Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< September 8 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 10 >
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 9[edit]

Shinnoke and Oke[edit]

Why did the Americans found it necessary to limit the size of the Japanese Imperial Family and abolished the shinnoke and the oke families in the Imperial Household Law after World War II? Can the Japanese government in future restore the shinnoke and oke families to their titles?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

With the Japanese emperor being purely a symbolic one following WW2, the need for such a large, extended lineage of royals was lessened. And having an excess of royals supported by the state puts an undo undue burden upon it. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
So the Occupation undid it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Good catch. Computers have apparently rotted my brain. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Monarchy in post-WWII Japan[edit]

Were there any plans for the Americans to abolished the Japanese monarchy and replace it with a Republic after World War II since worship and fanaticism for the Japanese Emperor was a big reason for some of the action of the Japanese people during WWII?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there were any plans, but the U.S. figured out that abolishing the Japanese monarchy would piss off the Japanese people much more and thus decided to turn Japan into a constitutional monarchy instead. Futurist110 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, this was considered, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender gave the Allies that option: "The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers...". The main concern was that there might be continued resistance after the surrender. It was felt that the Japanese Emperor could serve a purpose, if he spoke publicly and asked all Japanese to stop fighting: [1]. If, however, he encouraged resistance in any way, then the Allies would have abolished the monarchy. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Remember that by late 1944 the overwhelming fear of the U.S. wasn't Japan but Soviet influence in the far east. It is documented as one of the top if not the main reason FDR/Truman dropped both bombs--as a strong statement to the Soviets that we would protect parts of Asia from communism. By the time of the USS Missouri signing the military leadership was focused on using any and all means available in Japan to strengthen U.S. influence there for years to come, when there is the Soviet bear in front of you issues about some papertiger toothless emperor become how we can use that mean to the blocking soviet end. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, it was mostly MacArthur who played the biggest role in retaining the Monarchy in Japan. In his role as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (an article which has a LOT of good information to answer this question), MacArthur was given wide latitude in shaping post-war Japan, Constitution_of_Japan#Drafting_process has a lot of information on how the post-war Japanese government was constituted, and it was basically MacArthur with the big picture, with the actual text left to a few underlings of his. The reason why Japan is still a Monarchy has a lot to do with MacArthur's influence. I can't find his exact rationale right now, but I do remember reading several times in several places that he meant to maintain the Monarchy to give the Japanese people something to rally around. He did wish to build them back up again, and the Monarchy gave them some focus for their national pride. --Jayron32 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
See also Potsdam Declaration and Surrender of Japan. Reading the latter of these two articles suggests the continued role of Hirohito as Emperor was the only path to surrender that the "doves" in the Japanese government would accept - including Hirohito himself. It must have seemed a small price for the Western Allies to accept, against a rushed invasion of the Japanese home islands (before the Soviets got there) and the casualties they expected to suffer, estimated at between 1.4 and 4 million. Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
But, as I noted above, the surrender document did give the Allies the right to abolish the monarchy, if they wished to do so. Was an oral promise made that, so long as he behaved, Hirohito could keep his throne ? StuRat (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. But without that carrot, the Japanese would probably have fought to the bitter end. That day, Hirohito informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai (national polity) could not be preserved. The emperor simply replied "of course."

Greatest Age Difference Between Meeting a Famous Person and One's Own Death[edit]

Jeanne Calment met Vincent van Gogh in 1888, when she was 13. Van Gogh committed suicide in 1890, and Calment died 107 years after van Gogh died and 109 years after meeting him. Calment died in 1997 at the age of 122.45, and she probably had memories of van Gogh right up until her death. Has anyone ever met a famous person when young and exceeded either of these two time differences (between meeting a famous person/having that famous person die and one's own death)? Futurist110 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that given we are speaking of 10s of millions of people that "met" celebrities at 6 months, 1 or 2 years old odds say there should be at least a few that did exceed it. Since its about any private non-famous person meeting a famous person would we even know for sure about some private person in Iowa that died at 102 and met say Mark Twain at 1 years old? Marketdiamond (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
107>101 and 109>101. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
LOL your inferring I can't calculate . . . doesn't matter the law of big numbers takes over here, how many hundreds of newborns did Mark Twain meet in the final year of his life . . . Einstein, Jim Thorpe, Lincoln, Genges Kahn, Emperor Constantine, Tsun Tszu, Jesus, Mohammed, Noah . . . biiiiig numbers. :-) Marketdiamond (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Would be interested if someone did find a documented case of it, but the absence of evidence doesn't necessarily prove anything ;-). Marketdiamond (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah let me see if I can find a documented case of it. Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Futurist, what possible encyclopedic resource do you imagine can address your question? Are you afraid we are running out of questions here? Or is this a result of your OR on the weed and IQ question? μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
What exactly does weed and IQ have to do with this question or with me in general? Anyway, as for a source for this, a news source (such as a website, magazine, or newspaper) might work. Futurist110 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Adam met god pretty much as soon as he was created, and lived for about 900+ years after the fact. What a bizarre question this is. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Except Adam didn't meet God or live 900+ years. Futurist110 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
As above, I agree this is a pretty silly question - there are perhaps a few a hundred people known to have lived up to or over 110 years, and the odds are presumably good that at least one of them encountered someone who was famous then, or would go on to be famous, in infancy. On the other hand, isn't this getting at the heart of the reason we're fascinated with extremely long-lived people? The sense of a connection to the past - that we can meet a person who saw or experienced or remembers something vastly long ago. So I guess it's interesting as a question, in some ways... Andrew Gray (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have found the answer that would beat Calment for longest time different between meeting a famous person and one's death--Alphaeus Philemon Cole "met" his father Timothy Cole when he was a baby and died 112 years later. Also, Katherine Plunket probably met her great-grandfather William Plunket when she was a baby, toddler, and/or very small child and died 108+ years later. I know that it's kinda cheating to use family, but oh well. Futurist110 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

For a non-relative, Florrie Baldwin saw Queen Victoria in 1900, Victoria died in 1901, and Baldwin died in 2010. Warofdreams talk 00:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Converts to Judaism in Areas Under Nazi Control During World War II[edit]

What did the Nazis do to people who were ethnically non-Jewish but who converted to Judaism at some point in their lives? Were they killed immediately, were they forced to do hard labor, or were they allowed to denounce their Jewish religion in exchange for getting their lives spared? I know that ethnicity was the main benchmark that Nazis used to determine Jews, rather than religion. Thus people like Edith Stein and Irene Nemirovsky were killed despite being Christians by religion. Futurist110 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that "Aryan" converts would be treated as "traitors to their race", so just as badly. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
What if they claimed that they were "seduced" by their Jewish lovers and that they were tricked into accepting Judaism and are actually hardcore Aryans (assuming that the converts were ethnically German/Dutch/English/Scandivanian) and anti-Semites? Futurist110 (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
In light of what we've been discussing on the Talk page, I'm sure StuRat didn't mean to suspect his answer, but has a good citation he's willing to share with us all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
As per the discussion there, I tend to agree with the suggestion to make it known when you are giving your opinion. The "I suspect" should make that quite clear. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the "suspect" absolves the referencelessness of the answer, but not its timing. If you don't know, there's no need to be the first to speculate. The question will be here for days. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) That's OK as far as it goes, which is about a half an inch. The OP wants to know what actually happened historically. Your (or anyone's) suspicions will never fit that bill, as they would always need to be confirmed or dis-confirmed by reference to the actual historical record. So why not just go straight there? Imagine a history of a major conflict or major country or time period, in which the author made constant reference to his "suspicions" about stuff? He'd be laughed out of town and his name as a historian would be lower than mud. Basically, for questions like this, if you are unwilling or unable to track down a cite or at least provide a link to a suitable WP article, the only proper option open to you is silence. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 04:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
If your concern is that I wasted the OP's time, you've just wasted far more of it. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(after I picked my jaw up off the floor) Continued at your talk page. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 06:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
According to writers such as Raul Hilberg, the treatment of converts was often arbitrary. There are instances of people with four German grandparents who converted to Judaism and perished. Even stranger, a woman who married a Jew and converted, was widowed, reconverted back to Christianity, and remarried and had a child with the second Aryan husband would be Aryan, but her son of fully German blood was considered a Mischlinge. More discussion can be read at this link:[2].
The Nazis made a great deal out of the purported "deviance" of Jewish men and their "hunger" for Aryan blood. Women married to or in loving relationships with Jewish men were often shaved bald and made to parade in the streets wearing a sign that provoked abuse (or worse). The only way for a German woman to avoid that would be to claim rape: in that case one would expect the Jewish man to be arrested and quietly killed. German men who had sex with Jewish women could be convicted of race defilement. This deterred consensual sex but not rape, as the easiest way for a rapist to duck the charge would be to murder the victim. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Related question, with a little setup: In the (great) film La vita è bella, Roberto Benigni plays a Jewish man who marries a non-Jewish woman (played by the lovely Nicoletta Braschi, Benigni's real-life wife). When the Nazis take him and their son off to one of the camps, Braschi's character insists on going with them and sharing their fate, and the Nazis accomodate her. Are there any documented examples of that sort of thing happening? --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Your premise that Jews were killed is false before 1942. Most Jews weren't killed before the Final Solution in 1942 and one million Jews were executed before 1942.
Sleigh (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following you. Who claimed that most of the Jews were killed before 1942 ? Are you responding to a post that has subsequently been removed ? StuRat (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Sleigh's comment contradicts itself -- first he says that Jews were not killed before 1942, and then in the very next sentence he admits that "one million Jews were executed before 1942". So which is it? (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
In the 9 years before 1942, one million Jews were killed including pogroms though progroms killed Jews before the Nazis came to power. 4.9 million Jews were killed in the 3 years of the Final Solution.
Sleigh (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Sleigh, the first person in this thread to mention 1942 was you. Whose premise are you trying to correct? --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The OP asked "Were they killed immediately...?" Not until after the Final Solution in 1942.
Sleigh (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I see. You interpreted "immediately" to mean "immediately upon the ascension to power of the Nazi Party" while the rest of us took it to mean "once those individuals were taken into custody, during the implementation of the Final Solution". StuRat (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Vaguely related to the OP's question might be the Rosenstrasse protest, where "aryans" demanded the return of their Jewish spouses and relatives.
As to raping Jewish girls... the nazis seemed to have different attitudes to the issue. From what I gather, many desisted, considering any sexual contact with a Jewess to be a traitorous act of "race defilement". They might freely (and brutally) murder Jewish girls and women, but rape was a different story. However, this squeamishness did not necessarily extend those who fell victim to Nazi brutality for "non-racial" reasons (such as perceived political opponents, female residents of occupied areas, or harbourers of partisans). (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Minorities in France[edit]

What are the largest minorities in France? -- (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The French census doesn't ask about or record race and religion but a marketing company called Solis (look at Demographics_of_France#Ethnic_groups) made some estimates and concluded that the correct answer to your question is Maghrebis, or people from the Maghreb, who are generally either Arabs, Berbers, or a combination of both of these ethnic groups. Futurist110 (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It's complicated because people don't necessarily stay minorities. For instance there are a lot of people in France who came from Poland, Italy, Spain or Portugal, or whose parents or grandparents came from those countries, or one of their parents or grandparents did. Those people quite often identify much more as French than as their heritage nationality. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Judith. The estimates from Solis are from 2009, so they might certainly change in the future. Futurist110 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
What's your definition of minority? Surely the largest minority is either males or females — obviously it's statistically impossible for precisely 50% of the population to be male and precisely 50% to be female, so one or the other must be in the minority, but both are close enough to 50% that it would be impossible for there to be a larger minority. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
My definition of minority for this question is a racial or ethnic minority. Futurist110 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Occitan? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Widest river bisecting a city?[edit]

Is there somewhere one can find a list comparing characteristics of rivers bisecting major cities? I would like to know which city has a river flowing through it at the greatest width. For my question this excludes estuaries, bays, etc., and both banks should be considered part of the same city. I tried browsing the lists in Longest bridge, but most of the bridges don't fit these criteria. -- (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The highest volume river (by far) and according to many measures the widest river is the Amazon River, so that would be a good first check to see if any municipalities along it lie on both sides of it. A good candidate may be Manaus which is at the confluence of two of the Amazon's largest tributaries, though I don't know how the corporate borders compare to the rivers in question. --Jayron32 11:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This list gives the names of some cities worth checking. (It does not include U.S. cities.) Without looking at each one of these on a map, I do not know for sure how many of these are divided and how many are on one shore only. Many cities were at one time divided, but in relatively recent times the jurisdiction on one side was made a separate city (e.g., Washington, DC). I would suggest prime candidates for the city with the widest dividing river would be London (by the Thames) or New Orleans (by the Mississippi).    → Michael J    12:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The Thames in London isn't very wide, you can walk across a bridge in 2 minutes or less. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
As a starter for ten, the Árpád Bridge is the widest in Budapest over the Danube, and is either 928m or 981 m long, depending on which part of our article you believe. --Viennese Waltz 13:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, that would put Budapest ahead of New Orleans. The Danube is ~900m / ~3,000ft, while the Mississippi at New Orleans is ~600m / ~2,000ft wide.    → Michael J    13:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Further downstream, the Pančevo Bridge in Belgrade seems to span 1,134m of the river. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course, all these bridges may be red herrings. The OP asked for width of rivers, not length of bridges. We're assuming that the two can be equated, but it's quite possible that there could be a stretch of river which is not bridged and which is wider than those which are bridged. --Viennese Waltz 15:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed - in fact, it's likely, as you'll probably choose to build a bridge over the shortest possible span, all other things being equal. However, it seems a decent proxy for river width in the absence of other data. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean to exclude the Bosphorus splitting Istanbul ? According to our article, "Its maximum width is 3,420 m (1.85 nmi) between Umuryeri and Büyükdere Limanı, and minimum width 700 m (0.38 nmi) between Kandilli Point and Aşiyan." StuRat (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, seeing as the Bosphorus is not a river but a strait, I don't understand why you could possibly think it could be included. --Viennese Waltz 14:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I certainly do, as those defs overlap. For example, the Detroit River could arguably be called a strait, in that it connects two lakes. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
They may overlap in the case of the Detroit River, but it's pretty unarguable that the Bosphorus is a strait and not a river, so my point stands. --Viennese Waltz 07:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Ditto New York; the Narrows between Staten Island and Brooklyn is a tidal strait, not a river. I had initially wondered if the Hudson might qualify, but the west bank of the Hudson isn't in NYC proper. If we're willing to be a little flexible on the requirement of "the same city" - many metropolitan areas that would be treated as one jurisdiction in Europe remain officially separate in the US - then you could count the Hudson; it seems to be a bit over 1100 m wide at the George Washington Bridge. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I know that on the Ohio River the widest point is near Louisville, Kentucky, not sure if that qualifies for a world record. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC
Arwel Parry, 2 minutes over the Thames, I'm gonna have to check that out! Marketdiamond (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I found this great website: with the widths of the Thames at different places. Of them, Teddington is in the west of (Greater) London, London Bridge is obviously in Central London, Woolwich is in the east of London, and Gravesend beyond London to the east. As you'll see, the river widens out a lot as it flows east, but nowhere in London does it compare with Shanghai or Belgrade mentioned below. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The Yangpu Bridge in Shanghai just edges out the Pancevo Bridge in Belgrade mentioned above, with a span over the river proper of 1,172m. But do you consider the Yangtze in Shanghai to be an estuary? (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
While looking up the Jiangdong Bridge in Hangzhou (1,595 m), I found this site: Structurae. It has a list of bridges by main span and might be a helpful starting point. (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Still in China, now I find the Wuhan Baishazhou Yangtze River Bridge with a span of 3,586 m. But still can't find any claims of longest/widest, so I'm sorry this has not been more helpful. (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reform, Conservative parties in Israel[edit]

I know that there are Orthodox Jewish political parties in Israel but is there any political parties in Israel that serves or advocates the Jews who are Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative? -- 16:10, 9 September 2012‎

Kadima, Labor, and Likud appeal more to secular-minded Jews than the ultra-Orthodox parties. Yisrael Beitenu appeals to secular Jews as well, but primarily to those who are either of Soviet origin or those who are ultra-nationalist. Futurist110 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC) -- Traditionally, non-Orthodox forms of Judaism have been quite weak in Israel, with no representation in the official government rabbinate, and sometimes denied recognition (or threatened to be denied recognition) as Judaism at all. The political polarity is more between secular (חופשי) and Orthodox... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be "חלוני"? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it should. That's the proper name. Either it was a typo, or AnonMoos is trying to say that the secular are more liberated (חופשי means free). --Activism1234 04:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, secular-minded Jews in Israel who group together politically to avoid the impositions of the religious often call themselves חופשי (though of course that's not the literal or basic meaning of the word). There's something about this in article Hatikvah (oddly). AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that Meretz is pretty much radically secular, as they campaign on many issues that even secular people feel uncomfortable about (driving on Yom Kippur, for example). But I don't think any particular party advocates specifically for any group, other than Shas for Sephardic Orthodox Jews. As said above, Kadima, Labor, Likud, etc, are all for the general public, and most Israelis are secular Jews, so the ruling government would thus largely be chosen by secular Jews and would be representing them. --Activism1234 19:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Cory Monteith[edit]

Does anybody know to which branch of the Canadian military the father of Cory Monteith belongs? Thank you. AmericanMarinee (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

According to this, "his dad was a rifle sergeant in the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry". - Karenjc 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!!! AmericanMarinee (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about the Columbine massacre[edit]

I have a question regarding the Columbine massacre. I just read Eric Harris' journal and in November 1998, he wrote how much he would like to have "animalistic" sex with a person, and he writes on to state that he would like to "taste human flesh", a cannibalistic rant according to My question is: Should we add Category:American cannibals to their article? AmericanMarinee (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be the week for cannibal references here.
No, unless there's evidence he actually ate human flesh, he cannot be regarded as a cannibal. Someone who expressed a wish to kill his mother-in-law but who very unfortunately never quite got around to it is not classified as a murderer. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
You mean "very fortunately never quite got around to it". Futurist110 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
That depends on his view of mothers-in-law.  :) Dismas|(talk) 20:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I loved my late ex-mother-in-law dearly, but in my post above I chose my words carefully, as I always do. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 20:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Your response is the answer to the question. To put it another way, admiring Jeffrey Dahmer is not the same thing as being Jeffrey Dahmer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how this "brand new" user is picking fights between Canada and Australia and asking sophisticated questions about categories and such only three days after having been born. Why are we feeding this cuckoo in the nest? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What's your problem with me?, I am not breaking any rules, and I've already contributed to the ITN section. You are quite intolerant I see. Unfortunately. AmericanMarinee (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Medeis, since AmericanMarinee has gotten an account, he has gotten a nomination posted on the front page of ITN, helped out and asked intriguing questions on the reference desk, and has improved some articles. That's a very harsh attack you're making on him, and for no reason. He hasn't broken the rules, and I think his question is very good - not cuckoo at all. Please don't continue this again, you're a great experienced editor and there's no point in it. --Activism1234 21:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Just curious, but what's ITN? In the news? Futurist110 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, see WP:ITN/C. --Activism1234 22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems a reasonable question, especially since AmericanMarinee hasn't been around long, he's not aware of Wikipedia's categorization rules. Generally, more categories is not always better, as eventually you reach the point where you get swamped with so many categories (and so many tangentially related articles within a category) that the entire system becomes useless. It is best to keep articles within only those categories that they are absolutely the most relevent to. Thus, the Donner Party is an obvious addition to the Canibals category because the Donners are primarly known for being canibals. Hardly anyone will have pored over Eric Harris' journal in such exacting detail to know that he wrote about canablism, and writing about canabilism in one's diary is a VERY tenuous connection to the category, it simply isn't helpful to categorize it that way. --Jayron32 23:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Books on Indophobia and anti-Pakistan sentiments[edit]

Is there any books on Indophobia and Anti-Pakistan sentiments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a wikiarticle on the latter topic with some books listed in the references also one good place to find books on any topic is Google Books search. I see a few results immediately on Google. Hope this helps. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good, reliable articles/online pages about the 2004 and 2008 U.S. presidential elections[edit]

I found good online pages summarizing all U.S. Presidential elections from 1936 to 2000, but I need some help with 2004 and 2008 for this article-- Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections. Thank you. For the record, I just want one or two general sources, not say, 10 or 20 sources. Futurist110 (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There are tons of sites, as a politics junkie I have always found Real Clear Politics as the most comprehensive (type in 2008 in the URL for the other election), also CNN AllPolitics is very cool, not sure if they archive thou. Marketdiamond (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. However, I'm sorry but I should have been more clear. This is my fault. I meant "are there any websites which describe the 2004 and 2008 Presidential campaigns in great detail (rather than the polling from those elections)?". I already got enough poll data for this article. And Yes, I'm fully aware of how the 2004 and 2008 campaigns went and how these elections turned out, but I still need a website that provides a brief summary of each of those campaigns. Futurist110 (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
USA Today may help, did you check on CNN AllPolitics? Marketdiamond (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)