying which are which across all the domains of human inquiry and expression is an impossible task and as such determining that a majority of them are accurate is entirely impressionistic speculation. In fact, in many contexts, the choice of the word stereotype to refer to a perceived tendency is used to explicitly mark that the belief is a superficial one and unlikely to be true. Snow (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Stereotypes are not statistically true in any way whatsoever. They are made up by people who have limited contact with the very type of people they are stereotyping. I do not think all Chinese look the same. I do not think that Jews are all penny-pinchers (any more than everyone else is). I do not think that all Eastern Europeans are alcoholics obsessed with sex and bad driving. If a British girl in Japan gets raped and killed and put in a bath of sand on the balcony of her killer, who turns out to be a complete nutcase, would that mean all Japanese are nutcases? Of course it wouldn't, but some people think that way. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dismas, you edit that post and move Carl Sagan's name to the head of that list right this instant! Snow (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The list was posted in no particular order.  ;-) Dismas|^(talk) 09:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of empirical evidence validates many stereotypes. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I said what I said because my niece wants to move to Japan, and as I lived there for most of my adult life, my family are asking if it is safe for her to go there. I insist it is, but they always talk about the Lindsay Walker incident. There are 127,000,000 people in Japan. There are not many incidents like this, but it becomes news, because news is all about hyping stuff up and making it emotional and all that jazz. She will be fine there, and if she has a problem, I won't be far away. I will reiterate: "stereotypes are made up by people who have limited contact with the very type of people they are stereotyping." KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You say you lived there most of your adult life, yet you defer some important question to the reference desk? Come on, give me a break. You know the responses here are hardly intelligent. Shadowjams (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave some very easy to understand answers. I am very surprised, that you, of all people, failed to understand them. Also, your use of the word 'defer' does not make sense in this context. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You are drawing a conclusion from 1 stereotype and applying it to all stereotypes. How is that different from meeting a limited number of black people and drawing conclusions about all black people from them? Here's one example of a valid stereotype: black people commit more crime. According to incarceration in the United States, blacks commit crimes 7 times as often as whites. Therefore, the stereotype is valid, and no amount of ideology can refute the empirical observations. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this seems to be a good example of a case where a stereotype is colouring interpretation of empirical facts. I see no statement in that article that supports your 7-to-1 figure. I can only assume you extrapolated it from the proportions of inmates of different races relative to their proportions in the general population. But there's a few problems with this. First, you make the assumption that incarceration rates correlate directly to propensity for crime for each ethnicity, but disparity in the how the law is applied in a number of ways (conviction rates, imposed sentencing, and parole rates in particular) seriously skew these numbers in the case of the U.S., which has some well-attested and significant systemic biases in its legal system. Second, you seem to omitting women prisoners, who (even dismissing the above factors) do not fit your trend regarding "black people". Lastly, your math is way off; even if we took those numbers to be granted and assumed they actually did reflect how often people of these races commit crimes, relatively speaking (the second being not at all a reasonable assumption) the best you get is still a 4-to-1 ratio. But then, I dare say people see what they want to see in stereotypes. Snow (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I got my data from this graph. You're right that I misinterpreted it, as it includes only males, not females. However, my math is not off--4.8/0.7 is indeed 6.9. This source (table 18) gives the same data for females, where the ratio is 3.8. However, because there are much fewer female inmates, the overall ratio is still 6.2. My original point is therefore valid.

Even though plenty of people claim racism in the justice system, I've yet to see anybody show that it accounts for the entire difference in incarceration rate between blacks and whites. The difference is drastic, so what you're proposing is a massive conspiracy theory of unexposed racism, as opposed to the simple, obvious, intuitive interpretation that blacks really do commit more crimes than whites. I dare say that my interpretation is less colored by ideology than yours, not to mention it passes Occam's razor. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a fairly massive body of work (here's a bare hint of it) detailing the expansive scope of pervasive racial injustice in the U.S. and, honestly, I don't think I've ever met a single person working in the legal field in a long, long time who doesn't concede that the issue is huge and ingrained. But what puzzles me (and please understand I'm not trying to be hyperbolic to denigrate your position) is why you think this sort of problem requires an overt conscious conspiracy to bring about; bear in mind, for most of American history, including the significant portion of the last century it absolutely did involve massive collusion to frequently railroad persons of colour in the justice system. These days I believe most legal scholars, social/psychological researchers and advocates for social justice would all agree the problem hinges more on the legacy of those willful perversions of the system and on the still pervasive latent racism of our general population than it does any kind of direct conscious agency. Things like jurors believing that black people are predisposed towards crime, for example. Here are some facts all well borne-out by research: Under generally identical circumstances, a black person (a black man in particular) is more likely to be arrested for a crime he is suspected of; under similar circumstances, a black person is more likely to be convicted for a crime with which he or she is charged, for virtually all classes of crime; under similar established facts of a crime for which he or she is convicted, a black person is often sentenced to longer terms and in many states is especially more likely to get a life sentence or face the death penalty; a black person is more likely to be denied parole for a longer period of time, even given similar conditions of the original crime and behaviour/apparent level of reformation in prison; a black person is more likely to later be cleared of charges when new evidence comes to light (suggesting more of them were unfairly imprisoned in the first place) -- this was especially noticeable around the time when DNA evidence first came into common use in the justice system, prompting a massive wave of reversals and successful appeals. The above statements are all true for crime in general, but the statistics for violent crime are even more slanted. Prejudice (or preexisting assumptions) in the jury or in jurists (conscious or otherwise), systemic disparity in sentencing guidelines between similar crimes, unequal access to legal representation, unequal social/media attention to when obvious injustices are done -- these are all just a few of the factors that can explain these statistical inequalities without having to resort to the silly notion of some sort of massive conspiracy theory -- though I assure you there remain men who sit on juries in America to this day who will be set on convicting a black man for any crime they might be accused of, just on principle. Also, on an aside, though I now see where you got your math from, I should point out that there are other figures in the article you first cited that directly conflict with the numbers of that chart, which should tell us just how easily it is for the numbers to support anyone with a confirmation bias. Of course, having said all of the above, I'll also add that I don't think anyone here has been saying that the entirety of the disparity is caused by the system -- surely there is some actual increased likelihood of black person committing a crime and I accept many of the social explanations for why this is so (the genetic/innatist arguments are obvious garbage) -- but the lion's share of the higher population of persons of color in prisons, versus that of white offenders, reflects a serious and systemic problem in the justice system and very few people connected to it in a professional or academic manner doubt that it is a real and serious problem and one of the biggest issues facing the progress of justice and equality in the U.S. Snow (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you just said. I didn't mean to imply that racism doesn't exist in the justice system, or that the racism isn't mostly one-sided (i.e. against blacks instead of against whites). My original argument was that blacks commit more crime, which I justified by pointing to statistics and claiming that the disparity cannot be entirely due to racism. You said yourself that "surely there is some actual increased likelihood of black person committing a crime", which is exactly what I was claiming. You would presumably agree, then, that the stereotype "blacks commit more crime" is accurate, and is not entirely due to racism or misinterpretation of data. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but then the stereotype is not "Statistically speaking, black people are slightly more likely to commit crimes, owing to a complex matrix of societal factors, but their overall disproportionate representation in prisons and as convicted criminals in general is explained to a greater extent by maladies in the criminal justice system", is it? No, the stereotype is "Black people are more prone to commit crime." Because that's what stereotypes do, almost by definition -- they strip away all contextualization in favour of a superficial analysis that is so simplistic that it warps the representation of the the issue, often to the point of stating nearly the exact opposite of the actual facts involved. These dumbed-down soundbites can then be taken by those inclined to swallow them whole without further inquiry and put together with whatever impressionistic evidence they have in their daily lives that seems to confirm it, and that blanket statement is all they see. But does that mean that the stereotype can then be said to be borne out as basically correct? I daresay not. That is the distinction between a simple statement of fact that is uncomfortable but true and a stereotype. But it would seem that we've already strayed quite a bit from the OP's original question... Snow (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Them sounds like weasel words... Stereotypes are just as often based on ingrained and obsolete attitudes towards certain groups, but since it has become unacceptable to express these opinions overtly they are "justified" through "empirical evidence." Example: "Black people are criminals". Statistical "evidence": The percentage of black people in prisons is greater than their share of the overall population, therefore the stereotype is "valid". Even if a stereotype is validated by statistical correlation (Mark Twain's three types of lies), it very likely suffers confounding correlation with causation or self-fulfilling prophecy. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't get your point. If the stereotype is that black people are often criminals, and the empirical evidence shows that black people commit crimes far more often than white people (which is true; see race and crime in the United States), then the stereotype is valid. Your point about causation vs. correlation is a strawman. Nobody in their right mind thinks the presence of melanin in the skin is the cause of crime; even neo-Nazis agree there's a confounding variable (i.e. the same set of genes that cause black skin might cause criminality). --140.180.243.51 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a flaw in your logic: that blacks have been arrested & convicted more does not necessarily correlate to blacks having actually committed a crime. Stereotypes can be self-fulfilling (ie. "I 'know' blacks commit more crimes, he's black, therefore he must have done it.") See also: Driving while black — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Mark Twain? If you're referring to Lies, damned lies, and statistics, Twain first used the expression in 1906 (where he attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli), but it was known at least as early as 1891, and variants from even earlier. Disraeli seems to be out of contention as it appears in none of his writings or reported speeches and did not first appear in print until years after his death. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Here the ulterior aim of the stereotype seems to be to convey that a single person cannot be good in all areas, so people who feel threatened by another's intelligence can console themselves by saying "I'm more outgoing so we're even." 72.128.82.131 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of intelligent people are not in the least shy. However there is a particular problem intelligent children can face in school and that is bullying, and staying out of the limelight is one way they can avoid that. There are also a lot of naturally shy people who go in for academic pursuits more and effort is one of the requirements for success. Plus have you considered how boring a person of normal intelligence can be to someone who is really intelligent and how hard it can be to find a companion? Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Earliest mention of Mount Kailash and the word Shiva

I want to know when did Shiva came to be associated with Mount Kailash. Many scholars hypothesize that Shiva dates back to the pre-Vedic period in India (although some features with the Vedic god Rudra were attributed to him later). Kailash a holy place in Hinduism, Buddhism, Bon and Jainism.

I am trying to find out

• Which known text contains the earliest mention of the word "Shiva" (not other words that are considered synonyms of Shiva today)
• Which known text contains the earliest mention of Kailash?
• At what point in history did Shiva come to be associated with Kailash? utcursch | talk 17:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely that you'll get useful answers here. I'm afraid you will have to contact an expert on the history of the Hindu religion if you need this information. The first question in particular is going to be very difficult because, as our article says, the word "shiva" was originally an adjective, not a proper name at all. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed in the Yahoo Indology list some while ago. Look in the archives. [2] As I recall it was used as an adjective for Rudra in the Rigveda. The thread was called "Rudra as Siva in the Vedas". Paul B (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, saying that Shiva predates the Vedas does not necessarily mean that there was a god called "Shiva". It can simply mean that practices and symbolism that became Saivism may have had non-Vedic roots. Paul B (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, will have a look at it. utcursch | talk 00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding to what Looie496 and Paul B have written above, Rig Veda contains the earliest mention of the word "Shiva". It means "a gracious one" and is usually used to describe Rudra, though in some verses it is used for other deities as well. I am not sure about the earliest mention of the word "Kailash", but both Kailash and Meru are mentioned in the Indian epics. The association of Kailash with Shiva is a part of Pauranic folklore. Finally, Pashupata Shaivism is the oldest systematized school of Shaivism which dates back to early centuries CE. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 05:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much. Do you know which verse of Rigveda mentions Shiva? I searched Ralph T.H. Griffith's translation for "Shiva", "Shiv" and "Siva", but couldn't find anything. utcursch | talk 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Shiva" is used as an adjective in RV and therefore tends to get translated into English words. For instance, RV 8.93.3:

स न इन्द्रः शिवः सखाश्वावद्गोमद्यवमत् ।

उरुधारेव दोहते ॥३॥[3]

sa/ na i/ndraH shiva/H sa/khaa/shvaavad go/mad ya/vamat

uru/dhaareva dohate[4]

is translated to:

The drops effused, the gladdening draughts, O Indra, Lover of the Son

As waters seek the lake where they are wont to rest, fill thee, for bounty, Thunderer.[5]

It's hard to make out what Griffith has done with "Shiva" here. Maybe he has translated it as "thunderer". Griffith's translation usually try to retain the poetic form and therefore end up obfuscating meaning of individual words. There are other less academic translations of this verse which translate Shiva as the "auspicious one". Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks once again. utcursch | talk 22:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is anime the cause of hikikomori?

I'm 55 and I was one of the first generation of hikikomoris in Japan. My father beat me up and took me out of the bedroom and took me downstairs to the street by force and healed me. Now my nephew is a hikikomori and is a frequent user of videogames and anime. Could that cause them to that illness? Thank you indeed much. Kotjap (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sidecar.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm curious to know how he "healed" you by inflicting bodily injury. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I meant that he helped me out. I am not English native speaker. Kotjap (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC) How did inflicting injury upon you "fix" the problem? Did it really fix it, or did you just comply with his demands in order not to be hit again? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Indeed, I complied with his demands. I didn't want any more beats up. Kotjap (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this source, neither videogames nor animé are among the causes identified by any of the scholarly research on this topic. Marco polo (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's see now. Kotjap, who was born in the 1950s, did not have access to any video games. But he became a hikikomori. Kotjap's nephew, who was born much more recently and does have access to video games, became a hikikomori.

Kotjap, what can you deduce from this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I can deduce he doesn't take suggestions very well. I think his postings are bordering on trolling. Asking obvious questions, or just skirting the edge. He's been engaged about this before. Shadowjams (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Troll kids these days are just useless. They just loll around under their bridges reading anime, and hardly ever menace goats passing overhead. If their fathers would just give them a good thrashing, that'd probably sort it. But I'd still advise them to watch out for big goats. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there any contemporary authors that compare to Charles Dickens?

I have some ideas, like Ian McEwan and John Updike. Can you think of any other authors who's works address justice and power in society? Thanks. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Any of various civil rights or women's rights authors come to mind. If you include authors of poetry and screenplays you will find even more. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is quite a popular theme in the Scandi crime books I've read, so maybe Stieg Larsson, Henning Mankell (especially his Wallander novels) and Sjöwall and Wahlöö would fit? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed the contemporary requirement. Only Mankell is contemporary now. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I can think of a few fiction writers that have a deep political-philosophical aspect to their work Alan Bleasdale,J. M. Coetzee, Alisdair Gray,James Kelman, - also maybe the films of Ken Loach --_nonsense ferret 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You really comparing the Girl with the..... whatever author to Dickens? The OP should know better than to ask something like this here, because it's just whatever the usuals here have been reading recently that they'll suggest... the smart question would be, what piece of Dickens is it you like? Even most literature "professionals" have varying reasons they like or don't like Dickens. There's nothing intrinsically great... by some accounts he sucks. I think you should look at Ann Rice's latest book. It's Dickensonian in my opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have something to contribute here other than attacks on the good-faith efforts of others to answer the OP's questions? Your posts the last few days have been increasingly caustic, often denigrating the questions of the OP, the efforts of others in answering them and indeed the general value and usefulness of the Ref Desks; if this is truly your perspective on these pages, then I suggest your energy might be better spent elsewhere on the project. Frankly, your behaviour and tone are bordering on the uncivil and I for one would thank you to keep your comments on-point and well away from subjects such as the capabilities of other editors and their qualifications in answering particular questions. Snow (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• The one who occurs to me is Tom Wolfe, not only because of his concern with social problems but also because of his exaggeration of characters and plot. Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would nominate Sir Terry Pratchett who, although utilising more overtly humourous and fantastical elements, deploys somewhat larger-than-life characters [insert Dwarf/Feegle/Goblin jokes here] to address moral and societal problems, often of the urban (and rural) poor, and whose recurring Discworld milieu of Ankh-Morpork is explicitly derived partially from Dickensian (and other eras) London. His recent non-Discworld, London-set novel Dodger is doubly Dickensian, as it features 'Charlie Dickens' as a major character. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Atwood. Amitav Ghosh. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Oldest person to survive Holocaust at the time of liberation

Who was the oldest person to survive the Holocaust at the moment the concentration camps were liberated? Not something like this, but maybe a seventy year old man who lived through the wretched conditions of the concentration camps.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You'd need to define "Holocaust survivor" better. Do you mean any Jew who got put into concentration camps, or simply any Jew who survived the war in Nazi or Nazi-allied territory? Or do you mean another definition? Futurist110 (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you mean concentration camp survivor, my guess would be that you're probably right that the oldest concentration camp survivor would be in his/her 70s or maybe 80s. The Nazis generally considered old people to be useless, so they would have been even more likely to be killed in concentration camps. Former French Prime Minister Léon Blum was 73 years old when he got rescued from concentration camps by Allied troops. In regards to any Jew who survived the war in Nazi or Nazi-allied territory, I would think that there would be a couple of Jewish centenarians alive at the end of WWII in places where the Holocaust was less severe, such as Bulgaria, Romania, France, southern Italy, and Denmark. Futurist110 (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To name a prominent survivor, Alfred Philippson was 81. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Leon Blum was also famous and prominent and a Holocaust survivor. But Yes, Philippson was older than Blum. Futurist110 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)