Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 26

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.

April 26

Winning the Presidency with only a quarter of the popular vote!

Is it true that it's possible to obtain a majority in the Electoral College with only about a quarter of the popular vote, by winning in the states where your vote counts the absolute most? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking about the Electoral_College_(United_States), then yes I think that could happen, depending on voter turnout. If you had low turnout in high-count states like California and Texas and won 50.1% of the popular vote there, and high turnout in smaller count states like North Dakota and only won a small percent of popular vote, then you could end up with a small percentage of the total popular vote and win the electoral college. You would need to do the math on all the state voter numbers, but it seems possible if unlikely. RudolfRed (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of theoretical scenarios which are much more extreme. Members of the Electoral College (United States) are not bound by law to vote for a specific candidate so you can get 100% in the Electoral College with 0% in the popular vote. There could be unpledged electors who never pledged to vote for a specific candidate. There could be pledged electors who become faithless electors. If all electors are pledged and follow it faithfully then one candidate could theoretically win large states where only one voter actually votes, while another candidate gets 100% in other states where everybody votes. There could be many candidates splitting the votes so all candidates get a small percentage of the popular vote. The population of states could change dramatically from the latest census used to determine the number of electors for each state. Some states could change the way they appoint electors so it's not based on a popular vote in the state. And so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, electors for some states are bound to specific vote and the vote will be voided if the elector votes for someone else. The article says Michigan does this, and implies there are others but doesn't name them. RudolfRed (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But according to the article and faithless elector the law punishing people for voting improperly have never been tested in court. It doesn't comment on the specifics of invalidating the vote but I presume this is similarly untested since it sounds like the only thing tested is that electors can be required to take pledges and rejected if they refuse. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you win 50%+1 votes in the correct states to give you 50%+1 electoral college votes, and 0% of the vote in every other state, you win the presidency. As a practical matter, that will never happen, but there have been cases where someone has lost the popular vote, and still won the presidency in the electoral college. Stictly speaking, to get the 270 votes you need, you'd only need to win the states of California (55), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), Illinois (20), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14) = exactly 270 votes. That means winning just 11 states (out of 50) is needed to win the Presidency. These 11 states represent a population of about 177 million, or 56.5% of the country's population. Since smaller states have a larger representation in the Electoral College, if you won the 40 smallest states, you would have a population of about 45% of the country represented for those same 270 Electoral votes, assuming you won the bare minimum of those 40 states, and literally zero votes in the other 11 (we're assuming DC counts as a state for presidential election purposes here), you would have less than 25% of the popular vote. As noted, this is impossible, from a practical point of view. However, people have won the electoral college when losing the popular vote, I can think of a few off the top of my head: the United States presidential election, 1876 was awarded to Rutherford B. Hayes by the courts, Samuel Tilden won the national popular vote, but there were several states whose results were too close to call; a special judicial commission awarded those electoral college votes to Hayes, giving him the absolte bare minimum to win the electoral college. In the United States presidential election, 2000, Al Gore had a plurality (but not an absolute majority) of the popular vote, while George W. Bush came in second in the popular vote. As in 1876, the results of a closely contested state (Florida) was disputed and eventual ended up getting decided by the Supreme Court, who awarded the state to Bush. In general, however, the electoral college tends to be a lot more lopsided than the popular vote; in most elections the margin of victory in the electoral college is much greater than the popular vote, because of the "winner take all" nature of most states (except Maine and Nebraska) in the electoral college. For example, in the United States presidential election, 1960, Kennedy defeated Nixon by the tiniest margin in the popular vote (just over 100,000 votes, or 0.2%) but won the electoral college vote handily (by a 74 vote margin). Likewise, in the famous "Reagan Landslide" election of United States presidential election, 1984, Reagan won 58% of the popular vote, but won an astounding 525/538 (97.5%) of the electoral college. --Jayron32 03:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing that says that the president has to receive any popular votes. Let's say there's a deadlocked election, 269-269, except one of the electors is faithless and votes for someone else. The election is carried into the House of Representatives, and that someone else is on the ballot, since the House of Representatives chooses from among the top three electoral vote getters. Who knows what might happen?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible. Such dark horse candidates have won their party conventions under similar circumstances (James Knox Polk and Warren G. Harding for example). There was some question in 1992 before Ross Perot let his crazy out that, if he took too many electoral college votes from the other candidates, that no candidate would get the needed 270 votes. Thankfully, Perot went a bit nuts, and ended up mortally wounding his election chances and didn't end up winning any electoral college votes, but there was serious contention that, in 1992, it may have been thrown to the House for a vote. However, it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that a "dark horse" would end up winning the House election. Voting would likely run on strict party lines, and there are an odd number of Representatives, so someone would win, and it would be whatever party had the Majority in the House. --Jayron32 13:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1896 and Bryan ... Not as easy as all that. If you read the 12th Amendment, the House votes by state, each state casting one vote no matter what the size of the delegation, and you need a majority of all the states to win. Easy to conceive a scenario where several states are deadlocked 1-1 or 2-2 preventing either side from getting to 26, and that third candidate starts to look attractive ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding winning without a majority of popular votes — Bill Clinton was several million votes short of a majority both in 1992 and 1996, but he easily won the Electoral College. It's winning without a plurality of the popular vote that's really hard. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In the first presidential election with a significant popular vote, 1824, John Quincy Adams with 30.9% of the vote defeated Andrew Jackson, who won 41.3%, and two others. None of the four candidates won a majority of Electors, so the choice was made by the House of Representatives (one vote per state). In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won the Electoral College with 39.8% of the vote against three others, and in 1912, Woodrow Wilson with 41.8% unseated President William Howard Taft (23.1%), also defeating former President Theodore Roosevelt (27.4%), the Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs (6%) and several others. Only four Democrats have won more than 51% of a presidential popular vote: Jackson (1828 & 1832), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932–44), Lyndon B. Johnson (1964) and Barack Obama (2008). Four others have won more than 50% but less than 51%: Martin Van Buren (1836), Franklin Pierce (1852), Samuel Tilden (1876, narrowly losing the Electoral College to Rutherford B. Hayes) and Jimmy Carter (1976). All the other Democratic candidates since 1824, successful and unsuccessful, won less than 50% of the popular vote. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What happens if Obama quits the election ?

Who would the Democrats field in his place, or would there be no Democratic candidate ? Has this type of thing happened before ? StuRat (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If he quits before the convention, the delegates will have to vote for someone else. See LBJ#1968_presidential_election RudolfRed (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A more interesting situation (though incredibly unlikely) is a presidential candidate dropping out (or dying or otherwise being incapacitated) after winning the popular election but before being inaugurated. I wonder whether the incumbent vice president would be sworn in on January 20, or if legal acrobats may arrange for the winning VP candidate to inaugurated. I don't think this has happened before, so it would certainly pose an interesting problem for those who would have to sort it out. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why the outgoing VP rather than the new one? To step on all the bases, the VP-elect could be sworn in as VP and then sworn in again as President. —Tamfang (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are different procedures for what happens depending on when he quits. If he quits before the Democratic National Convention, the convention will just nominate someone else. (strictly speaking, the convention isn't bound by the primaries, and prior to the 20th century, many states didn't have primaries; the nominees were picked in "smoke filled rooms" at the convention itself). If he were to quit after the convention, but before the general election, then it would likely fall to his running mate, who would then select another running mate. I'm not sure anyone has quit that late in the process, but there have been some Presidents who made a late decision not to run for re-election (famously LBJ in 1968, who withdrew from the election in March, 1968). There was also the curious case of Daniel Webster in 1852, who died so close to the election that he remained on the official ballot in several states, and as a corpse managed to get something like 7000 votes. --Jayron32 03:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If something happened between the time of the public election and the meeting of the Electoral College, presumably the Electors would go with someone else. If something happened after the Electoral College and before inauguration day, the Supreme Court might need to step in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tangentally related, see United States presidential election, 1872 and Horace Greeley. Greeley died at the exact wrong time, after the general election but before the meeting of the electoral college. As a result, his electors had no guidance in how to vote, so they voted for an array of candidates from Greeley's party. It was moot anyways, as Grant won in a landslide. But had the election gone the other way, it would have created quite a mess. --Jayron32 04:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

People I've talked to about that scenario seem to feel that, were it to happen today, nothing very interesting would happen. The electors would duly vote for the candidate to whom they're pledged, notwithstanding that person's metabolically challenged status. He would be duly elected, found immediately unable to discharge the duties of his office, and the newly minted veep would take over. But who really knows. Depends on how 538 electors, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court respond to the unexpected. --Trovatore (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, what would happen nowadays if one of the main candidates died or dropped out in similar circumstances to Webster, just before the election and without enough time for the ballots to be altered - would the election be postponed, would votes for that candidate be ignored, or would they still be counted, with the corresponding Electors presumably voting for their Vice Presidential candidate (and picking somebody else for Vice President)? I'm also wondering about the same situation in a UK general election - if a candidate dies shortly before or during an election, the election in their constituency is postponed for 28 days, which would make things very complicated if it happened in, say, the constituency of the leader of the party winning the overall election, or in the incumbent Speaker's seat. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Democratic National Committee has the power to fill vacancies on the ticket; this has happened once in 1972, when vice presidential candidate Alan Eagleson was dumped from the ticket when it was revealed he had been treated for depression. It came reasonably close to happening in 1952 to the Republicans; had Nixon resigned rather than delivering the Checkers speech, the RNC would have filled the vacancy. If it happened, say, on the evening before election day with no way for the national committee to convene in time, remember, you are voting for electors, all of whom are party loyalists these days, they would almost certainly do as the national committee directed, though I'm sure there would be huge media speculation about rogue electors.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Eagleton, not Alan Eagleson, who would have been a poor VP candidate for several other reasons. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides answers to some of these conundrums.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. The situation has never happened, but the 20th Amendment is so detailed that there really isn't much of any grey area. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fairly confident the flexible constitutional provisions of the UK could handle anything like that. If it is indeed the leader of the largest party's constituency, the Queen (or King) would have to take a view on it. Probably, the incumbent PM would remain PM until the prospective leader had successfully defended his or her seat; if unsuccessful, the Queen would simply pick someone else (although picking is not necessarily an easy process, it was not uncommon in the past), with the potential for a leadership election to prompt another change in PM. With regard to speakers, the speaker would simply remain an MP (and indeed speaker) until (s)he actually lost, at which point a vote would be scheduled; in the interim, the Speaker's deputies would perform all practical roles such as chairing debates. As I understand it, anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what is nice about the flexibility inherent in the Westminster system. In the U.S. everything is rigidly tied to certain dates and numbers; the Constitutional question about what happens if something untowards happens and a date gets missed is entirely unanswered. --Jayron32 12:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You say that after the Prime Ministerial succession in the UK of 1963?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What point about 1963 are you referring to? The fact it took 5 days, the fact that the Conservatives' selection procedure (which essentially dictated the "advice" given to the Queen) has been accused of bias, or something else? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1963 was a rough year for the British: death of the Opposition leader, Profumo sex scandal, the messy way that the Macmillan to Douglas-Home transition worked, with Douglas-Home having to resign from Lords to take the PM job. --Jayron32 12:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I refer to the messy way in which Home was picked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The sitting Vice President in 1912, James S. Sherman (brother of the General who said he wouldn't serve if elected), renominated by the Republican National Convention, died on October 30, too late to change many ballots. The Republican National Committee nominated Nicholas Murray Butler to run in Sherman's place with the incumbent President William Howard Taft. Taft, however, carried only Utah and Vermont; Taft's eight electors voted for Butler, as Horace Greeley's electors had voted in 1872 for B. Gratz Brown and others. See United States presidential election, 1912. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

Why hasn't Ron Paul's current delegate count been up dated? He has won 14 Delegates in Iowa, 20 in Minnesota and Nevada as of April 26,2012 See Here: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/04/ron_paul_actually_won_minnesotas_gop_presidential_primary_it_turns_out.php

and Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#47151825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Randleman (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you see an error on Wikipedia, Be Bold and fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

SS Ottowa or Ottawa?

Ottawa is the most common spelling. There seem to be two ships of the same name though. SS_Germanic_(1875)#Ottawa and Passengers_of_the_RMS_Titanic#Passenger_list. The latter is listed as a ship that recovered bodies and there is a hidden note not to change the spelling that cites a very old document with the Ottowa spelling. Were they two different ships? I am going to look for more discussion on it in WP, but I was just wondering if anyone is familiar with it. I can't see anything about it on the talk pages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like "Ottowa" is a misspelling. These two places[1][2] refer to an SS Ottawa recovering a body from the Titanic. The hidden note is unreliable and does not even establish a connection to the disaster, only that three people traveled on the "Ottowa" between 1902 and 1906. It also doesn't appear to be the renamed Germanic, since its article states it was sold to the Turkish government in 1910 and used to ferry troops to Yemen. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I may wikilink to the article on the correct ship. It also seems strange that that ship was not named Ottawa on April 15, 1912 though."..leaving Liverpool for the last time on 15 May 1911, carrying the name Gul Djemal..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done(for now)

I have found no less than four ships that could possibly be the one. The one spelled Ottowa may be a mispelling, but I am going to leave it for now as the recovery ship. It is the only one that has dates that work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

American schools

To what extent have American school systems informed American students about the role of U.S companies in the holocaust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.10 (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could research the subject and improve the article here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on my experience of history teaching in U.S. school systems, I would say that the subject is seldom addressed. It certainly isn't mentioned in the leading textbooks. Marco polo (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So, U.S. companies were sending Jews to the death camps? I thought Hitler was the one doing that. Silly me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The OP made no such assertion, but I do wonder just what they are referring to. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One example is that IBM sold them computers used to track Jew's whereabouts, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody sold anybody computers until 1951, when the holocaust was well over. And IBM began selling them in 1952. IBM did sell M1 carbine rifles. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Tabulating equipment", then, if you prefer, although I consider those to be mechanical computers, versus the current electronic computers. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that US schools wouldn't spend much time on the relatively minor role some US companies played. But, to put this in perspective, compare this to Japan, which glosses right over WW2 entirely, and Turkey, where any mention of the Armenian Genocide can get you tossed in jail. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's your evidence that Japan glosses over WW2 entirely? According to Japanese history textbook controversies,"Despite the efforts of the nationalist textbook reformers, by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II,[2] all historical issues which have faced challenges from ultranationalists in the past.[3] The most recent of the controversial textbooks, the New History Textbook, published in 2000, was shunned by 'nearly all of Japan's school districts'." Even ultra-nationalists are not proposing to pretend that WWII never happened. Your claim that "any mention of the Armenian Genocide can get you tossed in jail" is also highly exaggerated, considering that [prosecutions under [Article 301]] are relatively rare, and most of the high-profile ones have resulted in acquittals. --140.180.51.64 (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Japan has made some recent progress, but, according to Japanese_history_textbook_controversies#New_History_Textbook, that text which completely whitewashes Japan's role in WW2 was approved, by the Ministry of Education there, in 2001, and is still used in a few schools. So, there is still a bit of a problem there, if such a book can get official government approval and be used at all. As for Turkey, officially denying the genocide and having a law against discussing it is problem enough, even if they don't toss many in jail as a result. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Completely whitewashing Japan's role in WW2" is a far cry from glossing over WW2 entirely, especially since said textbook is used in a tiny fraction of Japanese schools. Officially denying the genocide and throwing a handful of people in jail, while despicable, is a far cry from what you were saying--that "any mention of the Armenian Genocide can get you tossed in jail". --140.180.0.231 (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"Whitewashing" and "glossing over" seem the same, to me. And my statement about Turkey is correct (it would have been incorrect if I said "will" instead of "can"). StuRat (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Which American schools? Grade school? High school? Colleges? The first two likely never mention it since there's just too much other info about the war to pack into a semester. The last may mention it in passing unless the course is specific to the holocaust or business ethics. Dismas|^(talk) 04:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I did look at some High School textbooks, and some of them mentioned large German corporations such as IG Farbin aiding the Nazis, or supporting their rise to power, but none of them mention GM, IBM or Ford's support of the Nazis. All of them mention the important role Ford and GM played in manufacturing equipment for the U.S army.

I've read that IBM equipment was used to track the victims of the holocaust. Would that qualify? See IBM and the Holocaust, [3] . Less directly, there has been much published about US corporations aiding Hitler. See IG Farben, Wall Street and the rise of Hitler. See also Yahoo Answers: [4]. A Google search provides sources stating that Hitler was aided by several major US companies and wealthy families. I doubt that anything relating to this is included in standard high school history textbooks, but some college courses may cover the material. Edison (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If these companies did play a significant role, why is this not included in textbooks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Two reasons that I can think of, A) The companies likely didn't know that they were helping the holocaust. They likely were just happy to have a lucrative government contract and didn't know until after the parts/services were already sold just what they had a hand in. So why point it out and unnecessarily brand them criminals? B) For a grade school or high school class, the teachers and text book writers have priorities about what they are going to teach in a given semester. I don't know about other grade/high schools but mine was large and didn't have a course specifically on the war. So, the teachers have maybe a week or two to cover the entire war. Even if the course is just 1900 to the present, that's still a lot of material to cover considering there's a whole other world war plus one or two other wars to cover. Companies selling stuff to the Nazis (which wasn't vilified until long after they came to power) isn't the biggest part of the story. Dismas|^(talk) 15:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Did they play a significant role? You're kind of assuming that piece, which seems to be the most critical. Something like our WP:UNDUE policy might be a useful analogy. There also were significant restrictions on trade with Germany during WW2 under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The treasury secretary imposed restrictions not just on obvious countries, but those in occupied countries as well. (Kern Alexander, Economic sanctions: law and public policy, 0230525555, p 94).

Even before that the Neutrality Act prohibited certain American assistance to England, France, and Germany, although this was later modified (NYT, Hulen, November 5, 1939). Shadowjams (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me of another issue I heard about in Canada years ago. I was told that maps in American schools end at the Canadian border. They just show white, no cities, mountains, etc. Is there any truth that this was the case, or still is? Also you may wish to find a book called Other Losses, it documents atrocities performed by the allies in WWII.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Losses - have you read the critisism section before mentioning it? It is not widely accepted. Rmhermen (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. I remember watching TV weather forecasts and watching a weather system disappear when it crossed the border into the great white north. This was particularly problematic, since I was in upstate New York, at the time, which gets it's weather from Southern Ontario. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We also round pi down to 3 and teach creationism exclusively! Also, I'm pretty sure the Earth is in the middle of our solar system... our very very flat solar system. Shadowjams (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting far from the original question :-) See Indiana Pi Bill. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I was told by a Canadian friend that the War of 1812 was fought by the US to conquer Canada. Everybody has their axe to grind. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I used to use 22/7 because my calculator didn't have a pi button. According to the big bang theory I am actually at the center of the universe, and the solar system isn't quite flat because Uranus' orbit is off by a few degrees.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Saint Agostina Petrantoni

I see that there's no entry for Saint Agostina Petrantoni in Wikipedia. Is there a reason why? Given that wikipedia's entries on saints are pretty thorough, I thought I should point this out. For information on her, please see http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-agostina-petrantoni/

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.24.176 (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Saints#Roman Catholicism says: One Roman Catholic website states that "There are over 10,000 named saints and beatified people from history, the Roman Martyrology and Orthodox sources, but no definitive head count".

Wikipedia is big but we don't have 10,000 biographies of saints. She is spelled Pietrantoni in Wikipedia and is one of many red links in these lists: Chronological list of saints and blesseds in the 19th century, List of saints canonized by Pope John Paul II, List of canonizations#Pontificate of Pope John Paul II. I don't know whether she is considered more significant than the many other saints without biographies. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Your first article if you want to write an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

She has an article on the Italian Wikipedia: [5] The main source appears to be an encyclopedia of saints. Perhaps you can ask for a translation on the Language Desk. 184.147.123.69 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have created a brief article: Agostina Livia Pietrantoni. Please feel free to put some flesh on the bones or add an image. I must admit that I'd never heard of her until I read this. Alansplodge (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved