Talk:Nero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Nero has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
June 10, 2009 Good article reassessment Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Military / Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Olympics (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Nero is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Talk:Nero/Archive 1

Talk:Nero/Archive 2

Olympics[edit]

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

The article states that Nero participated in the Olympic games of 67. T-Nod (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nero and Christianity, a paragraph with no citations[edit]

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)

It is shameful that Nero and Christian persecution is even mentioned in a modern text. There is no record of Christians living in the region at the time. It's a shame that Wikipedia is being destroyed by Christian apologetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

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)
The presence of Christian in Rome, and Nero's prosecution of them, is recorded in the Annals of Tacitus, and other sources as well. Tacitus was a resident of Rome in this period and a first person observer of many of these persecutions. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"He was known for having captured Christians to burn them in his garden at night for a source of light." This claim sounds utterly ridiculous. Added a 'citation needed', but frankly, I think it should simply be removed.216.59.102.194 (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Neckbeard?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. [citation needed] [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. [citation needed]

--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[edit]

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)

This section needs to be clarified: the law demanding that the slaves be killed preceded Nero's reign and was in fact an ancient custom. The debate in the senate was about whether these slaves should be granted mercy. The source cited in the article makes this clear: "Ancient custom required that the whole slave-establishment which had dwelt under the same roof should be dragged to execution, when a sudden gathering of the populace, which was for saving so many innocent lives, brought matters to actual insurrection. Even in the Senate there was a strong feeling on the part of those who shrank from extreme rigour, though the majority were opposed to any innovation." Tacitus Annals - 14:42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.164.91 (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nero faked his death[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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?[edit]

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...[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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

I just came here looking for it. Guess what, no article about Sporus either. I'm creating it right now. Gonna need some help with how to write it , though - transgenderism can be bery confusing to deal with - and after that I believe this info can be added to Nero's article. ZackTheJack (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I created (it was a redirect to Sporus of Nicaea) the article about Sporus. Searching about him, I found another "husband" of Nero, called "Pythagoras" - or "Doryphorus" by Suetonius - who I also think deserves mention, eventually. Should be created some section for these accounts? I'm surprised there is none... ZackTheJack (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
So, I did create articles about Sporus, Pythagoras (and Doryphorus as a redirect to to the later) (and about Calvia Crispinilla while at this). After that, I believe these cases merit some mention in Nero's article. I'm still skittish to touch a GA article like this, and would like help to find a suitable place (and, maybe, in the infobox). Thoughts? ZackTheJack (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
So... I believe the Sporus article can still be expanded, but overall it's almost done by now. I'm still finding difficult to choose a good place for this piece here, maybe another section? My main concern here is WP:UNDUE, as it's a minor passage about Nero himself, but one I think worth at least something. Also, I think something more should be said about Statilia Messalina, she is just mentioned at the infobox. Perhaps one section about his marriages would be a good place... ZackTheJack (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of historians[edit]

According to the article, "Tacitus and Suetonius wrote their histories on Nero over fifty years after his death". But Nero died in 68, and Tacitus apparently died in 117 - less than fifty years after Nero's death. Something's wrong here. 76.103.158.112 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)



Yes, CE. It still doesn't add up 117 CE is still less than fifty years (forty-nine, to be exact) after 68 CE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nero's Suicide- currently inaccurate?[edit]

The wiki article writes that Nero did not commit his own suicide, and provides no citations for that claim. The sources I have found all say that Nero committed suicide himself, and Epaphroditos was put to death because he did not attempt to save Nero as he was dieing.

Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin and Andrew Lintott. "Narrative." The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C–A.D. 69. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Cambridge Histories Online. Cambridge University Press. 05 July 2012 <http://histories.cambridge.org/uid=1894/extract?id=chol9780521264303_eg2>

and

" Nero " Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. by Elizabeth Knowles. Oxford University Press Inc. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Harvard University Library. 5 July 2012 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t115.e2434>

Apologies if I am supposed to write those in another way- I am pressed for time but wanted to put this in writing before I forgot. I would edit the article myself, but it appears to have been edited and reviewed a number of times, so I want to find another source or two corroborating the two listed above. Also, the two sources above just have a short sentence or two on Nero's death, so I want to find a source that has more details about Nero's last hours.

I also want to see if Suetonius's claim that Epaphroditos killed Nero is in any plays or other artistic representations of Nero's actions. I will stop by the library tomorrow. I was unable to find other credible online sources related to Nero's suicide or assisted suicide.

There are two citations near the suicide passage, but they are both from Suetonius, who despised Nero. Even the wiki article clearly depicts this in The Great Fire of Rome section. Suetonius wrote that Nero started the fire, and that he sang and played his lyre as Rome burned. Tacitus wrote that it was only a rumor that Nero started the fire, and that Nero playing as Rome burned was also just a rumor. I do not think Suetonius should be completely removed from the article, as he is a reliable source for some facts, but I do question his account of Nero's actions. Hotchkiss1987 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I just noticed that the first paragraph of the article writes that Nero committed suicide. The reference listed is:

"^ Suetonius states that Nero committed suicide in Suetonius, The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero 49; Sulpicius Severus, who possibly used Tacitus' lost fragments as a source, reports that is was uncertain whether Nero committed suicide, Sulpicius Severus, Chronica II.29, also see T.D. Barnes, "The Fragments of Tacitus' Histories", Classical Philology (1977), p. 228."

I'll check this out tomorrow. Hotchkiss1987 (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"The 'Number of the Beast 666' in the Book of Revelation Chapter 13 is an alphanumeric code/cipher using Hebrew Gematria for 'Emperor Nero'"[edit]

I tweaked the following to make it more accurate and to give a link to Gematria... "the number 666 in the Book of Revelation Chapter 13 is an alphanumeric code/cipher using Hebrew Gematria for 'Emperor Nero'". Those who haven't studied gematria and numerology often equate the two, but that is a mistake! Gematria is objective (non-opinionated) while numerology is subjective (opinionated). A numerologist can use gematria, but numerology can also be applied to one's weight, height, address, social security number, birth date, batting average, etc. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Gematria is no more objective than astrology, geomancy, or tarot readings. As I've explained repeatedly, Wikipedia is based on mainstream academic sources (the guidelines for which may be found here and you should read). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

History written by the winners?[edit]

Am i being paranoid or much of what is said about Nero in this article really sounds like what you would expect from history written by the winners? --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say paranoid. However, the information is pretty sound and agreed upon by scholars that Nero thought he was all that and a bag of chips while being one of the worst examples of humanity in history. Ckruschke (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
If you have any information from reliable sources to counter any of the stated points in the article then you should provide them. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I will say this, it hardly sounds encyclopedic to consider anyone to be the worst human is history(I hope that is not in the article). It sure isn't neutral and regardless of such historian opinion, it is something that begs for balance as Nero has always been considered one of the most misunderstood figures in history. And yes, it is very much because of the winners. Getting past that to find pertinent information is not difficult. But fighting past editors that may wish to hold this POV could be difficult.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by neutral though? An encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate true, but I wouldn't say it has to give equal weight to all sides of an argument, if all sides are not deserving of equal weight. Please note that i'm just curious. Not trying to change anything. y2roby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y2roby (talkcontribs) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Burning Christians in his garden[edit]

It was suggested above that the ludicrous claim be removed, but the IP editor only tagged it citation needed. Subsequent IP editors have restored it and removed it. Unless someone can provide a citation to support the notion that burning humans can light a garden or more specifically that Nero did engage in such practices, let's just leave that out. It is not encyclopedic, it's unsourced and without citation is more akin to propaganda than a factual information.Wzrd1 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

[http://books.google.com/books?id=_bMVAqUBBUkC&pg=PA869&dq=Did+Nero+burn+christians+to+light+his+garden&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7w8EUruON-bOiwKpo4GwBQ&ved=0CGEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Did%20Nero%20burn%20christians%20to%20light%20his%20garden&f=false}. It isn't that hard.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 21:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Added a citation for this claim. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_%28Tacitus%29/Book_15#44. The relevant bit is near the end of the passage: "Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle..." 108.174.188.50 (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Nero[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Nero which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.bible-history.com/
    Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.bible-history.com/nero/
    Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

ancestry table[edit]

the table incorrectly show M Vip Agrippa as son of L Antonius when it should read M Antony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.99.90 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)