Talk:Nero/Archive 3

Olympics

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

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)

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)

In order to claim there is "no record", the writings of Tacitus, Seutonius and Cassius Dio must all be dismissed. It is rather a shame that there are those who prefer to re-write history based on their opinions and preferences instead of on what the sources record. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2016 (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)

"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?

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)

"Numbers don't lie". Neron Kaisar (in Greek) when transliterated into Hebrew Gematria equals "six hundred sixty-six (666)". Nero Caesar in Latin produced 616 in Hebrew gematria. 73.85.205.159 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2018 (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)

Gematria is not numerology; it's a simple alphanumeric code. The Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament and Greek New Testament were written before there were separate Hindu-Arabic Numeral - their letters also doubled as their numerals. It should be obvious that that writer of The Revelation - John of Patmos/Apostle John(?) - encoded Nero as the "666 1st Beast"/Antichrist. In Greek, Neron Kaisar transliterated into Hebrew gematria as 666. 73.85.205.159 (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2018 (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)

Peter and Paul were executed on Oct. 13, 64 AD - the 10-year anniversary of Nero becoming Caesar on Oct. 13, 54 AD. 73.85.205.159 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2018 (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)

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

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)

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

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)

• 68 CE and 117 CE, not BCE. Hotchkiss1987 (talk) 22:11, 5 July 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)

As a wider point, can the editor please standardise on current usage, CE rather than the now-discredited AD? The latter's achronologous, Herod the Great having died in 4BCE, from a solid set of cross-referenced datum points.

Nero's Suicide- currently inaccurate?

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'"

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)

Ian Thomson: You don't know what you're talking about and you shouldn't be in a position where you judge those who have done their homework. Gematria is an ancient art and is objective. "Numbers don't lie". You, on the other hand, are a liar and have a bias that's not in the best interest of an accurate encyclopedia. John of Patmos encoded Neron Kaisar through Hebrew gematria as "666" - there's no subjectiveness here. 73.85.205.159 (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

History written by the winners?

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 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Burning Christians in his garden

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

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

ancestry table

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425071838/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0119.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0119.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010210220413/http://www.tulane.edu/~august/handouts/601cprin.htm to http://www.tulane.edu/~august/handouts/601cprin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

MOS Dates?

So I changed the dates to be consistent with WP:MOS. Changing the order of the year and "AD" to be 37 AD instead of AD 37. I added non-breaking spaces. I removed the small caps. Basically I just followed the MOS, but my changes were reverted? Someone tell me if I did something wrong here, because I genuinely thought I was helping improve the quality of this article. Nennahz (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

MOS is clear that both AD 37 or 37 AD can be used. I've only changed it because having AD at the end looks better when there is a a full date (month/day/year). I already used nbsp so you didnt add them, you moved them around for a style change without any discussion, and you removed the smallcaps which makes the text easier to read. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Peter and Paul's execution came on October 13, 64 AD

I added... Peter and Paul's execution came on October 13, 64 AD - a festival marking the 10-year anniversary of Nero becoming emperor. 2601:589:4700:97D0:8190:1071:1BCB:3159 (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2017 (

This has been removed from the article, as no source was give. I can find no mention of a clear or causal connection between Nero's 10th anniversary as emperor and this execution -- at least not in any reliable, scholarly source. It does seem to be a traditional date for Peter and Paul's martydoms. Haploidavey (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

References

https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETEMART.HTM is a source for Nero's dies imperii/decannalia - the 10-year anniversary of his rein on Oct. 13, 64 AD. 2601:580:109:FFC7:3045:DC70:7800:8964 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091215180526/http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/Nero/NERO-DOOR.html to http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/Nero/NERO-DOOR.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The image of Nero is some anime thing

It is supposed to be a bust of Nero but it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.140.198 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2019

Instead of "Boudica" please write "Boudicca (or "Boadicea" in Roman)". -->

}} 93.33.14.30 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Neron Kaisar (Greek)

The beginning of this article should include Neron Kaisar (Greek). 73.85.206.237 (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

John of Patmos encoded Neron Kaisar as "six hundred sixty-six (666)" by transliterating his name in Greek into Hebrew gematria. Nero Caesar in Latin was transliterated into "six hundred sixteen (616)" through Hebrew gematria. "616" appeared in the Latin Vulgate. 2601:580:7:9E62:975:D978:C73A:8E4B (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Nero and the fiddle

This article refers to the legend that Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned. It could point out that the fiddle was not invented until after Nero's time. Vorbee (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

Disguise to escape the palace and his guards, on the night he decided the commit suicide, he was barefoot in a white tunic and a faded cloak enveloped him with a handkerchief hanging over his face so you could only see the chin on his face. Kspe1234 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

John of Patmos encoded Neron Kaisar (Greek) as "666", Nero Caesar (Latin) became "616" in Vulgate

John of Patmos encoded Neron Kaisar as "six hundred sixty-six (666)" by transliterating his name in Greek into Hebrew gematria. Nero Caesar in Latin was transliterated into "six hundred sixteen (616)" through Hebrew gematria. "616" appeared in the Latin Vulgate. This is all over the Internet. 73.85.202.238 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Dubious Tacitus attribution

The following account is attributed to Tacitus (note 73):

"At this time, a courier arrived with a report that the Senate had declared Nero a public enemy, that it was their intention to execute him by beating him to death, and that armed men had been sent to apprehend him for the act to take place in the Roman Forum. The Senate actually was still reluctant and deliberating on the right course of action, as Nero was the last member of the Julio-Claudian Family. Indeed, most of the senators had served the imperial family all their lives and felt a sense of loyalty to the deified bloodline, if not to Nero himself. The men actually had the goal of returning Nero back to the Senate, where the Senate hoped to work out a compromise with the rebelling governors that would preserve Nero's life, so that at least a future heir to the dynasty could be produced.[73]"

Reading through the portion cited in the footnote, Tacitus does not say anything like the above. The section does not deal with Nero's impending arrest or his death, but discusses events that happened considerably earlier.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15#72

″72 All this having been completed, Nero assembled the troops and distributed two thousand sesterces to every common soldier, with an addition of as much corn without payment, as they had previously the use of at the market price. Then, as if he was going to describe successes in war, he summoned the Senate, and awarded triumphal honours to Petronius Turpilianus, an ex-consul, to Cocceius Nerva, praetor-elect, and to Tigellinus, commander of the praetorians. Tigellinus and Nerva he so distinguished as to place busts of them in the palace in addition to triumphal statues in the Forum. He granted a consul's decorations to Nymphidius, on whose origin, as he now appears for the first time, I will briefly touch. For he too will be a part of Rome's calamities. The son of a freedwoman, who had prostituted a handsome person among the slaves and freedmen of the emperors, he gave out that he was the offspring of Caius Caesar, for he happened to be of tall stature and to have a fierce look, or possibly Caius Caesar, who liked even harlots, had also amused himself with the man's mother."

It is doubtful that there is any discussion anywhere of Nero's death by Tacitus, because the material is described as lost:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)

"The final four books cover the reign of Nero and Book 16 cuts off in the middle of the year AD 66.[3] This leaves the material that would have covered the final two years of Nero's reign lost.[2]"

The above account attributed to Tacitus appears elsewhere, with the Wiki Nero page as the source. I think it is dubious and unless verified, should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escheie (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in information on Seneca in "Reign (54-68 AD)" section and "decline" subsection

The following text is inaccurate:

After Burrus' death, Nero appointed two new Praetorian Prefects: Faenius Rufus and Ofonius Tigellinus. Politically isolated, Seneca was forced to retire.[30]

Yet, in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome (Anthony Barrett, Oxford University Press) the following is written in the "Nero" entry:

"In 62, treason trials, which had initially been suspended, were reintroduced in response to the publication of scurrilous verses attacking Nero. The death of Burrus in the same year no doubt accelerated the process of decline. Seneca attempted unsuccessfully to retire. Nero's refusal to accede to his request probably had less to do with any residual respect for Seneca's counsel than with the prestige that the philosopher's name gave his regime." (Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, entry titled "Nero")

Later in that same entry (Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, entry titled "Nero"), the Barrett writes:

"Even Nero's old tutor, the distinguished Seneca, was caught up in the aftermath, and he took his own life."

The Wiki article on Nero as it stands is factually incorrect, as Seneca wanted to retire but couldn't because of Nero. Seneca's suicide is thereafter mentioned, but it is as "Nero's former advisor". Seneca's suicide, however, seems to have happened only because he hadn't been allowed to retire, and was therefore still (in title, if nothing more) Nero's advisor.

Nero is a difficult encyclopedic subject because it seems to me that Nero has never been a figure that has been viewed impartially -- he has always been politicized. Barrett writes "The most important [contemporary] source [on Nero] is books 13 to 16 of Tacitus’ Annales, extant for all but the last two years of the reign. Tacitus was no impartial observer; his distaste for the imperial system is patent." (Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, entry titled "Nero") History, moreover, is never just a list of the facts. We need to be very careful about our cited sources here, because even contemporary historians (possibly, especially) engage in falsification for independent ends. In general, could there be more air for skepticism as to the truth of claims about Nero's barbarity? I imagine we can all agree Nero left much to be desired in a ruler, but perhaps there is room to allow questions as to the accuracy of the sources that documented him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hen94hen (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

Correctly rewritten article of the kingdom of Nero at the top of the talk page and delete the incorrect writings of the kingdom of Nero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.154.228 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

Correctly rewritten article of the kingdom of Nero at the top of the talk page and delete the incorrect writings of the kingdom of Nero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.154.228 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove text “, in 54 AD” in first sentence of paragraph 2

Concur with previous remark that this wording appears to erroneously identify Nero’s birth year as 54 AD

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Change the initial paragraph to state Nero’s birth as occurring in 37 AD as given in the bio summary. Opening paragraph currently implies that Nero only lived 14 years, which is incorrect. 2603:8001:9D03:62F4:D0DF:28D2:597E:7EB5 (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It is described correctly Run n Fly (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Paragraphs two and three of "Early Life" section

Paragraphs two and three of the "Early Life" section are repeats of one another. Additionally, the second sentence of both paragraphs seem to be missing a word or two. I don't have edit abilities; could someone who does clean this up? Thanks. Leangreenmachine (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021

Paragraph 7 commences: A significant event that took during his reign was...

s/took/took place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.56.220 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

Add book to bibliography: Drinkwater, John F. (2019), Italic textNero. Emperor and Court.Italic text Oxford University Press CPiusEsuvius (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Why is this missing?

Table of contents

Article talk-pages are automatically given a table of contents when there are more than three section headings. Haploidavey (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the OP was referring to the article, not to this talk page. There was an intermittent problem, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Missing TOC?. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Contents...

...like so. Haploidavey (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Military conflicts

The current arrangement which separates the military conflicts out from the other events of Nero's reign seems very odd to me, particularly as the "reign" section ends with a major military conflict - the revolt of Vindex. It often makes sense to separate out aspects of a ruler/ other individual's life that are better dealt with thematically - I see how that's the case with his musical endeavours, but the military events seem more than capable of fitting into a chronological narrative... Furius (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Emperor or ruler

Emperor Nero was evil and corrupt. 120.16.184.5 (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Your point being? Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Spelling mistake.

Please fix: "an eight emperor" → "an eighth emperor" 96.66.80.65 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

done. Calaclacka (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Antium

I would suggest to redirect the place of birth of Nero, Antium, to the new article, Antium, and in addiction i would suggest to remove (modern Anzio): as modern Anzio, but also nearby Nettuno, are in close correlation with Antium.

Regards 5.171.25.7 (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Hi, In the body text I would suggest to redirect the place of birth of Nero, Antium, to the new article, Antium - not Anzio - and in addiction I would suggest to remove (modern Anzio): as modern Anzio, but also nearby Nettuno, are in close correlation with Antium. 2.198.0.61 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Interpretation of Revelation in Jewish and Christian tradition

In the text about the Christian tradition of Nero claims the interpretation has Rome being the capital of the papal states and thus of "ruler of kings". This is not what the usual scholarly interpretation is, as Rome being ruler of kings is what the author describes Rome being in their time, that being 65-95 c.e., when Rome was still pagan. 5.77.125.101 (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The basis for what you describe is a lecture, that makes all sorts of outlandish claims. That section (and other sections) have been inflated by the uncritical additions of material from various Jewish and Christian "traditional" histories, including potted biographies of claimed authors and scholars. It really needs a thorough sweep-out. Haploidavey (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Caesar Nero became Emperor on October 13, 54 AD

MODERATORS: This article needs to be tweaked to include that Nero became Emperor on October 13, 54 AD. It's important to be as accurate as possible. 2601:582:C480:BCD0:641B:DF50:E599:78D2 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Bust of Nero

Could someone place a text under Nero's bust at the top of the page, with the explication that the bust is a 17th century restoration, and that only the yellowish parts are original, and that the white parts were later added to make Nero look more villainous, the curator of the British Museum who created an exhibition on Nero and a book talks about this in this video, and even mentions Wikipedia at 8:01, for spreading a fake image of Nero. Thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRgH0i4ltQ8&t=481s 109.131.60.100 (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see how the restored portions make him look "more villainous"... But it would be better for the main image to be of a more intact bust. Perhaps the Munich Glyptotek bust ([1]), which I think used to be this page's main image. Furius (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Furius on reversion to previous, though I do agree that the [current] image has been carefully and dramatically lit (if not selectively "restored") to suit Nero's post-mortem portrayal as a ferocious villain. It wasn't just a modern-day thing, and the idea of a "fake" image is actually quite modern; see Trajan's statue with tiny (recarved) head; which is the "real" image? The head or the body? Recycling of imperial statuary was standard practice (per the collosal re-modelled image of Nero/Apollo/Sol/Titus (even)/Hercules/Commodus at the eventual site of the Colosseum. Not even the Romans knew quite who or what it was supposed to represent). It wasn't just to do with damnatio memoriae. Coin images are far more reliable as guides to Nero's appearance during his lifetime; but imho the Munich Glyptotek image probably comes very close to that. Haploidavey (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The curator explains that the 17th century restoration bust makes Nero looks like a fat and sadistic tyrant, evil and mean, which corresponds with the knowledge and understanding of Nero at the time. He goes on: "And as we, in a way can deconstruct this sculpture, so we can explore and deconstruct the myth of Nero, if you want a quick soundbite, it is 2000 years of lies and manipulations, politically motivated, a distorted view of Nero." 2A02:A03F:8B2C:9200:753A:44E4:BF89:5A8E (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed, that would be a better and more current image and representation of Nero, thanks. 2A02:A03F:8B2C:9200:753A:44E4:BF89:5A8E (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

• Drinkwater, John F. (2019). Nero. Emperor and Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-47264-7. CPiusEsuvius (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done @CPiusEsuvius: Please specify what should be changed and where. Thank you ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Add major book, Drinkwater, J. F., Nero. Emperor and Court, 2019 [reviewed in all major journals, including Journal of Roman Studies, to list of references. CPiusEsuvius (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Furius (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

AD to CE

All of the AD dates should be converted into CE. If we are trying to normalize CE over AD on a global scale and Wikipedia is a global resource than we should start converting articles like this. The page for Nero has been visited over 150,000 times in the past 30 days. We should be making changes like this to be more globally accepting. OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we are trying to do that. See MOS:ERA and MOS:VAR. Furius (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Many people are trying to do that. Just because you specifically arent doesnt mean many others arent. The point of them is to be more globaly inclusive. OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Citations needed

None of the claims in the main section of the page have any citations attached. This is especially a problem where a claim is stated multiple times without citations, for example, that Nero committed suicide in 68 a.d. 47.17.45.1 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What you're calling the "main section" is actually the lead, which functions as an introduction or abstract for the article. Points that are supported by citations in the main body of the article (as the point about suicide is) do not need to citations in the lead. Furius (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Nero in the Talmud

Why is it assumed that the "Neron" referred to in the Talmud is the emperor Nero? The Talmud says he was a general who was sent by the emperor to conquer Jerusalem. It would seem obvious then that he was not the emperor himself. Is it so difficult to suggest that perhaps there was one other Roman general who was also named Nero? (This article just cites the Talmud directly and does not cite any source that the general named Nero (or Neron) in the Talmud is the same person as the emperor of the same name) Shaked13 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The Talmud names “Neron Kisar”, which is the Roman-era pronunciation of the name. Who else can it be? 47.17.45.1 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

But the Talmud says the same thing of Vespasian a few lines later when the narrative is explicit that he was not yet emperor. Also the full sentence is "he sent Neron Keisar to them [the Jews]." If Neron was the emperor then who was the "he" that sent him?

And as far as "who else could it be?" I am not claiming to know who it could be. (Perhaps there was another Roman general named Neron? perhaps the Talmud used the term Kaisar to refer to all Roman leaders?) I'm just pointing that from the information on the Talmud it doesn't seem like "Neron" was the emperor.

Shaked13 (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

S. J. Bastomsky, The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Apr., 1969), pp. 321-325 and Visotzky Aphrodite and the Rabbis 2016 p. 65 [2] say it is Nero the emperor. Mireille Hadas-Lebel Also Jerusalem Against Rome 2006 p. 155 [3] where the "he" who sends him is understood as "God" which makes much more sense. There were no other Roman generals with the name "Caesar" and the mention of Vespasian shows where we are chronologically. Furius (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Nero's theater

Where does this go in the article?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

remove Christian lore

There was not a single Christian in Rome during Neros reign, and Tacitus, himself a convert, made up pious stories. Please stop treating (badly conceived and written) fiction as history. 89.12.98.65 (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Nero as Pharaoh

I've removed what is basically a quote from an online source, with the same Creative Commons license as Wikipedia. It was added by blocked User:BedrockPerson on 13 March 2018 giving Nero's full title as an Egyptian god-king, in translation. It's not followed up in the text, and there's no evaluation by an independent secondary source to attest to its accuracy, reliability or significance as a primary source. All Roman Emperors, if recognised officially, were also recognised as pharaoh - or rather, could be; but only in Egypt, and at a local level. And privately, anyone was free to "worship" their emperor in whatever form they pleased; thus the charming little bust... but we've no business just listing Nero's Egyptian titles willy nilly. BTW, Wikipedia has an article or two on Roman Imperial era Egyptian dynasties.Haploidavey (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

In the reign column in the quick facts, change “54 to 68” to “AD 54 to AD 68 2600:1702:29C0:6130:996B:11ED:7EC2:AEF9 (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a typo

Second citation the comma comes after the source link instead of before it. 173.20.49.245 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

Please add the following template:

98.228.137.44 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Age permitted toga virilis

The fifth paragraph states that Nero formally entered adult life at 14, citing Shotter. The source states that Nero was "not quite 14", i.e. 13. This is significant as early accession to the toga was an honor previously bestowed on preferred heirs. See e.g. Griffin, Nero, 1984, at 29. 136.62.44.65 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph under "Early Life" 136.62.44.65 (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've adjusted the text from "at 14" to "while 13". NebY (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)