Humanities desk
< July 20	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 22 >

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.

July 21

Mark Anthony Stroman

Mark Anthony Stroman is set to die at 6 p.m. (7 p.m. ET) today. When and where will the execution (or a last-minute reprieve) be announced? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criminal in question is being held at Allan B. Polunsky Unit (3872 FM 350 South, Livingston, TX 77351). Schyler (one language) 00:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, would they announce the execution on one of these web-pages? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the TDCJ is very good at updating this web page, putting the name of the executed on the list the very next day. Schyler (one language) 00:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on that. The list was updated with the execution nr. 472. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Texas twit about the executions? Come on, everyone is on Twitter nowadays. Otherwise, try CNN.Quest09 (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the department has a spokesman or spokeswoman whom the media can reach in the evening. The AP would call, make sure the guy actually died and put it on the wires, at which point other media would see it. Or maybe the department sends out press releases on these occasions? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from BBC about his execution. BurtAlert (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was executed at 9:53 p.m. Eastern. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some might call it linguistic pedantry but I would like to insist that he wasn't executed. The sentence of death was executed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is linguistic pedantry. "To put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence" is the third of eight definitions Merriam-Webster gives for "execute." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the late 15th Century it has been used to mean 'inflict capital punishment on [someone]'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries record actual usage; they do not prescribe correct usage. To execute just means 'to actually do something you were preparing to do'. It is still the sentence of death which is being executed. I doubt you will find a usage before the late 19th century which uses the word 'execute' in connection with a sentence of death and doesn't state it was the the sentence which was executed. This may be a case where widespread incorrect usage has continued unchallenged so that few now recognise it as such, but I for one think it is still worth resisting and pointing out. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you acknowledge this usage has been widespread since the late 19th century, that is, for the past approximately 125 years, but still decry it as "incorrect". Can words never change their meanings or take on additional meanings? Language change is one of those strange phenomena that must be resisted with all possible force while they're happening, but clasped to one's bosom with all insensate speed when they've finished happening. This one finished happening a very long time ago. Time to do some bosom-clasping, methinks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gough Whitlam would be proud of you, Sam. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Joseph I of Austria

Is there any photo or portrait of Franz Joseph I of Austria as a child or young man? It seems like all you ever see is the old Emperor with his handlebar beard.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding category on Commons has a couple of him as a young man, including this one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale of not letting people leave a socialist country

What explanation did (or do) socialist or communist countries gave to explain why they didnt let people emigrate? If it was paradise, it would be possibly a quite difficult idea to defend... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.79.148 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of East Germany, you can read their explanation in the article Republikflucht. But note that forbidding people from leaving is a mark of authoritarian countries in general, not just communist ones (Nazi Germany was pretty strongly anticommunist, but it was as difficult to get out of as East Germany was a few years later), and some communist countries (like the PRC) have no problem allowing their citizens to emigrate. Angr (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that even freedom-loving democracies have denied passports for dissidents. During the McCarthy years it was not uncommon for prominent leftist scientists and activists to have their passports revoked so that they could not spread "anti-American propaganda" or "help the Communist cause" abroad. Examples of this that come to mind include Linus Pauling and Frank Oppenheimer (in the latter case, it essentially forced him to stop doing research science, as his admission to having once been a Communist kept him from being employable in a US university, whereas India and Brazil would have happily taken him; he had to become a cattle rancher, in the end, and wait out McCarthyism). Freedom of travel from the USA is not guaranteed — passports and exiting country are done at the discretion of the Department of State, and can be (and have been) influenced politically. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, I think, you don't need a passport to leave a country, only to be admitted somewhere else. The text starts out with the Secretary of State praying all those to whom these presents shall come to give all lawful protection yada yada yada. So if India had sent a ship for Oppenheimer and he had kayaked out to the three mile limit to meet it, I don't think any US law would have been broken. Can't say I'm sure though. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True... it is really a matter of scale. In non-authoritarian states, a specific individual may have the right to emigrate restricted or denied, but the norm is to allow emigration without restriction. In authoritarian states this is reversed... a specific individual may be granted permission to emigrate, but the norm is to deny. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" (emphasis mine), according to the sometimes inconvenient Universal Declaration of Human Rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson was another that had his passport revoked. Has the legality of doing this under the US Constitution ever been challenged? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not to say that it is applicable for the Paul Robeson case; but in general "universal rights" are revoked all the time in free societies as part of the due process of law, for example persons accused of serious crimes may be denied freedom of movement, everything from being placed under travel restrictions and/or placed in jail without bond until the trial. Such revokations of a person's individual liberties are not supposed to be taken lightly in a free society, but it is also expected that a person's freedom is not limited by his fellow persons either, and if a society does not restrict the movements of, say, serial killers and armed thugs and other elements of society, then who is left to be free? Again, nothing in specifics here, just that "universal" rights are never really "universal" in the sense of "every single person can do these things for their entire life from birth to death and no one can ever stop them for any reason." --Jayron32 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing it with the restrictions on criminals and accused criminals is a straw man. The UNDHR does not stop people from incarcerating non-political criminals ("This right [of asylum from persecution] may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."). Anyway, in the case of US passports, it's not clear there is any due process involved in these cases. There are no organs for appeal, there is no overview, there is no transparency, there are not even any standardized guidelines about what disqualified one for a passport in these cases. It was an arbitrary political decision without any process whatsoever other than "He wants a passport? Fat chance!" As to the Constitutionality of it, courts have affirmed some recent versions of this (with more due process than the McCarthyism, and related to child support payments, not politics) as legal, claiming that international travel is not (!) a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution. But it is controversial. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the perspective that you may be able to leave, but not to go to certain places. Not aware of any such restrictions in my country, but I believe it's difficult for Americans to leave home if their plan is to visit Cuba. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I once asked a Czech man who had spent the first 30 or 35 years of his life under communism how the authorities defended not letting people leave the country. He said, "You don't understand. They didn't need to explain. There was no debating under communism." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the experience of a citizen in the Soviet case as well. It wasn't just that people's movement outside of the country was controlled — during most of it, their movement within the country was also heavily regulated, proscribed, etc. It was just how things were. But there probably were elaborate theoretical justifications created by Party hacks — probably along the lines of the GDR article linked to above. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba is the only country I know of that Americans are expressly prohibited by law from traveling to (by the Helms–Burton Act, though there are now a number of circumstances in which people can travel there legally, and it is not unknown to vacation there illegally by traveling first to Mexico). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly Mr.98. US citizens can travel to Cuba, but US companies are not allowed to make business with it (hence, no direct flights). Technically, the problem isn't that you can't visit Cuba, it's what you do with your money. There are no travel restrictions imposed by the State Department, or by Homeland Security. The restrictions are trade sanctions. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No earnt income, but living off....?

According to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14235330 he earns no income. So who is he living off? 2.97.212.150 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Earned income" or "income from earnings" is a defined term in most tax systems. It refers (usually) to pay from employment. If Prince Andrew is not employed, if he doesn't have a job with a pay cheque, then he does not have earned income. He may, however, have income and/or dividends from investments, including real property, income from a family trust, an allowance from his parents, or off his wife's income. Please note: these are just possibilities. I don't follow the royals closely enough to know wherefrom he derives his funds. Bielle (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He receives payments from the Civil list (which are then reimbursed by the Queen, so in reality he is supported by the Queen). --Tango (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the Queen? Your certainly mean by the UK tax payers... 88.8.79.148 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he means by the Queen. Please start your own thread for your trolling. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The civil list article and [1] suggests you may be mistaken. Only the Queen (and possibly Duke of Edinburgh) receives payments from the civil list (there's some confusion over this, see my comment on the article talk page). Parliamentary annuities are used to meet office costs of the Duke of York although these are repaid by the queen from her private funds. In other words, the Duke of York doesn't receive anything from the civil list, some funding comes from parliamentary annuities (which are repaid by the queen) but these are only used for office costs, his other funds e.g. for personal expenditure either come from elsewhere I presume either his savings & investments (e.g. [2]) or the queens. (Well I presume some funding is met directly by government departments particularly in his former role as special representative (and actually I suspect most of the costs for that role including travel came from the government in some form). Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Note that this message was submitted at the time shown, however because of an error I accidentally removed the rest of the RD, sorry, so it was reverted and only readded at 08:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is probably just a matter of terminology. The annuities are provided for by the Civil List Act, but I may be incorrect to call them part of the civil list. --Tango (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Prince Charles has a large private income from his landholdings (Duchy of Cornwall, etc), Prince Andrew relies on money from his mother, reportedly around 250,000 GBP per year.[3] The Queen has a personal fortune of something like $500m, and does quite well from property and other investments.[4][5] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the Queen get her half billion fortune from? Update: the first link says shes worth $650M, the other $450M. If she's worth so much, why does she ask us for money to fix her roof? 92.28.254.185 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which roof? Remember that she does not actually own all the houses she stays in. She pays for the upkeep of the houses that are her private property (Balmoral Castle, Sandringham House, etc.) out of her own pocket. The "Crown" (ie the government) owns the others. Shouldn't the actual owner pay for fixing the roof? Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does she pay any rent? Does she pay any rent at the market value? 92.28.254.185 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in a way she does. Not in cash, but in services. Think of the Royals as being like advertising spokesmen (company mascots if you will)... All that riding around in carriages, waving, perform ceremonial ribbon cuttings, opening parliament, trooping colors, etc, is advertising for Great Brittan... it brings in lots and lots of tourist dollars and trade to Great Brittan. Their pay for doing all of that work is the right to live in a nice company house. The company pays for the upkeep. Only in this case, the company is the nation. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In a way she does..."?? So the short straight answer is "No, she dosnt". 92.28.254.185 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link by Nill Eine has some interesting points: we paid her £211M in 07/08 (no other years given) rather than the mere £7.9M people keep bleating on about. It says that no inheritance tax will be paid as a sovreign is unable to generate an income from business - but as Prince Charles is already worth hundreds of millions, and does indeed generate income from selling his branded goods, and similarly the Queen is a 1/2 billionaire and must generate a lot of income from her share portfolio etc, then does this mean that when Charles inherits, then inheritence tax will be paid? In fact looking at the Duchy Of Cornwall article, Prince Charles may already be a dollar billionaire. 92.28.254.185 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we must distinguish between personal wealth and "crown" wealth... between "The Queen" and "Betty Windsor". I would assume that Charles Windor will pay inheritance tax on that portion of the Betty Windor's personal wealth that he inherits (and other members of her family will pay tax on the portions they inherit)... but King Charles will not pay tax on the crown wealth when he becomes King. That is because that wealth has not legally changed hands. It will still be owned by the "crown"... its just that "the crown" has a new face (think of it as "corporate" property vs. personal property... a corporation doesn't pay inheritance tax on its factory buildings, just because the CEO dies in office and her son take over as the new CEO). Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You "assume" that they will pay tax, but the black and white print on the Royal website says they won't pay any tax at all. 92.28.254.185 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite... the black and white print (well... blank and purple print) says: Although The Queen's estate will be subject to Inheritance Tax, bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt. So... those funds that are included under a "Sovereign to Sovereign" bequest, those will be exempt... but not her entire estate. The unanswered question is: which part of her estate will be bequested "Sovereign to Sovereign"? Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that's bequeathed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

So the part that goes to Prince Charles will be tax free. And then Prince Charles can keep on giving "gifts" to the rest of them. Hmmmn, does the Queen give regular tax-free gifts to her family and friends which they don't pay any income tax on? 92.28.245.233 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's clear if all that goes to Prince Charles would be sovereign to sovereign even if he is the next sovereign. I presume anything she leaves to 'my children' or 'my son Charles' or whatever will not be sovereign to sovereign. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to continue to rant about the royalty on the RD, please get your facts correct and read refs correctly. The refs I provided don't show £211M was the cost paid to 'her'. £211M is the (gross according to other sources) revenue of the Crown Estate surrendered to the Treasury in exchange for some of her costs being met. The total expenditure from the financial summary provided in the PDF linked on that page is £40.0 million for 2008 and £41.5 million for 2009 although it excludes security costs as well as some costs funded from other sources. As I am not British and I'm a republican kiwi I don't have a bone in this argument but I strongly dislike the RD being used for rants particularly continously by the same person and based on false claims. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Times newspaper emblem/crest

Can anyone direct me to a website or source discussing the emblem or crest used by The Times newspaper in the UK? I've not managed to find anything on this topic... ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for stating what you might already know - the motto Honi soit qui mal y pense and the lion&unicorn heraldry is in common with the Order of the Garter. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Times article about its use, including the lack of official status for the arms, is on their own website here -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for. Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 11:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising of Habitat (retailer) UK

Did Habitat advertise itself in recent years? I cannot remember the last time I saw an advert for Habitat, and had forgotten about it even though I had shopped there in the past. Does anyone know if the amount of advertising for Habitat was less than what it was when it was well known? 92.24.138.86 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This story talks about a new campaign they were going to run in 2009; so they apparently were advertising. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 16 major world currencies

On the radio today I heard a news report referring to "the 16 major world currencies". I couldn't find any such list in Wikipedia. Searching Google News I found recent articles talking saying, for example, "The dollar depreciated against 14 of its 16 most-actively traded currencies" (source: San Francisco Chronicle) and "The UK currency dipped against 13 out of the 16 most actively traded currencies" (source: moneyex) so does that mean there is some standard list of 17 currencies? Or are there only 16? And what are they? Mathew5000 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this page groups the most traded currencies into three classes: Major, Minor, and Exotic as follows, based on volumes traded in the FOREX markets:

Major:

Euro
US Dollar
UK Pound Sterling
Japanese Yen
Swiss Franc

Minor:

Australian Dollar
New Zealand Dollar
Canadian Dollar

Exotic (top exotic currencies listed there, actual list would include anything not listed above)

Russian Ruble
Chinese Yuan
Brazilian Real
Mexican Peso
Chilean Peso
Indian Rupee
Iranian Rial

That's 15 currencies. The sixteenth probably comes from the nation with the highest GDP not covered by the above, which according to List of countries by GDP (PPP) is probably South Korea, which would make it the South Korean Won. Other possible candidates would be Turkey (the Turkish Lira), Taiwan (the Taiwan Dollar), Indonesia (the Indonesian Rupiah), or maybe the Hong Kong Dollar. If I were pressed to make a guess, I would put South Korea and Hong Kong as the most likely, given the amount of manufacturing and international business that goes on in those places. --Jayron32 20:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Currency pair article lists the 15 most actively traded currencies, as of 2010. The data apparently come from this report, which gives a more extensive list on page 12. Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article you mention is a Bloomberg News article. Bloomberg has a list of 17 "major currencies." They are those of: South Africa, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Switzerland and the U.S. as well as the euro. Bloomberg News articles are intended foremost for users of Bloomberg terminals, who might be able to get that list and find out how the currencies are all performing by clicking a link on the article on their terminals. -- 174.116.177.235 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mathew5000 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hong Kong dollar is not on this list because it has a fixed exchange rate to the US dollar and is therefore not a freely traded currency with a floating exchange rate. The same is true for the other top "exotic" currencies listed in the first list, including China's yuan or renminbi. Marco polo (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Chilean Peso floating and without any real exchange controls? (The Russian Ruble, Indian Rupee and Iranian Rial have a managed float and/or currency controls I believe). Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horn of Africa famine

Reading about this Horn of Africa famine, I have to wonder: What are the underlying causes that perpetuate this? The awful climate? The lack of industrialization? Corruption up the wazoo? Terrorism?

A related question: When one thinks of Africa they can't help but think of tribes immediately. What has caused these people to continue living like this? What has caused Somalia to have so much trouble with piracy? How many other countries have this problem? -- 150.135.91.203 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty plus drought plus overpopulation plus lack of effective government. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say Somalia has so much trouble with piracy, it's more that it makes trouble with piracy. It all started when Somalis were trying to defend their fishing industry, and continued when they discovered how much well paid piracy is. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of useful information at Economy of Africa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proximate cause is drought and that crosses national boundaries. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main cause isn't the drought: States with effective and responsive governments are able to deal with stresses more effectively. The high level of corruption means there is little safety net, and problems in getting relief from non-drought areas. Countries with stable, trustworthy, democratic, and effective governments experience droughts, but don't necessarily experience famine on the levels that occur with some regularity in this part of the world. --Jayron32 23:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in many other African countries, the end of colonial rule left Somalia with very weak civic institutions and no tradition of stable indigenous government. Like other African countries, this left Somalia vulnerable to autocratic rule. Furthermore, the decision of European powers to give the overwhelmingly Somali Ogaden region to Ethiopia led to a series of bitter wars, such as the Ogaden War, between the two neighbors, further fueled by the Soviet Union and the United States, which treated the two countries as Cold War proxies. This led to the militarization of Somali society. Meanwhile, as a result of women's lack of education and strongly patriarchal traditions together with modern medicine and hygiene lowering the infant mortality rate, the population frankly outgrew the ability of Somalia's semiarid, drought-prone land to reliably support that population, while a lack of political stability and security hindered the development of a commercial urban economy that might have been able to earn the income needed for food imports. These economic stresses led to a loss of legitimacy for Somalia's autocratic government during the 1980s, which led to the Somali Civil War, which in a sense has not yet ended, and which has condemned the country to a downward spiral of economic decline, desperation, and vulnerability to famine.

Note that the drought also affects neighboring Kenya, but without the same dire consequences. Marco polo (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are excellent points, which add some historical context to my statements. I had a professor once who said "Famine is a man-made disaster", in that nearly all modern famines have been caused not by natural events, but by the inadequacy of the government and food-supply system to respond to natural events. In some cases (as in the Stalin famines in the Soviet Union) they are entirely created by the government in charge, and have no natural cause. Your explanation of the situation in Somalia (and the counterexample of Kenya) provides additional support for this. --Jayron32 16:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I said about "proximate cause" is perhaps not accurate. It's one factor, but I'm grateful for the informative posts about the Somalian political situation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I agree that famine is a man-made disaster. At least not all the time. True political factors can greatly exacerbate a famine or transform a minor drought into a major famine, but surely there are cases where famines occurred which were reduced by human action rather then the opposite. Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding. The point is not that famines occur because of poor management. It is not people cannot stop or prevent famines — it's entirely the opposite of that. Famines in modern times essentially only occur because somebody is not running things well enough. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A famine is a widespread scarcity of food, and has always occurred naturally in many areas, worldwide, for various reasons, many of them not the fault of local people or governments. Whether it leads to regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic, and increased mortality depend on the ability and will of the people and governments of the affected area and of surrounding areas. Dbfirs 07:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars

I notice here that Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars seems to be in 8 books. Was there a Preface to this at one time?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The version at Project Gutenberg has a preface, but it appears that was written by the translator and not the author. It appears that the extant work just "dives right in" at Julius Caesar. Also, the Project Gutenberg version doesn't have the "8 book" divisions noted in yours; I don't know what Suetonius' original had. --Jayron32 23:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]