Talk:Nero

Talk:Nero/Archive 1 Talk:Nero/Archive 2

Olympics

Why is this article part of the Olympics project? --Charlesreid1 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nero and Christianity, a paragraph with no citations.

In the article is the following paragraph:

However, there is a growing consensus among some professional historians that the tale of Nero as an early persecutor of Christianity is a fable that has existed since the Eighteenth Century.[citation needed] Despite what some suspect to have been falsified accounts from Josephus, Cassius Dio, and Tacitus, rewritten after their respective lifetimes,[citation needed] that the Christians were such a small sect in the First Century CE, that few people within the Roman Empire had even heard of them. Least of all Nero.[citation needed] Christians at the time would have been generally indistinguishable from other Jews. Even by the reign of the Emperor Constantine, Christians may have constituted only five percent of the Roman Empire's overall population, which according to one account by the historian Edward Gibbon,[citation needed]to have been at around sixty million.

None of this paragraph contains citations. Sources such as Tertullian suggest contra what is being said in this paragraph. Tertullian's account being long before the 18th century, and not listed as a tampered source. I'm going to recommend proper citations be found for this paragraph, until then I'm going to remove it. It is easy to revert the article should proper citations be found. 24.224.129.11 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Nero/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. The writing is good, images are fine. There are two dead links, 26 and 152, but these are easily corrected. I note that there are several names that are linked many times. Suetonius, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio, are examples. I fixed some of these but due to the length of the article I won't go through each one. I also added some hard dashes (–) and non-breaking spaces per MOS. Overall the article is definitely GA. H1nkles (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, spontaneously I felt compelled to write a not of the excellency of this article, but since this is already a topic, I'll just add a note here. This article is very likable: it is not just well balanced and plausible, it is fascinating reading! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Neckbeard?

Is it me, or was Nero one of the first to have the now famous "neckbeard"? Granted, it wasn't seen as one during his times...It is interesting to observe how facial hair changes (or doesn't) throughout the centuries.

The early Roman Emperors used their outer image, notably their hairstyle and facial hair (or lack thereof), to depict their own political propaganda to the public. This idea began with Augustus, the first emperor and the patriarch of the Julio-Claudian dynasty of emperors. Augustus came to power after a period of instability caused by the war between Augustus and Mark Antony. Augustus was victorious in this long and messy war which marked the end of, what historians call, the Roman Republic. In order to show the Roman people that his reign is going to be a period of peace, stability, and prosperity, his hairstyle is very short and clean-cut, he is also clean shaven. This trend continued with the rest of the Julio-Claudians, Tiberius, Gaius (Caligula), and Claudius, except Nero. Nero showed a great animosity towards the Roman people. Various Roman sources even stated that Nero would shower spectators of gladiator combats and games with urine, instead of prizes like his predecessors. Nero’s animosity caused him to have an indifferent attitude to the way he was viewed by the people; and therefore, his hairstyle was often depicted as messy with dishevelled curls and the “neckbeard.” The Flavian dynasty, beginning with Vespasian, was responsible for cleaning up the mess that Nero made of the empire. Vespasian and his successor and son, Titus, followed the trend set out by Augustus, because they too had to clean up the mess left after years of instability and fear brought upon by Nero. Domitian, on the other hand, also a son of Vespasian and the successor of Titus, was considered by many of the Roman people to be a tyrant and he styled his hair very similar to Nero, although he did keep his face clean-shaven in most of the portraits depicted of him found throughout Rome. The period of the “5 good emperors” followed the reign after Domitian, after his tyranny brought about the end of the Flavian dynasty. Nerva, the first emperor in this category, was again responsible for cleaning up the mess of a tyrant and followed the trend set out by his predecessors by keeping his hair and his face clean. Trajan, considered by many to be the most successful emperor thanks to his many conquests and building projects, looked strikingly similar to Augustus in all of his imagery. Hadrian, however, was more concerned with becoming acquainted with the empire as a whole; and because of the significant lack of wars that happened during his reign he started a trend that lasted for the next 200 years. His hairstyle and beard were very full and curly, almost caveman-esque (although much more well-kept). In Nero and Domitian this image would have been seen as negative, but the image started by Hadrian, and followed by Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, showed prosperity and growth. Muffinie27 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffinie27 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nero's birth dates are given as 37 AD and later as 26 AD in the same article.

Has anybody noticed that in the first sentence Nero's dates are given as "15 December AD 37–9 June AD 68", but in the section on Family, it says, "Nero was born ... on 15 December, AD 27"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toledojohn (talk •

Nero and The Antichrist

I think adding too much weight to the "Nero: Anti-christ" theory is going against encyclopedic standards. Just because a source says 'most scholars believe' something, doesn't make that statement properly sourced. The source is biased for the theory, and thus any weight they might add by insinuating their theory is well regarded, would not be appropriate here.

The same sources says that Nero was simply a head of the beast, the heads being a line of emperors. But then he goes on to say that the number stands for the whole beast. Seems confused. The idea of 'the anti-christ' even existing within the Bible is heavily disputed among theologians.

That's what this boils down to, theology. Are we picking doctrine wikipedia accepts? No. Let's be unbiased in presenting religion related subjects. While it might be somewhat off topic, the "Nero: anti-christ" paragraph should have a counterpoint attached.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

i think this is very interesting but how did he die--66.114.15.170 (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He 'drove a dagger through his heart' and "His ashes were deposited ... in the family tomb of the Domitii on the summit of the Hill of Gardens, which is visible from the Campus Martius." according to our listed source. Hmm, I removed those sample photos for you? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to the use of "Most Bible scholars" when referring to what some such scholars may believe. It implies a majority of such scholars 'believe' the stated opinion, even when 'most' may not. The use of 'some', 'many', or another such word would be more appropriate in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Condorcandi (talk • contribs) 06:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There are few scholars in most subjects; their opinions are measurable. However, I object to the notion that one can determine what ideas are correct by observing a majority of a minority's (biblical scholars relative to those who are not biblical scholars) opinion. Small groups of any kind are prone to collective bias: by milieu, conspiracy, or any number of factors. Saying that something is a "majority of the minority" view lends undue bias to an opinion - at least, in my opinion.

For example, saying "most/many Bible scholars believe" references the personal opinions of a few hundred people. It also brings up the question, what constitutes a 'Bible scholar'? A small group of Bible commentators? Disinterested scientists of religious studies? Theologians? Religious leaders and teachers? People who make a study the Bible, in general?--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nero and Numerology - 666

I don't like the idea of saying that a theory is basically theorem, when it uses some half-baked numerology problem to prove its point. There is no implication in Revelation as to what method should be used to find what the 666 means. There's no way one can assume that they should put the letters of Nero's Hebrew name through the process of Jewish gematria. Many things add up to 666; this is just an extremely obscure way of trying to solve the problem. It seems more like the solution (Nero) modifies the meaning of the original text, because 666 does not equal Nero; Neron equals 666. It also seems very suspicious that its possible to add the name up to either number (666 or 616), when of course, there was only one number used in the original book of Revelation. Its clear that they were searching for something that added up to both possible numbers in Revelation; its too obvious that the solution was constructed as an attempt to start another 666 conspiracy. I'd also note that it seems unlikely a people who would burn 'magic books' worth 'fifty thousand pieces of silver' would be expected to turn to a practice of mysticism (which may not have even existed at the time). ("Oh, I know, let's use gematria on everyone dead Caesar's name! To see.. To see... Whatever that would prove.")

In any case, it just doesn't belong in this article. This article is not about the number 666. Its noteworthy enough to be mentioned, but not for a whole numerology theory to be hashed out. That theory might find a better home at the 666 page. I'm removing it, only making a brief mention of their 'work'. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Killer of Peter and Paul: Two new paragraphs

A user added two paragraphs to "Killer of Peter and Paul". I don't see what they have to do with that particular subsection, the grammar/spelling is erroneous, POV worded, inaccurate, inarticulate, might be original research, and conflict with general consensus of other Wikipedia articles. The subject referred to does have some interesting information about Christian perception in Roman times. Although, I'm not sure if its promoting a fringe theory that Christianity didn't exist until the Roman Catholic era.

Well, I'll see what we can do to clean it up. I removed it at first, but maybe there's something useful to be salvaged. I removed some wording from the first line that seemed POV, but might be reworded and reinserted. Check history tab. The current text is as follows:

The Testimonium Flavianum, first cited by Eusebius of Caesarea, is considered a forgery. [notation: please clarify relevancy in sentence]

The passage from the Annals of Tacitus pertaining to the alledged Neronian persecutions that names "Christus" seems to have been originally spelt with an "e" instead of an "i", which would have rendered the name "Chrestus", which means "the Good". The Fifth Century writer Sulpicius Severus was the first known to have used Tacitus as a secular Pagan reference. The persecution may have involved resident Jews in the city of Rome, which began with a capitation tax levied on the Jewish community, among others, to help pay for the rebuilding of the city of Rome after the fire. Plus, "Christians" did not appear as a literary term before the Second Century AD, given that the first Christians were still very much indistinguishable from the existing Jewish population in the Roman Empire. Nor did they originally use the term "Christian" to describe themselves, often calling themselves instead as "Saints", "Brethren", or "Brothers of the Lord", while refering to the rival sects by the names of their leaders, such as the "Basilidians", "Marcionites", "Valentinians", etc.

--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm removing both paragraphs. The user in question has been adding more questionable content. If anyone finds merit in the things he wrote, find sources for individual points and restore them. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nero and Slaves rights

In the section on Administrative policies, the original text stated that Nero vetoed a law by the Senate claiming that the crimes on one slave was the responsibility of all, after the murder of Pedanius Secundus (Ann 14:42). This is unfortunately completely wrong. Nero actually stood by the Senate on thier decision, and had the 400 slaves in Secundus' household excecuted. Here's the relevant quote:

"In spite of all, the party advocating execution prevailed; but the decision could not be complied with, as a dense crowd gathered and threatened to resort to stones and firebrands. The Caesar then reprimanded the populace by edict, and lined the whole length of the road, by which the condemned were being marched to punishment, with detachments of soldiers." Tacitus Annals - 14:45

Where I think the editor got confused was in the next section, where the Senate mean to go further and expel even Secundus' freedmen from Italy. Nero veto's this motion, but by this point he has already had 400 slaves excecuted!

I'm not sure exactly why someone keeps reverting my changes on that, but the text is very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.143.217 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, based on your reference. This is fine to remain. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nero faked his death

Nero indeed faked his death and he married a Jewish woman, and bare children. The international banker clan Rothschild are descendants of emperor Nero, as well as Adolf Hitler.WillBildUnion (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:NOR. Probably WP:FRINGE as well, sounds very New World Ordery. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative use of his praenomen and cognomen

He's mostly called Lucius in the text prior to his name change; but there are also "Neros" scattered in as well. Obviously it's quite correct in a certain sense, but one wouldn't expect a lot of use of "Caius" when talking about C. J. Caesar for example. Might it be more confusing to general readers than it's worth? On the other hand, Tacitus tends to call Caligular Caius all the time so... who knows, perhaps given that the meaning is fairly clear, the use of Nero's famous names prepares the reader for what they might find in ancient texts. I've made no changes. 99.192.85.249 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

contribs) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As a casual reader I agree. I find the Lucious/Nero both annoying and philosophically inconsistent. Take for example "Nero was born on 15 December, AD 37...", shouldn't that be "Lucious was born..." since that was his name when he was born? Why not just a note that he was born "Lucious" and use Nero throughout? And it's absolutely silly in my opinion to use the names interchangeably in the same sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.79.46 (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Now referred to as Lucius before his adoption, and Nero thereafter.Catiline63 (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian Tradition Section - Looks Better

I like how this section is shaping up; it looks nice. Let's try to keep the fanciful ideas and overstatements of religious or fringe theories to a minimum. Keep looking for ways to spruce up the section, by shortening it, shoring up an grammatical problems, etc. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph

Currently reads--During his reign, Nero focused much of his attention on his husband, Atilla the Hunn.... Which is different from what the edit page shows. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.50.204 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Page needs protection

This page has been getting vandalised for several days straight. It needs to be blocked from IPs editing it. Even when its not under constant attack, someone is always adding a conspiracy theory. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nero prediction

The article Nero prediction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found a few promotional web hits and no published (gbook) independent references WP:RS, fails WP:V and WP:N, Does it exist; yes, are there independent reliable sources for any of the article content; No

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction to Note 2?

In the second sentence of note 2, it references Galba becoming emperor before Nero lived. Shouldn't this be corrected to read before Nero died? Quickwit207.215.196.9 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

First text...

The article abuses of the expression "first text": Maybe is better to say "the first text known" or something like that because we don't know and will never (...) if that text was the first. It's very known that many texts of that time have been lost. As that expression "first text" appears often in the article, I ask someone to do the changes. My poor english... :( --RoyFocker (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Agrippina

I'm reluctant to edit this myself for fear of messing up the rest of the sentence, but surely Nero murdered, rather than executed, his mother as the lede suggests?--86.44.131.161 (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

re 2006 BBC series

I'm putting this here rather than on the user's talk page, because we now have two different IPs making identical edits, so I guess we're dealing with an anon IP who has a dynamic IP address. The material added was

"In the 2006 BBC series Ancient Rome Rise and Fall of an Empire, it is said that the modern equivalent of Nero's performances is if Queen Elizabeth II became a pole dancer."

The problems with this material is:

• It's being added between existing material its existing reference, so it looks like the new material is from that existing reference. Since the ref is Tacitus's Annals, I doubt it discusses events of 2006 AD.
• The material is not referenced. We need a reference if we're going to include this, see WP:V and WP:RS.

Beyond that, I'm not sure the material belongs. Maybe. If it's a BBC documentary, that's a notable source I guess, depending on who said it. And it's an arresting image. It's someone's opinion, or rather their interpretation of ancient sources. It's not necessarily accurate. But if was a learned professor and more than just a joke, it'd be OK I guess; I don't know. But we'd need a source -- a transcript of the documentary, I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of Sporus?

? AaronY (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)