Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< October 4 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 6 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


October 5

[edit]

Re: History_of_the_European_Union#1945–1957:_From_ECSC_to_the_Treaties_of_Rome

[edit]

"Most European countries failed to maintain their Great Power status leaving two rival ideologically opposed superpowers.[6] However, the exception was the USSR, which became a superpower after World War II and maintained the status for 45 years."

Are the two superpowers the first line is talking about the USSR and the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.230.100.66 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very awkwardly written, but that has to be the meaning, because that is what happened. --76.69.47.223 (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, I rephrased the sentences. Akld guy (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear accident where an idiot tried to get rid of radioactive liquid

[edit]

I once read about it, but only remember that he poured it to the sewage and later died, and this happened in the USSR. I would be happy to find a source. Half an hour of googling lead me nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.11.38 (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some lists about radioactive accidents/incidents here and here on Wikipedia. Did not see the case you mentioned after a quick glance though (entirely possible i missed it). There is some crazy stuff on there like Anatoli Bugorski whose head was in the way of a proton beam by the largest particle accelerator in the Soviet Union. Due to a sefety malfunction though, not sheer stupidity. He is still alive it seems, at least according to his own article. Anyway, maybe those lists can help you find what you are looking for. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I have looked through these lists, and was just as amazed about this particle accelerator accident, but couldn't find anything about the douche who poured contaminated liquid to the sewage. Thank for the effort, mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.11.38 (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of nuclear materials have been poured down lots of sewers over the years, mostly without anyone dying proximately. However there is a risk (and a vague recollection of this happening) where a concentrated fissile solution was poured into a water-filled drain, such that it was then diluted. This acted as a moderator and then led to a sudden spike in reactivity (akin to the Demon Core accident), which is definitely hazardous to anyone nearby. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that particle beam not be in vacuum? How could the protons be numerous enough to damage a man's brain almost instantaneously yet not ionize the air in the beam enough to warn him? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

77.126.11.38: I think an accident at Mayak in 1968 might be what you're thinking of. It sounds like the drain that the liquid was poured into led to an isolated tank rather than a sewage system; the sources I found are weirdly unclear about it, but if the contamination got into a sewage system I would expect them to mention it. The incident is listed in the table at criticality accident and sourced to a report listing criticality accidents published by Los Alamos National Laboratory, pages 40 to 43. For a less technical and much more flippant description of the same event, there's this. A. Parrot (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Camelford water pollution incident. 86.152.81.16 (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the caption of a picture in a Wikipedia article

[edit]
wp:deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(edit conflict)Re this answer a few minutes ago [1]. I read WP:BOLD, which explains when you should do it but does not explain how you do it. Can someone please explain? 78.145.21.69 (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Click [ edit ] to edit the section the picture is in. (See Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/1 for help.)
  2. Look through the code for the image and fill in the caption in this slot: [[File:Name of the photo.jpg|thumb|right|200px|CAPTION GOES HERE]]. (See Wikipedia:Adding_images_improves_the_encyclopedia#Adding_an_image_to_an_article for help.)
  3. Fill in the edit summary in the grey box below the edit window and click “Publish changes”. If you still have questions, may I recommend Help desk as a good venue to get tech stuff answered. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have Islamic calendar open in another window but I can't locate [ edit ]. Can you point me to it? 78.145.21.69 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article is semi-protected, which means that you need an account that is at least four days old and has made at least 10 edits to other articles. Your options are either to register an account and start editing or post an edit request on the talk page of the article (Talk:Islamic_calendar). - Lindert (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case you can't create an account. Instead you'll need to email and ask for your previous account User:Vote (X) for Change to be unblocked, as I'm sure you well know. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a previous account and I'm not sure how to edit by email so I'll go with Lindert's suggestion of crafting a protected edit request. While I'm doing that, if anyone has a preference for a particular wording comments are welcome either here or at Talk:Islamic calendar. 78.145.21.69 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update the editor that started this thread submitted an edit request I closed the request after seeing the IP mentioned an RfC about the topic that closed on July 31 2017 and then I read this part here. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dole

[edit]

What was the deal with Bob Dole's candidacy in 1996?

I was too young for the 1996 election. Looking at this campaign advert of his where he harks back to LBJ's Daisy Girl, was he considered a temporal throwback by U.S. voters - "yesterday's man"/"Doctor Who"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiiwhRdQDmc Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in United States presidential election, 1996, the X-factor was the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot, who was presumed to have siphoned many votes away from the Republicans, just as he did in 1992. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Perot could've given Bill 1 or 2 extra terms? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, due to the presidential term limit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Bill would've lost '92 without him then Perot gave Bill 2 extra terms (by cause and effect, not necessarily intentionally trying to) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. presidential election, 1996 § Campaign: Dole's age was a big issue in the campaign. Dole touted it as a positive, often highlighting his WWII service. Clinton, while generally not directly mentioning the issue of age, painted Dole as someone who was out-of-touch with the present day. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bill was definitely more in touch with the younger generation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was around during the 1996 election, and what I mainly remember is that the sometimes independent-minded Bob Dole with a wicked sense of humor was replaced by a candidate repeating Newt Gingrich-era GOP talking points (and the post-1994 Newt Gingrich form of the Republican party, just coming off the United States federal government shutdowns of 1995-1996, appealed to me less than earlier versions of the GOP had). During one of the debates or major speeches, I remember thinking that he really didn't believe some of the things he was saying, but was saying them to curry favor with the GOP politicians that I liked the least. John McCain also went through a transformation similar to this during the 2008 campaign...
P.S. One other thing about the 1996 election was that it was the first national election where just about all of the southern conservatives who were going to change their party affiliation from Democratic to Republican had already done so. AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of party switches, some may have still voted for Clinton/Gore, as a ticket with two Southerners. This was the last presidential election in which these states went Democratic: Arizona, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia (United States presidential election, 1996 § Results). --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and the post-1994 Newt Gingrich form of the Republican party, just coming off the United States federal government shutdowns of 1995-1996, appealed to me less than earlier versions of the GOP had" Many voters seem to have had the same thought. Ginrich led the party to the loss of several seats in the United States House of Representatives elections, 1998. "...it was the first time since 1934 that the non-presidential party failed to gain congressional seats in a mid-term election.". Dimadick (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re Perot, looking at the stats, there were a few states that were won by Clinton by a smaller margin than the Perot vote. But is it a slam-dunk that everyone voting for Perot would otherwise have voted for Dole? Surely some would have gone Clinton? More to the point (and forgive my ignorance of American politics) surely lots of Perot voters were classic protest voters and many would otherwise not have bothered to vote? Sirely not many Perot voters expected him to win their state, let alone the White House. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, our article deals with this and expressly contradicts the opinions given above that Perot's performance gave Clinton the win: "Perot drew supporters from Clinton and Dole equally.[20] In polls directed at Perot voters as to who would be a second choice, Clinton consistently held substantial leads.[21] Perot's best showing was in states that tended to strongly favor either Clinton (such as Maine) or Dole (particularly Montana, though the margin of victory there was much closer). Perot once again received his lowest amount of support in the South." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And similarly for 1992: "The effect of Ross Perot's candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton,[29][30][31][32] but roughly two-thirds of those voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important" (25%) voted for Bill Clinton.[33] The voting numbers reveal that to win the electoral vote Bush would have had to win 10 of the 11 states Clinton won by less than five percentage points. For Bush to earn a majority of the popular vote, he would have needed 12.2% of Perot's 18.9% of the vote, 65% of Perot's support base.[34] State exit polls suggested that Perot did not alter the electoral college count, except potentially in one state (Ohio), which nonetheless showed a result in the margin of error.[35] Furthermore, Perot was most popular in states that strongly favored either Clinton or Bush, limiting his real electoral impact for either candidate.[36] He gained relatively little support in the Southern states and happened to have the best showing in states with few electoral votes. Perot appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party system. NAFTA played a role in Perot's support, and Perot voters were relatively moderate on hot-button social issues.[37][38]" --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a list for the 1992 vote percentage of Perot per state. Lets see where he performed well, and where he clearly failed:

Perot had his best showing in the Southern states in Texas, his home state. Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perot wore a vest? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did ordinary Perot voters (not his campaign) really think he had a decent chance of winning their State? Is there a way to know this? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2018_October_5&oldid=863793036"