Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 18

= July 18 =

Charles Xavier
In Marvel comics 616 continuity, how many times has Professor X regained the use of his legs and then been crippled again? --superioridad (discusión) 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Six. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Existence of Jesus
A few days ago, I asked a question about Jesus' crucifixion, and was surprised that half the people who responded doubted Jesus' existence. Despite being an atheist, this is the first time I've heard/read someone claim that Jesus is wholly mystical. I always thought his existence was undisputed, even though details of his life, like his resurrection, are obviously not.

So my question is: how sure are historians that Jesus was a real person? Is the correct to say that the Pauline epistles is the only contemporary historical source that devotes more than 1 or 2 sentences to Jesus? Is there any evidence that the other apostles wrote of their experiences with Jesus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.16.144 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be interested to read Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus. In short, the problem with "prooving" Jesus's existance is that there was literally nothing written about him during his lifetime.  There is no record of his existance that comes from the time when he lived.  The earliest account of his life is probably the Gospel of Mark, written probably 30 years after Jesus died by someone who did not personally know Jesus, but rather was likely a chronicler of Simon Peter (i.e. he wrote down stuff Simon Peter told him).  However, none of this actually denies whether he existed.-- Jayron  32  05:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "mythical" rather than "mystical". Pais (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the question is at least partially a matter of definition. It's almost certain that there was a Jesus (=Jeshua or Joshua, a very common name) in Palestine in the early first century. It's quite doubtful that he was born in Bethlehem, because it quite possibly didn't even exist at that time. The Christian version is probably an amalgaman on top of a real core (i.e. a Jewish itinerant preacher with a bunch of oriental and Greek mythology stuck on). When do you accept someone like that as "the Jesus"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * About Bethlehem, I know of a theory that he could have been born in Bethlehem of Galilee. I also know of another theory that argues that the early Christians made the Bethlehem-birthplace-statement in an effort to use the prophecies of the Old Testament. Flamarande (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing to consider is that historians are not necessarily interested in the question "did this person exist or not?". Historians aren't biographers. Their research questions would be more like "What were the belief systems of Jews in 1st century Palestine?" "What was the power relationship between the Roman administration and the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem?". Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO most historians agree that a minor religious Jewish leader called Jesus existed around the 1st century AD. The Gospel of Mark (and other written records) is probably based upon some person. However his teachings, the claim that he was the son of the Abrahamic God, the manner of his death, all the miracles... who knows what really happened? These things are issues of individual faith. Flamarande (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would offer the small quibble that most historians would agree that there was probably a Jewish religious teacher named Yeshua or some such during the early first century whose followers were among the founders of Christianity. Since there is no undisputed and conclusive evidence that he existed (i.e., no evidence from impartial contemporary sources), I think that most historians would concede that we don't know for certain that such a man actually existed.  However, I think most historians think the existence of such a man squares better with the historical record than the non-existence of such a man. On the other hand, I think that most secular historians are skeptical about the historical accuracy of some of the claims made by Christians about Jesus, such as his birth in Bethlehem, his death followed by resurrection, and so on.  Marco polo (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard that proving that there was a historical Jesus is like proving that there is a man called John in America ... there were a lot of them! -- Q Chris (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard that some historians believe that Homer didn't write the Iliad and Odyssey after all; it was someone else by the same name. Pais (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had always thought Homer didn't write it down at all, it was an oral rendition that was recorded on paper by someone later. Googlemeister (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Compose, then. It was a joke anyway, since "Homer" doesn't actually refer to an identifiable individual, but is rather a mathematical variable standing for "whoever composed the Iliad and Odyssey". Pais (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that is certainly debatable. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just like last time, the one of relevant articles is the Jesus myth theory. It is certainly a minority viewpoint, but not a crazy-lunatic-fringe viewpoint. Buddy432 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Christianity had to come from somewhere, and considering that the earliest books of the NT are dated to the middle of the first century, it's hard to fathom the writers would have just made him up. On the other hand, skeptics would say that the age of Tiberius is well-attested, and you'd think that if someone was doing miracles someone else (other than the Gospel writers) would have noticed and written more than the few words Josephus is alleged to have written on the topic. So the most-likely scenario from a non-Christian perspective is that Jesus existed but the account of his life was embellished with stories already circulating in Judea, like Gabriel's Revelation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Jesus Project for a recent collaborative effort to assess how likely Jesus of Nazareth was to have uttered each of the different sayings attributed to Him (the words that are highlighted in Red letter editions of the Bible). On a quick glance Religious perspectives on Jesus and some of the articles referred to in Historicity of Jesus offer more detail, e.g. Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Christ. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Company name
which company name when translated in English reads “Tiger-Leopard Limited”. Looks like it was named after its founders.Google and wiki searches did not yield any clues. Would appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.43.154 (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * from here -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Tiger-Leopard" is a common company name in China, but I don't think any of them have Indian operations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Phone hacking
Why so much fuss is created when a non-government agency hacks phone which is of no danger to the persons who's phone is hacked? When the government regularly hacks phone of civilian population, which is really a danger and threat to the civilians, no fuss is seen. In countries like China, the government can at any time hack phone and arbitrarily arrest any person. In democratic countries like US, ESA pervasively monitor civilians. No outrage is seen in those cases. But a non-harmful hacking by a non-government agency creates so much fuss, why? --U8yol (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the state's monopoly on violence also extends to a monopoly on snooping. I think people would be pretty pissed off if a newspaper could apply to a judge and receive a search warrant for a private person's residence, too. Pais (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which ESA do you think pervasively monitors civilians? Surely not the European Sociological Association? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I am talking about NSA. --U8yol (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah! That makes more sense. Though I'd suggest that the Entertainment Software Association is probably also a prime candidate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of us non-US people, NSA = National Security Agency. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with the premise that there isn't a dustup when there are major human rights violations in other countries. Human rights in the People's Republic of China frequently are a source of major international criticism, especially basic democratic freedoms and liberties, such as rights of due process of law and rights to privacy.  In the U.S. there was a lot of criticism over the USA PATRIOT Act which authorized expanded surveillance; large parts of it have been struck down by courts over the past several years, and when it does come up for reauthorization, it is a major political struggle.  It's not as though people in the U.S. are gleefully supportive of being suveilled by their government unjustly.  -- Jayron  32  16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I might also note that when the NSA monitors people, it ostensibly does so in the name of something most people are happy with: national security. Now, whether they actually achieve that, whether they break more than they fix, whether they abuse it — these are questions people debate. But the general idea of stopping terrorist attacks is seen by most as a good thing. In the case of the News of the World, the goal is to get a killer tabloid story. That is considered an insufficient public good to justify the activities. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * At least in one case, it seems debatable that the hacking posed "no danger to the persons who's phone [was] hacked". It's been alleged that the hacking of Milly Dowler's voicemail wasn't just restricted to passive listening and that  some messages were deleted,  interfering with the police's search. 129.234.53.36 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm curious if so much fuss would have been created if the scandal involved a left-wing newspaper. --U8yol (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is not really the paper, but the people behind it. And yes, I think if some other set of journalists had been hacking the phones of bereved families, soldiers, politicians, missing children (and deleting their messages, so people think they're still alive!) etc, then the Sun and the News of the World would have been calling for lynch mobs. They were not only despicable, they hacked the phones of the very groups they had whipped people up to view as untouchable (plus politicians). Although I also like the suggestion I've seen that, once you have foreign nationals in charge of a groups of peope who illegally access and print information about the goverment and head of state, you're actually justified in pursuing treason charges. If you think this is because they were right wing, I suggest you talk to some of their core readership: one of the first things that happened when this stuff started to seriously come out was that the armed forces groups cut off all relationships and boycotted them. 86.164.165.0 (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, because people keep drawing parallels, maybe read up on Robert Maxwell (The Mirror was left-wing). I don't think there's much similarity myself, but it does show people chased him as much as Murdoch. Well, our article doesn't show it that much, so maybe you need to read about it elsewhere. Or consider the fake photos in the Mirror (and The Sun's reaction), although it's not a completely fair comparison: they didn't do it so many, many times, and it could conceivably have been a mistake on their part. 86.164.165.0 (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also also, I should add that the story is about much more than phone hacking: it has changed direction since the first few days. It is about the police not properly investigating it, and lying about that. It is about parliament lying and being lied to. It is about police officers being bribed. It is about News International representatives being placed with the police and in the government. It is about the police and politicians being so scared of Rupert Murdoch that they alter policy and government to appease him, putting him de facto in charge of the government of a country. And were they right to be scared of him? Gordon Brown tried very hard to stay in his good books, but when Murdoch went for him Murdoch went for his children. A phone call to ask about your child's very recent diagnosis, which you haven't told anyone about? Politicians and police knew exactly why they were scared. 86.164.165.0 (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that newspapers (Guardian, Scotsman) which made similar claims to "[The Sun] went for [Brown's] children" have issued retractions and apologies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really, although that's how The Sun span it. The 'corrections' were about specific techniques used to gather the information on Brown's ill infant son, not that the information was acquired, Brown was phoned and confronted with them having the information, and they ran a big story on it using the acquired information. The techniques they actually used are still 'big trouble' stuff, but not the particular method they say they didn't use. 86.164.72.255 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Something that has crossed my mind related to this whole matter is the fact that many (most?) Murdoch newspapers would normally be regarded here as reliable sources. Worth rethinking at all? HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's the whole idea that news media outlets are inherently reliable that needs rethinking, and has done for a while. It doesn't take long to establish that there is little reliable about the news industry...
 * ALR (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am wondering how many communists are there in Wikipedia? --U8yol (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't have to be a "communist" (whatever that means to you) to be suspicious of big media conglomerations. There is a lot of suspicion to go around for all mega-outlets. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A major part of the recent scandal has been the News of the World's search for a story under the pretext of it being in the public interest. When that search seemed to be restricted to celebrities and a few politicians embroiled in sleaze, many people didn't seem too surprised and just got on with their lives.  However, when it was revealed that the same had been done to the phones of murder victims, victims of terrorism,  soldiers killed in action and sick children that really went beyond the pale.  People wondered about the morals of those who would let such things happen and exactly what was the public interest in that kind of story.  Later revelations, that former NotW execs were appointed to high-level positions within government and police, and that police officers had accepted bribes from NotW journalists (or their private investigators) to get more phone numbers to hack, have led to the current scandal.  Astronaut (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that the British have an obsession with abducted children that is considerably more intense than such things get in the USA. Which is not to say that such things are not discussed in the USA — we have our Cayley Anthonys — but I think these stories are regarded as even bigger deals in the UK. So the fact that in pursuit of this big scoop story they actually inhibited the investigation, that doesn't go down well. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Current US interest in the Panama Canal
Obviously the US was extremely involved in both creating the Panama Canal and in creating Panama, so as to accomplish the former. My understanding is, apart from any imperial ambitions, this was done because creating a quicker, cheaper, and safer shipping route between the west and east coasts was viewed as a key national interest -- similar to the UK's relation with the Suez Canal. Is that still a concern? My intuition would be that most freight would now go by rail since that would be more direct (and obviously passenger travel by ship is no longer significant). Do you know of any reliable sources on methods of trans-continental shipping in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.89 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Suez Canal Company which constructed and operated the Suez Canal was initially financed almost entirely by the Egyptian government and by French private investors. The British government opposed the canal throughout its construction, and did not acquire shares in the canal company until 1875, six years after the canal was opened. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since corporations are not in the usual habit of throwing away money for no good reason, we'll take it to mean that there is still an econimic benefit for using the Panama Canal over freight rail for certain types of cargo. Petroleum, for example, is probably more efficiently moved by ship than by rail.  The evidence that it is useful is that it is used.  -- Jayron  32  15:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayron32, the same argument could have been used to support bloodletting back in the day. Please use references on the Reference Desk.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Petroleum is even more efficiently moved by pipeline, but I get your point. Mingmingla (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But that traffic might be from the Pacific coast of North and South America to and from Europe, not from the east coast to the west coast. Unless you find something indicating the route of canal traffic, the fact that it's being used does not answer my question. 96.246.68.89 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Freighters are much, much cheaper, pound for pound, than rail. They are not quicker. They are used for things that you need to go long distances verrrry slowly. Coal is one such example — it's extremely heavy, but not worth a huge amount per pound, and time is not usually an issue. So you want to ship it the absolutely cheapest way possible. In some cases that's by freighter. If you're going from the Pacific to the Atlantic, for whatever reason, by freighter, then the canal is the simplest way to do it. It's not that other forms of transportation are bad, but they are more expensive. You can move a lot of material per amount of fuel consumed via freight. It just doesn't go very fast. If the canal was gone tomorrow, shipping wouldn't stop, but the costs would definitely go up on many products. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also useful to be able to move your navy around quicker to reshuffle ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic or vv, but modern US aircraft carriers don't fit through the canal. Googlemeister (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The canal is currently being enlarged though. Also I found this: which claims that 29 million long tons of Alaska oil (about one-third of the total) went through Panama in 1986 - but only 355,000 long tons was actually shipped through. The vast majority was offloaded into the Panama Pipeline and but into a different ship on the other side. Rmhermen (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Panamax has a tiny little bit on what you are hinting at there. -- Jayron  32  02:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even after the expansion, US aircraft carriers might still be too wide to pass through the canal. Hard to say for sure since at the water, the USS Ronald Reagan is 134 wide but ont he flight deck it is 252 feet wide (compared to 180 feet of the lock width) so it might work if the lock is short enough and the flight deck is high enough, but probably not.  Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a few webcams of the Panama Canal locks to watch. http://www.pancanal.com/eng/multimedia/index.html They are more interesting than the usual webcam as there is usually some activity. I find them rather relaxing. Under the "Animations" section they give some detailed information about the lock dimensions. 92.23.36.253 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"I'm going downtown" (Chicago)
I asked here previously why New Yorkers referred to Manhattan as “the city” it is part of New York City, but I recently found out that kind of the opposite case is true in the Chicago area. The residents of the cities and towns near Chicago like to refer to Chicago as “downtown” as in "I'm going to downtown." By the way, I’m planning to go to Chicago sometime in August with a friend who’s looking for a home there or in Detroit as I mentioned on a previous question here that he was doing so. I'm going to help him out in his search as a friend. So now, I’m starting to learn all these Chicago code words now that I'm starting to investigate about Chicago before I go there. Anyway, I read that if someone who lives in the suburbs would ask, “Where do you live?” And you say I live in Chicago, the person will say, “Oh, you live downtown, cool!!!!” Why do the residents of Chicagoland refer to Chicago as “downtown” when Chicago is an independent city that has a downtown? Where does that term for Chicago come from? Willminator (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In Chicago, "Downtown" probably refers two closely connected districts and the areas around them, being the Chicago Loop and the Magnificent Mile. Officially, the Mag Mile is slightly north of Downtown, but if someone said "I'm going downtown to shop on Michigan Avenue" no one would find that an odd phrase.  Having lived there for two years, I wouldn't have described other parts of the city as "Downtown".  I lived in Little Italy between Greektown and the Illinois Medical District, and I'm not sure anyone would have thought of those areas as "downtown".  Likewise, nothing in the Southside would be considered "downtown" by anyone, and most people wouldn't consider other parts of the city as "downtown" either.  It should be noted that most of the affluent parts of Chicago are around "downtown", and many people from the suburbs may consider other parts of the city to be unlivable (not true at all, just a perception), so if you said "No, I live in Hyde Park,"  people wouldn't think you were being contradictory.  In terms of area, Chicago is a pretty spread-out city with many diverse areas.  I lived there for 2 years, and there were large parts of the city I never had cause to go to.  You can easily drive for more than an hour on one street in Chicago and stay within the City Proper (like Western Avenue, it would be absurd if anyone thought that entire expanse of territory was a "downtown".
 * As an aside, if you are seriously thinking about moving to Chicago, just a couple of tips about navigating the city:
 * Get to know the Chicago Street Grid. Chicago is one of the easiest-to-navigate cities I have ever lived in or visited; it has a strict street grid and house numbering scheme.  You can literally pinpoint any address in the city to within a few feet if you just know the system.  Roads_and_freeways_in_Chicago explains it well; but within a few months of living there you should develop a functioning knowledge of the system.  You can easily look up any address in the city and find your way there without a GPS.  Its great.  The suburbanites use the freeway system and clog it up horribly; traffic on the freeways is pretty bad.  You can often get where you need to go faster using the surface streets, the diagonal avenues make a nice bypass of the freeways, and so few people use them compared to the freeways you'll feel like you're cheating...
 * Secondly, the public transportation system is great too. The 'L' will get you just about anywhere you'd want to go.  If you're looking for places to live, I would highly recommend finding a place near the L.
 * The really trendy places to live (at least 10 years ago) were anything on the North Side (like Wrigleyville or Lincoln Park) and Hyde Park on the South Side, especially around the University of Chicago. These tended to be the areas with the most vibrant neighborhoods, lots to do, etc.  However, you will pay a premium for living there.  The area where I lived around the University of Illinois at Chicago was more reasonably priced.  It didn't have the nightlife or activities you'd find in some of the trendier areas, but the Blue Line L was very close, and you can get anywhere you want using that.  One hidden gem of the city is Roscoe Village which had its own little "main street" area, and it gave me the feeling of being in a small city rather than a huge metropolis.  The downside is that it isn't right on the 'L' (there are some sorta-close-by stops on the Blue Line and the Brown line, but nothing goes through the neighborhood).
 * I hope that gives you some tips! If you have any more questions about my time in Chicago, and don't want to ask here, just drop me a note on my talk page.  -- Jayron  32  17:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Having grown up in the far south suburbs, we would say "I am going downtown" (not "to downtown") to mean going to the central and north side, to the museums, etc. Rarely would you say going "to Chicago" unless you were going to another part that required more explanation and then you might you its name unless it was a poorly known area. Rmhermen (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I made the phrase of "going downtown" clear in the heading, but not in my question. My bad. So did I misinterpret what I read on how the suburbanites in the Chicago area define "downtown?" Willminator (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are far outside Chicago, suburbanites will say they live in Chicago, not that they live in Chicagoland. If you were near Chicago, and you say you live downtown, it would likely mean the same as saying you lived in the city, not that you live inside the Loop or whatever definition you make for Chicago's downtown. I also don't think there is any single consistent definition of downtown Chicago. Rmhermen (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As a recent Milwaukee transplantee that spent a fair amount of time in Chicago, to me Downtown would have been anything in the loop or the magnificent mile, maybe a small radius around. I conceptually called "chicago" what any true resident of the city would probably call "Chicagoland" just for simplicity and because when you're an hour and a half away it's all "south" to you.  HominidMachinae (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with what's been said. I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and now live in Vermont.  When I was a kid, if we were going "downtown" then we were going to the Loop, Magnificent Mile, or to one of the two baseball stadiums.  If someone asks me today where I'm originally from, I still say "Chicago" even though I grew up in the 'burbs.  The reason I do this is because everyone knows where Chicago is and it gives them a not so rough idea of where I'm from.  If I were to name the suburb right off, I'd have to follow it up with an explanation that it is a suburb since they are likely to have never heard of it and ask where it was anyway.  If they bother to ask "What part?" when I just say "Chicago" then I will get more specific.  Dismas |(talk) 03:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

confusion about fatalities
One source said the number of fatalities following the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami was about 23,000. But following Japan's victory at the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup, the number was about 25,000. Now I'm all mixed up. What's the exact number of fatalities?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no exact number. The current official totals are 15,585 dead and 5,070 missing. However there are individual towns are claiming that the official figures may be undercounts with many more thousands missing. Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) I don't think that with an event of that magnitude they'll ever know for certain. This page discusses the authorities' counts to this point. The fact that it's gone down shows how uncertain those numbers are. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that the difference between 23k and 25k is pretty small from a "handing waving estimation" point of view. Having 8% uncertainty in the final death count of something like this is not huge, especially when both of those numbers are clearly estimations with rounding. I wouldn't be surprised if indeed the number is more like 15-20k; death estimates after disasters are often much higher than they turn out to be, for reasons I am not too clear on. (I remember the initial estimates of 9/11 being in the tens of thousands, when it was really more like 3k.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It also depends on where you get your figures and how those figures were arrived at. If someone has lingering medical issues and dies a month after the event, do you still count them against that event?  A lot of people would say yes but would that person's death be picked up by the statisticians and added to the total?  Maybe not.  Dismas |(talk) 04:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article about the earthquake and tsunami counts 15,561 fatalities. Another source counts 15,585. Another source counts 20,721. Everything is confusing.24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some of this comes from the occasional confusion between the words casualties and fatalities. If there are 15,000 killed and 5,000 missing, then there are 20,000 casualties, with 15,000 confirmed fatalities. The distinction gets mixed up sometimes, including on Wikipedia. —Kevin Myers 05:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nero's involvment in Claudius's death
In our article on Nero it says It is not known how much Nero knew or was involved in the death of Claudius. However the Suetonius reference in paragraph 33 it says He began his career of parricide and murder with Claudius, for even if he was not the instigator of the emperor's death, he was at least privy to it, as he openly admitted... So wasn't it either Nero or Agrippina that gave Claudius poison mushrooms (likely Agrippina)? Is there STILL a citation needed IF Suetonius is the reference?--Doug Coldwell talk 22:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Suetonius wasn't even born when Claudius died. As The Twelve Caesars notes, historians have at best rather mixed feelings about his reliability. Given the questionable attitude of all Roman historians to what we'd now call a rigorous, sourced, and unbiased account, it's probably best to frame everything as "according to Suetonius". -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Suetonius was highly placed in the Empire, and had access to official records now lost, so we can't check his references for accuracy. Was he cited by scholars? Are there other historians from the period? It does not matter that he is reporting things that happened before he was born. He was a researcher and historian, not a reporter. He was born circa 70CE, and was Trajan's archives director and Hadrian's secretary. What document or archive was hidden to him? Who in the Roman world had better access to the best historical documents from the era of his histories? It is appropriate to state that he is the source, and then state what he said. Edison (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)