Humanities desk
< September 18	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 20 >

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.

September 19

Was Dewey defeats Truman retracted?

Dewey Defeats Truman is infamous (and more than just the Chicago Tribune) but were these ever officially retracted by the papers and if so when? As much as I have heard about these no commentator has ever mentioned an official retraction, was it just an oversight? Thanks. Also references/citations would be helpful (I couldn't find any or any reference to any). Marketdiamond (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given you know the date of the headline, I suggest you visit the Chicago Tribune's archive here (from our article's external links section) and search through the next edition for a retraction. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an educated guess, but I'm assuming Yes since no newspaper would want to have its reputation ruined by refusing to correct obviously false news. Futurist110 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't guess or assume our answers here. There's a difference between telling the real story in the next edition (an implicit acknowledgment they got it wrong) and saying explicitly "We were wrong". No way of knowing which of these happened, without looking at the actual newspapers. Medeis's link is the place to visit. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes: Never again, we hope. The November 4th edition of the tribune included that along with 20 other articles about Truman's victory or tangentially related issues. I can't read the article itself as it's behind a paywall. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Addendum: It's interesting to me that although the announcement of Truman's victory was on the front page on the 4th, the paper's mea culpa was shoved back to page 22. I can't read the articles on the front page either, so I don't know if they mention the mistake. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does make a certain amount of sense that the correction/retraction was back on page 22. Corrections are often pushed back in the later pages. Dismas|^(talk) 08:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciation all, great info! Marketdiamond (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be added to the article. Somewhere it should also note that there was another major error on the page — one of the paragraphs of the "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" story was printed upside down, if I recall, a nice sign of the rushed state of things. (There is a copy of the paper on display at the Newseum.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public and private Campaign financing

In most countries, political campaigns are financed by a mixture of public and private funds. Is there any countries with purely publicly funded campaigns? Or purely privately funded campaigns? A8875 (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. at the federal level, the amount of "public funding" of campaigns is such a pittance compared to private funding, it might as well not exist. It basically amounts to pissing in the ocean. There are also stipulations which a candidate has to follow to voluntarily accept the public funds. Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Public_financing_of_presidential_campaigns has some information. During the current election cycle, neither candidate has accepted the funds, as they can raise so much more money if they refuse them. There is literally no incentive anymore (especially in the post-Citizens United world) to accept the public money. At the state and local level, there are a smattering of "Clean Elections" movements attempting to pressure candidates into a fully-publicly funded campaign. Everyone kinda laughs at this and goes about wiping their asses with the huge volumes of cash they get from donors. --Jayron32 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have overlapping articles called campaign finance and political finance (they have merge tags) - some of the sources sound like they might be promising. Political finance claims that India and Switzerland have no public funding, and gives Sweden, Germany, Israel, and Japan as examples of countries that have particularly generous public funding, but at least Germany and Japan also have private funding (I assume Sweden and Israel do too). I would imagine some one-party states could be considered to be examples of countries without private funding. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rather nice article from the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network that gives an overview of the situation in a few countries. Cambodia is the only country listed as outlawing private finance of political parties, although Guatemala has apparently achieved the same outcome. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Holy Sites in an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Treaty

Has there been any agreement between the two sides over who will get permanent control and sovereignty over Jewish holy sites outside of Jerusalem (such as the Cave of the Patriarchs) in previous Middle East peace negotiations? Also, have there been any speculation in the news as to how a peace treaty will affect these sites? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the issue of many holy sites is for final status negotiations. For example, in regards to the Cave of the Patriarchs, negotiations haven't given a final decision, BUT negotiations have created temporary agreements. Since 1996, under the Wye River memorandum, Israel and the Palestinian Authority agreed to divide access to the Cave of the Patriarchs. Under this agreement, Muslims are granted access to 81% of the Cave of the Patriarchs; Jews are granted access to 19% of the Cave of the Patriarchs. However, for ten days each year, Jews have access to the full site (these 10 days have special significance in Judaism; the source below does not say when they are but perhaps they are the Ten Days of Repentance). What will happen in the future is open for final negotiations.

Hope this helps.

Sources - [1] --Activism1234 05:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of shark saves a human?

I just read this amazing story, here about a man from the Republic of Kiribati that was rescued by a shark after being 105 days adrift as a castaway. What kind of shark does such a thing? Thank you! Timothy. Timothyhere (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the man was just interpreting a coincidence as something intentional. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It's likely that many types of shark might do such a thing as is described in that link. The story merely says that the shark investigated the man's craft and then moved off, the man decided to follow it and saw a fishing boat that the shark was heading for, and the fishermen rescued him.

Sharks often investigate floating objects to see whether or not they're edible - evidently it decided that the man's boat was not. Sharks often smell or otherwise sense the activities of fishing boats, and head for them to see if any discarded or injured fish are in the water. This shark evidently did first one, then the other: there's nothing in the story to suggest the shark was deliberately choosing to help the man (of whom it was probably unaware) in the boat, and almost certainly sharks do not have sufficient mental capacity to be able to make such decisions.

People lost at sea often follow sea creatures or birds in the hope that they'll be heading for another boat, or land: Christopher Columbus is reputed to have done so on his first Atlantic crossing, thus finding the Americas. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In an earlier article on the same incident, which I can't find now, I got the impression that the saved man was attributing the event to a deliberate action on the part of the shark. Or maybe I got that impression from a headline added by an editor. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the shark was an orphan who was raised by dolphins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A ring of forts

I have know for quite some time about the ring of forts that surround Paris (see Category:Fortifications of Paris). They are quite substantial looking forts about a mile or so apart and easily noticable once you know what to look for on a map. Anyway, I've just noticed a similar ring of forts around Antwerp and that got me wondering... how common was this kind of thing: building a ring of forts around a city? And is it just in European? Astronaut (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of strategy was used prior to WW2, when it became clear that a defensive line was of little defensive value, since the enemy could destroy it with artillery, bypass it with paratroopers, etc. Modern defenses depend more on rapid response (aircraft, tanks, etc.) to any incursion. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These forts are called Polygonal forts and the idea of placing them in an extended ring really got going in the 1850s and was known as the Prussian System (it's not mentioned in our article which is a bit lacking in some respects). The previous idea was a continuous wall strengthened by strong points called bastions, which is covered in our Star fort article. Paris was actually the last gasp of this concept, where they built the immense Thiers wall, 33km long with 93 bastions. It was completed in 1844, but by that time, the range of artillery had improved so much that it was possible to sit outside the walls and bombard the centre of Paris with impunity. The Prussian System was basically a line of forts which were really bastions without any connecting wall - the ground between was made impassable by cross-fire from the individual forts. The first major system was at Poznań Fortress. Other similar systems were built all over Europe, Liege and Verdun are two more famous examples. The best British example is at Portsmouth, where the forts were called Palmerston Follies. See also Fortifications of Paris in the 19th and 20th centuries which describes the first ring of forts built 1840-44 and the second ring 1870-1890. Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two answer your question about these systems outside of Europe, the only example that I can think of is Port Arthur in Manchuria which was fortified by the Russians[2]. Singapore had a lot of forts but (in my view) each protected a vulnerable point rather than being a mutually supporting system. Alansplodge (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add Vladivostok[3] to that. Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best examples are European (the double rings around Paris and Antwerp: Liège and the Fortified Position of Namur are the other big set-pieces in Belgium, the Fortified region of Belfort, Maubeuge, Lille, Fortifications of Metz and Strasbourg in France, and others). Less elaborate works were done around Washington, Richmond and Atlanta during the American Civil War as semi-permanent structures, and US coastal ports were protected by very substantial fortifications against seaward attack. Rio de Janiero has a system of coastal forts. Coastal fortification systems are in general more common, particularly in the Americas. They weren't really intended to be mutually-supporting, though, in the way the fortress rings were. The Maginot Line, Alpine Line, Alpine Wall, Siegfried Line, Czechoslovak border fortifications and Mareth Line would be linear examples of mutually-supporting fortifications. Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Less famous but quite impressive is Przemyśl in Poland, which once guarded the eastern border of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Also in Poland is the Russian-built Fortress Warsaw with two rings of forts, the outermost completed in 1909. The Russians disarmed them in 1913 after the failure of their forts at Port Arthur, allowing the Germans to march in unopposed less than two years later. See Fort Beniaminów (one of 30 Warsaw forts). Alansplodge (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may add Fort Alexander and other Saint Petersburg Forts to the list. And medieval Moscow was surrounded by two chains of fortified monasteries. One is listed in the Template:Monasteries of Moscow. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]