Talk:Nero/Archive 2

Understanding Authors and Bias is Central to Understanding Nero

Unlike today, historians in Roman times did not seek impartiality. They embellished, exaggerated and lied. This makes documenting ancient history difficult. A simple citation of an ancient historian does not create fact. We have to look at context and likelihood of a statement.

Was Nero really a monster? Probably no more than any other emperor. Rome prospered under Nero's rule and the public seemed to like him. He was emperor and he was considered divine.

What do we really know about Nero? Almost nothing. His edicts were fairly routine administrative acts. We know his family's names, we know he had a war with Parthia and we know the senate hated him.

Yet, Nero is known as a monster and is commonly referenced as one.

It would be a disservice to anyone reading this article to omit either side of discussion.

The article has been improving greatly. The citations and quotes are extremely helpful. I think that the article is neutral. Keep it up!

• Yet, it would be nice if the first paragraph was actually cited. To me, this article is about the most Nero-friendly thing I have ever read about Nero. This isn't giving both sides. The article nicely glosses over the fact that he had his mother killed, while seemingly taking great pains to emphasize his "good" side. There's even a painting of him being "remorseful" over his killing, suggesting w/o any evidence that he actually was remorseful. Where is the citation for things like "Was he a monster? Probably not more than the average emperor." Huh? One emperor can't be more monstrous than another? What else do you have to go on, if not the ancient historians? So far I don't see much good evidence that Nero was a really nice guy after all, other than wishful thinking by whoever came up with that first paragraph. I agree with some of the comments below that it is original research/a thesis and should be cited.-Andy
• For example, there's this; "However, some ancient sources also indicate that Nero was quite popular with the common people during and after his reign." Sources such as...? -Andy

Vindex

There is a bit of a discrepancy between this article and the one on Vindex: The article on Nero dates the rebellion at 68, where the one on Vindex is at 67 - if there is a historical debate on this one, then surely both dates should be put, if not then one is clearly wrong.

I'm no Roman historian, I was just fixing up the grammar, but if anybody else knows, could they fix it up?

On an minor note, the Nero article names him as Julius Vindex, where the Vindex article calls him Iulius; it's a minor thing really, but shouldn't wikipedia have a consensus on spelling, or at least provide alternate spellings?

--Lord Pheasant 08:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The time of Vindex's rebellion is still a problem. I can't find a source that gives a good date. Tacitus' Annals cuts off before the events, Suetonius and Josephus are vague. Hoshidoshi

For the point of the name spelling: if I remember correctly, in the Latin of that time, there was no "J". "I" was used instead. Jupiter was Iupiter, Julius was Iulius, Julia was Iulia. So both spellings are technically correct, it just happens that most of the time people use Julius since it is more recognizable and less confusing. SouthernTortoise 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Roman Dates

I'm just curious; how could they place an exact date on Nero's death? The Gregorian Calendar wasn't invented yet and the Romans had a different calendar back then. How could we know Nero's exact birth date and death even though it took place when another calender was in use? -- Mr. Sinistar 20:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how Nero's death is determined (I've searched and couldn't find it), but his birth day is listed by Suetonius. The date listed on the page is its Julian date.

The Julian weakness is they do not eliminate the century leap days; Gregorian calanders eliminate 3 out of four century leap days. Every 100 years, the Julian Calander shifts off .75 days. Eventually, the Julian calander was 10 days behind in 1582. To fix this, October 15, 1582, followed October 4th, 1582.

So, Suetonius places Nero's birthday as the 18th day before the Kalends of January. 1st-Dec 31 2nd-Dec 30 3-29 4-28 5-27 6-26 7-25 8-24 9-23 10-22 11-21 12-20 13-19 14-18 15-17 16-16 17-15 18th-Dec 14.

The 14th? Well, no. Romans are screwy and count inclusively. When Suetonious says 18th day, he's including January 1st, so he really means the 17th day, thus the 15th of December. So, according to the Julian Calander, Nero was born December 15th.

But, what about the shift? Well, in the 1st century, the Julian Calander was 2 days ahead. Thus, on our Gregorian Calander, Nero was born on Decmber 13th. Hoshidoshi

"Nero fiddled..."

The briefest of references should suffice. This naive statement isn't recent, however. It's a secondhand interpretation of a passage in Tacitus. How old is "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" anyway? Eighteenth century? Seventeenth century? Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins comments "The notion that Nero fiddled while Rome burned is nonsense because the fiddle wasn't invented until many centuries after he ruled Rome, from 54 to 68 CE." Jim Whiting, The Life and Times of Nero is too vague:"Much later, a legend about the event would evolve: Nero fiddled while Rome burned. It is clearly false. ..." (p 35.) It's also explained in The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Roman Empire by Eric D. Nelson... aptly enough. --Wetman 00:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now found that William Cobbett said of Shakespeare's assertion about the effects of the love of music, "he seems to have forgotten that it was a music and a dance-loving damsel that chose, as a recompense for her elegant performance, the bloody head of John the Baptist, brought to her in a charger; he seems to have forgotten that, while Rome burned, Nero fiddled..." (Advice to Young Men And (Incidentally) to Young Women in the Middle and Higher Ranks of Life., 1829.) --Wetman 01:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't he piping before he was fiddling...? I always heard that it was originaly piping, but later got changed to fiddling. The violin only made its entrance in the 1500s anyway, I think. 216.144.111.186 07:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be "Nero lyred while Rome burned." 132.162.216.92 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation

"Popular legend remembers Nero as a playboy and a tyrant; he is known as the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned." These assumptions regarding his behavior are based on hostile sources, namely Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Tacitus. Nero's life was documented almost entirely by his primary rivals— the senatorial class who were pro-Flavian. Because of historical slander, it may be impossible to differentiate between what is fact and what is fiction regarding Nero's rule."

Where is the citation for the paragraph? Where did it come from? As is, these are assertions that need to be backed up with a citation. Where does "fiddled while Rome burned" come from? It's a quote it need to be cited.

You're right that we need citation here. It's pretty clear that Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Tacitus are biased against Nero and its important to note. The cause is a bit harder to pin point. Are they just pro-Republic and want more Senatorial power? Do they like the Flavians? Do they just love Trajan?

We have one ref from the 19th century about fiddling (listed in the fire section, perhaps it should be added again to the beginning), but that's about it. It's pretty frustrating to me that the most famous idea of Nero is unaccountable. I'll keep researching, though.Hoshidoshi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

• Isn't calling it "popular legend" POV in itself? I would like someone to come up with some evidence to the contrary, rather than just calling it legend and asserting that he was really a likeable guy.

Protection

This article has been sprotected for two months. Is it really such a frequent vandalism target? Gazpacho 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article gets vandalized constantly by all sorts. You get people putting in all sorts of stuff about him being the anti-Christ and you get people that include stuff they saw in movies. Religious folk have strong feelings about Nero and like to express it. You also get people who like to come in and talk about Nero being gay. The lock and the heavy citation are the only things creating any sort of stability to the article. The article is improving vastly, though.

Grammar

Someone who has an account here, please change the spelling of "negaive" to "negative" and "striking" to "strikingly" under the Neutral Writers section. Spelling counts, and the Wiki admins might want to think twice about locking an article before proof-reading the damned thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.216.97.240 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

The "er" and the use of the word were intentional, by the way. 69.216.97.240 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nero's infamy over time

There probably is some truth in saying that there was increasing demonization of Nero over time. However, stating so without citation is POV b/c it is presenting a specific, uncited thesis. Please provide a citation for this, otherwise it is original research. (Please see WP:NOR.)

We have an entire section describing Nero's historians in detail, including timelines. People can make up their own mind concerning how fantastic each description of Nero is without inserting our own commentaries.

Djma12 03:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the historiography section does have NPOV issues regarding how it groups writers (why is Tacitus considered critical? Why is Josephus considered a defender?), and how it poisons the well at the beginning of each group section. Having an introductory paragraph that summarizes the sourced info that follows does not seem like a problem to me, just good style. Gazpacho 03:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, you're right on some points. The whole "Defender" vs "Critical" section is probably a thinly veiled POV war. I would love to hear what you have to propose concerning cleaning this section up. (I mean, it takes up 1/3rd the article for crying out loud...) However, I do object to having original research inserted in an introductory paragraph. The progressive demonization of Nero is a thesis, and thus must be cited. Djma12 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this page protected? It says 'for recent vandalism' from October 2006 which must have died away by now, surely. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the protection is unnecessary. Djma12 13:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This article receives constant vandalism even with protection. Registering is pretty easy. Why change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.51.55 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

There is still obvious vandalism on the page. Someone inserted comments about Jimmy Carter and about how they just learned yesterday that he played the fiddle while Rome burned to the ground. It's frustrating to read through a wonderful and educational section and have that experience disrupted by fools.

Spelling

Theres a spelling mistake it says "the praetoran prefect" can someone with an account please change it? :)--82.71.72.46 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

what's the error supposed to be? 71.218.97.164 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Size of Golden House

I don't know how modern sources got a figure like 1/3 of Rome. Its seems unlikely. Anicent sources are silent on the size of the campus. Is there any explanation on the method for the determination? Hoshidoshi

• The 1/3 figure does not refer to simply the house itself, as the Domus Aurea was a palatial complex involving statuary, gardens, and an artifical lake. The size can be seen in that the Baths of Titus, the Flavian Amphitheater, the Baths of Trajan, and Temples of Venus and Rome were all built on the site after most of it was cleared. The size estimates from the modern sources derive from archaelogical excavation done starting with the Domus's discovery in the 15th century. For further references, pleases attend to the sources provided.Djma12 22:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what it was. 1/3 still seems ridiculous. That figure must be excluding the Campus Martius and everything on the west bank and must include "proposed" construction. We know that it was basically on and around the Esquiline, into the valley between the Esquailine and the Caelian and on some of the Velia. The construction had not made it onto the Caelian, yet, since the site of the Temple of Claudius was there.

http://www.the-colosseum.net/images/hills.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

• If the proportion of Rome is the issue, why don't we just cite the excavated size? That would be more objective than a proposed proportion of Rome? Djma12 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on "Rebellions" and Inaccuracy in "Religion"

• Saying that "Rome was relatively peaceful during Nero's reign" is an opinion as it is by definition dependent upon reference. Sure, Nero's reign was peaceful compared to Galba but not compared to Aurelius. Therefore "relatively peaceful" is misleading and NPOV statement. Furthermore, citing poetry to justify this statement hardly makes it less NPOV.

Compared to the hundred years before and after, Nero's reign was peaceful. I'll add more citations to this if Lucanus is insufficient. Nero was remembered for this peace and the list of rebellions gives the impression that things were unstable. Hoshidoshi

I think the statement "Like many other emperors..." statement more than demonstrates that other emperor's also had rebellion problems. If your concern is that Nero's reign seems unstable b/c it had five major revolts and a major war, then maybe its b/c it actually was the case. Djma12 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. On the other hand, Nero was credited at a time for achieving world peace (perhaps erroniously) and was remembered by many as a ruler during good times. Maybe it was just because the earlier civil wars and those during the Year of the Four Emperors sucked so much. I'll do some reading tomorrow and fix it upHoshidoshi

• Christian tradition on Nero's persecution of the Christians does not soley derive from the Tactius. Referencing the early Church fathers starting with Augustine clarfies this. If you believe that the Church fathers DERIVED their belief from the early Roman sources, this is a thesis that requires citation. Djma12 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I added Suetonius as well. Keep in mind, nothing appears about his "persecution" of Chistians until hundreds of years after his death. Tacitus and Suetonius are the earliest sources. I think its safe to assume it came from them. hoshidoshi

Can't assume that. Early Church tradition, like in many religions, was an oral tradition. This a specific thesis and requires citation. Djma12 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm going to do some reading on this tomorrow, but you're probably right. We have no idea what oral tradition was. Thanks for keeping me honest, Djma12. Hoshidoshi

Fire and Nero's Motive

Of couse, Nero probably didn't burn Rome, but two men claimed he did and the motive attached to Nero is pretty poor.

Though it is possible that modern historians have placed an urban renewal motive on Nero for the fire, no ancient historian has:

Suetonius, Nero 38, claims: But she showed no greater mercy to the people or the walls of his capital. When someone in a general conversation said: "When I am dead, be earth consumed by fire," he rejoined "Nay, rather while I live," and his action was wholly in accord. For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow, crooked streets, he set fire to the city

Suetonius said Nero did it because he was mean. Urban renewal was a "cover."

Cassius Dio, Histories 62.16

After this Nero set his heart on accomplishing what had doubtless always been his desire, namely to make an end of the whole city and realm during his lifetime

Cassius Dio said Nero did it because he was destructive. No urban renewal is mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC). Hoshidoshi 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hoshidoshi. Here we are again :-)

• I would disagree with the interpretation of the Suetonius. Though the beginning of the passage states malice (probably one of the famous embelishments of Suetonius), the rest of the passage clearly states he wanted room for the Golden House. Let's look at the full passage:

For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow, crooked streets, he set fire to the city119 so openly that several ex-consuls did not venture to lay hands on his chamberlains although they caught them on their estates with tow and fire-brands, while some granaries near the Golden House, whose room he particularly desired, were demolished by engines of war and then set on fire, because their walls were of stone. 2 For six days and seven nights destruction raged, while the people were driven for shelter to monuments and tombs.

• Tactius, who I think we both agree gives the most non-embelished account, speaks of a possible motivation towards renovation as well:

And to this conflagration there attached the greater infamy because it broke out on the Aemilian property of Tigellinus, and it seemed that Nero was aiming at the glory of founding a new city and calling it by his name.

• Given this, I think it's fair to mention that ancient historians also took strong suspicion that renovation was a motivation of Nero's, and not just insane malice.

• I would dispute the "quite common characterization on major fires in rome. Though Juvenal does mention Rome "falling apart", he was a playwright who's phrases should not be taken literally. I can count the number of major fires in Rome on one hand. Not a rarity, to be sure, but not "quite common" :-)

Best regards,

Djma12 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points, but I would counter-

• Suetonius does admit that Nero wanted room and pretended to be making room. He claims there was a city renovation, but it was a cover. The true motive, as Suetonius claims, was malice.

• Tacitus claims there was infamy from his exploitation of the situation, but does not claim Nero truly had that motivation.

Its pretty clear what really happened. A fire broke out, Nero exploited the situation too much for the people's liking, the public began to suspect Nero did it for the Domus Aurea. Oddly, though it is clear that there was a rumour that Nero did it for the space, no historian reports that as a motive. Instead, Tacitus admits it was mistake and Suetonius and Dio claims he was crazy.

Space for the Domus Aurea was a logical motive that was probably really circulating as a rumour, but no historian claims it to be true. Its kind of funny, really.

• I think the issue is what is "major". Fires happened every day, so they were common. Major fires (the kind that burned the whole city down) happened once a generation.

Fun stuff Hoshidoshi 21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As I am lacking a time capsule, I wouldn't say its "pretty clear what really happened", but I suspect that your interpretation of events is fairly accurate :-) Unfortunately, neither one of us have actual citation to back this up. So what do we do?

I think its at least important to mention Nero as a possible arsonist, as this was a very strong suspicion during the time. Strong enough that it's mentioned by all our three historians, even if we have sprinklings of "insanity" added to the text of two. However, if we mentioned that these allegation were rumor, would that be more to your liking?

Djma12 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the three stories cannot be reconciled and, really, none of them make sense even on their own.

Let's start with Suetonius- Nero, wanting to destroy the city for no reason, orders men to burn the city under the pretense of city renovation in the poor area (the south). But then Suet immediately says that the arsons are in the rich area (the north-east) where the ex-consuls are and Nero steals granery land near the Goldern House that he wanted. Then Nero sang in public. So, Nero wanted it to be a secret (renovation cover) and not a secret (singing)? And Nero wanted to take to the rich area to build the Golden House, but burns the poor area? He burns his own new palace down to build another palace on top? Suetonius speaks of no public suspicion.

Then we have Dio- Nero, wanting to destroy the city for no reason, sends out men pretending to be drunk. He sings. The public curses Nero because a prophecy (that hasn't even been written yet) says he's guilty. So, again, Nero wants it to be a secret (drunkards) and not a secret (singing). The public suspects Nero because of a prophecy. No mention of Golden House.

And Tacitus- It was either an accident or Nero ordered it (he isn't sure). Nero rushes back, goes through a massive relief effort. But, still, there's rumours that he did it (no reason for them). So, he kills Christians. Seems to work. Then, much later, he builds the Golden House and it seems he burned the city to gain glory from building it anew. So, when Nero acted well, there was public suspicion. After building the Golden House, is seemed he did it to build a new city (though to whom? the public? historians), but there is little if any public reaction. During the same period, he started singing in public to much praise.

Really, all the motivations make no sense. The three don't know what Nero was thinking, therefore, I think don't think we should report anything on Nero's motives.Hoshidoshi 04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, I feign no hypothesis whatsoever towards what Nero was thinking. As such, I think it's fair that we don't report anything concerning Nero's motives.
• However, it is important to point out what public rumors at the time were. Otherwise, there is a non sequitor in the article. It is important to note WHY the public suspected Nero, otherwise Nero's subsequent persecution is simply out of the blue.
• Concerning the three sources -- yes, they are convoluted. However, they are still our primary sources. The Suety seems to be an amalgamation of the public rumor and the Dio seems to be the same + embelishment. The Tactius is the most stable of the three.
• I think including Tactius's quote (on Nero gaining infamy for his subsequent building as a source of suspicion) is fair game. Even if we don't believe it's what happened, its obvious from the Tactius is what many people extrapolated at the time being. Djma12 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tacitus does mention rumors of Nero's guilt as does Dio, but modern historians also point to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are homeless after the fire and there is no records of public protests. Instead, Nero stayed popular with the public.

Both Tacitus and Dio's stories are convoluted when it comes to public motivation for rumour as well. Dio claims that everyone knew about a prophecy and, thus, suspected Nero. Dio's story is incredibly clumsy as the Sylabine prophecy is written after Nero's death. Tacitus' story is also clumsy. People blaimed Nero (maybe because of economic hardship?), but accepted then that Christians did it, then the Golden House (much later) makes it look like Nero is guilty (to historians?), but the public doesn't react to this. They love Nero again (as shown is the cheers for him at the 2nd quinqunnial games in 65 and the parade for Armenian subjegation in 66). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

See Hoshi, you can't have it both ways :-)

1. Your first stance was that no primary source supported the rumors of fire. ("Though it is possible that modern historians have placed an urban renewal motive on Nero for the fire, no ancient historian has.") Now that we have established that there do exists accounts concerning rumors towards Nero, the stance is that the primary sources are confused, so we should go with modern scholarship. Either way, we should be allowed to mention what some prevailing rumors at the time were.

2. The same applies to Tacitus. You don't have any doubt concerning Tactius's accounts when he is describing Nero's relief efforts, but his accounts somehow become "clumsy" when dealing when aspects less favorable to Nero. Either we are allowed to use him or not. We shouldn't be allowed to selectively choose.

Not meaning to play "gotcha" on you. Just feel that, if we are going to have strict academic standards on the article, it should play both ways.

Best regards,

Djma12 ^(talk) 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hoshi,

Looks we're at a bit of an impass. Rather than changing each other's edits, I've applied for some outside opinion. Hope you're not offended. Just think we have an honest disagreement on how to apply the primary sources.

For third party editors, kindly review if:

1. Primary accounts from Tactius and Cassius Dio stating rumors of Nero starting the fire for public renovation are fair game, or are they too muddled.
2. For two possible article versions, please see here.

Regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 22:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending Nero- he's a bad man. You're trying to make him look even worse by picking and choosing pieces from various accounts.

I think you need to read the accounts closely yourself and really pay attention to what they say.

1) I said no sources claimed Nero did it for urban renewal and that is still true. No source said that. 2) Tacitus and Dio mention that the public suspected Nero of burning Rome. 3) Dio says they suspected him because of a prophecy 4) Tacitus gives no reason on why they suspected him 5) Tacitus states that building the Golden House (years later) made it seem like Nero did it. This is very different than saying he did or the public thought he did. A statement like this could mean anything (i.e. historians looking back or a particular group). If he were referring to the public, it makes little sense since these feelings of resentment would come years later.

The point being, no one is accusing Nero of burning Rome for urban renewal. Not Suetonius, not Dio, not Tacitus, not the public. No account.

The only way to come to this theory to pick a little bit from each, twist it and present it. That's original research which isn't allowed. Hoshidoshi 04:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(I am commenting here in response to the request for impartial editorial input as requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography.) I disagree somewhat with the phrasing of the RfC for impartial editors to comment on. I would tend to err on avoiding original research, no matter how excellent, and focus on capturing what the general consensus is amongst modern historians. (After all, otherwise, how far do you want to go? Some scholars question that the translations of Tacitus that have survived have had Christian "propaganda" inserted; etc, etc.) I spent some time surfing .edu sites, encyclopedias, PBS/BBC documentaries, and similar (somewhat populist) sources and they pretty much echoed what I thought the consensus was. Namely, that historians in the past have blamed Nero for the fire, but modern historians consider that highly unlikely; that there were indeed rumors at the time that Nero was behind it; that Nero made himself even more impopular by seizing on the fire as an opportunity for some extreme experiments in urban architecture; and that Nero chose to deflect blame onto the Christians (either simply to deflect blame, or because the Christian sect actually was implicated), and thus also went down in history as starting the Roman "tradition" of persecuting Christians (as opposed to persecuting the joint group of Jews and Christians). I would suggest that the main Nero article has a summary of what modern historians generally believe (whatever that is, if it's not what I summarized), and that you move all the detailed discussion (which is fascinating!) to the separate article on the fire per se. --Psm 02:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nero as first persecutor

Also, I think the Christian tradition is a bit misrepresented in this section. Though Nero is considered a major persecutor of Christians, he is definitely not universally considered the FIRST. There is a reason that Stephen is mentioned as the first martyr, and this occurs during the rule of Claudius.

To back up this statement, we have one quotation from Tertullian which hardly counts as a summary of Christian opinion. Furthermore, we have no indiciation whether Tertullian meant that Nero was the first persecutor or the first MAJOR persecutor.

As it stands, the section just seems like way to discredit Christian tradition. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The section says "often" and not "universally." Nero was considered the antichrist by many in early christian literature and him being labeled as the "first persecutor" and the killer or peter and paul comes up all the time. The section lists its sources. If they happen to contradict, that's the sources' fault. If you have other sources, please present them.

(BTW, Stephen lived under Tiberius)

As for "first" or "first major". Tertullian says "first". Also, we have no idea if Nero's persecution was major. It could have been as few as four or as many as hundreds. How many does it take to be "major"?

The truth is slippery. We really have no idea what happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC).Hoshidoshi 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tertullian States Nero was the First to use Rome's Sword against the Church, it does not at all contradict, the Eialier persacurtions DOcumented in Acts as they where not done with the Authority of Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image license questionable

In asserting public domain rights for the "graffiti" image used in this article, it is said that the image is a:

...copy of ancient graffiti depicting Nero. Original author died over 1800 years ago, thus public domain.

In the wake of the Copyright Term Extension Act and other moves to extend the lifetime of copyrights - perhaps even retroactively - I dispute the suffiency of the current license. New legislation pending in congress would likely remove this image from the public domain, and Wikipedia will have to obtain permission from the author or his heirs if Wikipedia wishes to use it. As a likely heir of the author, I demand its immediate removal. Bill Oaf, Esq.

Very week, abstract argument. Since the author died 1800 years ago, we're all likely heirs. Plus, you can't demand anything on "pending" legislation.Hoshidoshi 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nero assaulting citizens?

It has often been written that Nero and his friends would sometimes go out at night, "prowling the streets of Rome and rob or beat senators". How much of this is true? As far as I can tell the article makes no mention of this, but it's a story that has frequently been attributed to him. Has no-one bothered to write it into the article yet, or was it omitted on purpose? It may just be a myth of course. --Steerpike 23:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Many sources speak of how Nero liked to go out and party with the plebs in public. Tacitus writes that early in Nero's reign (early 55), he would go out with a gang and beat and rob senators until senators started also started rolling with gangs themselves. (Tacitus 13.25) It's an odd story indeed. Cassius Dio reports a similar tale. He claims that Nero would go out in public and, being a celebrity, chaos would break out. (History 61.8-9) Dio adds that Nero would assault the public on the street and break into people's houses and shops making the whole city unsafe.

How much is true? Like almost everything about Nero, nobody knows. Tacitus is a hostile secondary source using hostile primary sources. Dio is a hostile tertiary source using hostile primary and secondary sources. To me, it sounds like historians resented Nero sucking up to the plebs and wanted to claim it was a public safety issue, but this is only my opinion. At the same time, like all emperors, Nero probably did send goons to scare political rivals. Again, this is just my opinion.

Was it omitted on purpose? No. The article can't include everything. If true, the event doesn't seem to affect much. If people think its important, it can be added (perhaps to the Consolidation of Power section).Hoshidoshi 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also a reference to the accusation in Pliny the Elder, who says that Nero treated his bruises with "thapsia" to avoid showing that he'd been fighting. EALacey 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hoshi, I think it's very unfair to characterize Tactius as a "hostile" source, considering that he's probably the most impartial of the ancient sources. In fact, YOU use him several times to justify how Nero rushed relief for the Great Fire, hardly a hostile statement. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is completely fair to call him hostile and nearly every modern historian agrees that he is a hostile source. Tacitus hates Nero. He just happens to be very detailed and usually fairer than Suetonius on Nero. There are several places in his work that show clear slander and malicious intent. But, for many events, he's all we've got. Now, on the fire, one of the things that makes people trust Tacitus's words is because he is a hostile source. If a hater of Nero admits that Nero did a good deed, than the good deed probably happened.Hoshidoshi 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this consensus of modern historians viewing Tacitus as hostile? I'm somewhat versed with the scholarship and have seen no such claim. Now if your view is that Tactius *must* be hostile b/c he writes ill of Nero, that is demonstrating an internal bias. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with writing ill; it has to do with misleading the reader. For instance, take Annals 14.2. In this, Tacitus mentions that Fabius Rusticus (who Tacitus himself claims is the most sensationalist of all historians) says that Nero lusted after his mom. Even though the public and all other sources including the insider Cluvius Rufus say the opposite, he reports it anyway. Perhaps one would argue that Tacitus is the type to simply give all points of view no matter how ridiculous. Ah, but he's not. If we check out Annals 12.67, Tacitus claims that is abundantly clear how Agrippina killed Claudius. Now, from Suetonius' Life of Claudius, we learn that details aren't clear at all. Tacitus is caught in a lie. Another, take Annals 15.49. Tacitus claims Nero banned Lucan's poetry. Yet in Suetonius' Life of Lucanus, we have an opposite take with Lucan insulting Nero and Nero not reacting at all. Tacitus purposely did not report a story in order to make Nero look bad. Tacitus may be the least biased, but he is still biased. There's even situations where Tacitus contradicts himself between the Annals and the Histories.

Now, if you simply want some modern authors who say the same thing, you can check out Edward Champlin, Nero, 36-52.Hoshidoshi 02:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see someone is reading Ted Champlin; but do remember that much of what Champlin is describing is not "the facts", but Nero's PoV on himself; which we should present as such, not something Wikipedia asserts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that ultimately, the story is of little consequence to the article. Interesting reference from Pliny though. Thanks! --Steerpike 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars

Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Nero In BBC ROME

In the program Rome on BBC, Nero kills hid wife Poppaea, because he was mad. when she mentioned him dropping the septer preforming at a theather he killed her. Also Nero made a slaveman a woman(tried) beacuse he first saw that slave when he killed Poppaea, and Poppaea used to say that "her beauty would outlive her" Also the documentary included Nero forcing rich aristocrats troughout the empire to testament 1/10 of ther wealth to him and committ suicide, or they would see their family killed. This was one of the reasons for the increased discontention. He sent this ultimatum for paying for his enormous constructions works in the capital(as you probebly know). Amongst others a 40 m statue of himself. Also Nero robbed the tempels of the empire and of the capital. This also created discontention within the Senate. The documatary also made the assumption that Nero, started all of this to become immortal.

They have taken quite a few liberties. Suetonius claims that Nero killed Poppaea in an outburst after she scolded him fror coming home late from the races. Modern historians, though, generally accept that, in reality, she probably died due to miscarriage complications. I've never read anything about the slave. A 1/10 tax? I've never read anything about that. A 40m statue of Nero? That story has some truth to it. The Collosus of Nero was commisioned under Nero, but was finished and erected later. We don't actually know if it was of him. It eventualy went up as a staue of Apollo, which fit with the theme of the Golden House. Everyone thought it looked like him, though. Whether Nero really meant to put up a big statue of himself is unknown. All done to be a god? Hard to say. On the one hand, Nero loved hanging with the common people and, when in Rome, denied all attempts to deify him. When he went to Greece, though, he definitely played the god role. Did he just understand Greek culture or was he completely full of himself by that point and humbler earlier? We don't know.Hoshidoshi 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Secular" historian

Some seem to insist on Tacitus being dubbed a "secular historian". The term is already problematic in modern times, as it implies neutrality vs. supposedly biased "Church historians". Of course, there is no such thing as neutrality as everyone has admitted or unadmitted biases and views. The term however is completely nonsense in the 1st century. How is Tacitus "secular"? I agree that it might be useful to point out his stance, which is inimical to Nero and to Christianity, but it is not "secular" (whatever that is supposed to mean nowadays).

My other edits have been reverted too without explantion. I will nonetheless explain my reasons:

• The silence of the New Testament on a certain issue is irrelevant to an article on Nero. We should report what sources report and not what they not report. The NT neither reports on Nero's accession or his death ... so what!
• The wording "Nero extensively punishing Christians" implies (I suppose unintionally) some sort of crime of these Christians as punishment is commonly thought of as the reaction to a crime. Tacitus, who is referred to here and who despises Christianity, however makes it clear that Nero used the Christians as scape-goats (which strangely has been removed too).

Therefore I will reinstate my changes, retaining later edits. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Secular" means non-religious. The word has no implication of neutrality. It simply implies that Tacitus was not a religious or church historian as opposed to the, say, Eusebius. Tacitus, writing in the early 2nd century, is secular in that he is not writing about religion or supernatural events. I don't understand your problem with the word at all. Whatever that is supposed to mean nowadays? It means non-religious.

The New Testament is very relevant as many people believe it is true. It is important to note that these early Christian writings are not supported or refuted by the Bible.

As for "punishing." Actually, the text does say punish. Tacitus claims Christians are punished for "hatred of mankind." The Christians may have been scape-goats, but they also may have been guilty. The truth is unknown. This is why it simply said they were punished after the fire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm with Str1977 on the first two of the three issues. (a) "Non-Christian" is far clearer than "secular"; the point on which these authors are being contrasted with the New Testament and church fathers is that they were non-Christian, not that they were non-religious or uninterested in religion. "Non-Christian" is also arguably more accurate than "secular". Tacitus and Suetonius do write about religious issues and events a modern reader might consider "supernatural"; and can one really apply the descriptor "secular historian" to Dio, who claims Apollo a deity encouraged him in a dream to write his history? (b) The article is 78kb long and does not benefit from tagential digressions. If we say that the Ascension of Isaiah is the earliest source to suggest Nero killed an apostle, there's no need to mention earlier texts which don't.

On Nero and the Christians, since Tacitus says that some Christians "confessed" (to something) and that those executed were convicted beforehand, it seems fine to me to write "Tacitus describes Nero as having punished Christians". Tacitus also clearly represents this as an attempts to throw off suspicions that Nero himself was responsible for the fire, and it seems legitimate to mention that. EALacey 18:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. However, it doesn't justify our reverting my valid edits.

• You say "secular" means non-religious. Was Tacitus a non-religious man? Quite apart from that, it is irrelevant for a proper judgment on his work. The only issue where his religious views are relevant is that he as a non-Christian says certain things about Christ, Christians and their persecutor Nero.
• That the New Testament doesn't speak about things beyonds its scope (as the one narrative text, the Acts of the Apostles, stops before) makes the statement about its silence irrelevant. The Bible is no comprehensive compendium of early Christians but a collection of books each written with its own aim. Narrating Nero's persecution was not one of them.
• "Persecute" is correct either way. Your version insinuates that the Christians were guilty, a thing that Tacitus does NOT say. Your claiming here that they were is indeed strange and possible worse. Even if the truth were unknown (indeed, it is in a certain way) - that's irrelevant. We are relating what Tacitus reports - he doesn't say that they may be guilty. He says they were picked as scape goats. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

(After the edit conflict:)

EALacey, Thanks for weighing in and for supporting my first and second point.

As for the third: I know that Tacitus says that some Christians made such confessions but he clearly doesn't think them true, whatever the reason for such confessions.

In any case, can anyone claim that "persecute" is inaccurate in this context? It is at least a viable alternative to "punish", which has its problems (as related above). Why insist on the problematic wording? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing: Tacitus says "an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty" - however guilty of what? Guilty of setting the fire? Or guilty of being Christians? Consider this in comparison to the Rescript of Trajan to Plinius the Younger. Tacitus does not say: some Christians confessed and used this to pin the blame on the whole sect but that he did so and the first arrested were those pleading guilty. And then he continued with those not pleading guilty. Is this punishment ... or is it persecution? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I accept the point that "punish" may misleadingly imply Tacitus approves of the executions. However, I think "persecute" also introduces a non-Tacitean perspective. Could we all agree on a sentence avoiding both words? How about something like "The non-Christian Roman historian Tacitus states that Nero held Christians responsible for the fire of 64 and had them executed"? EALacey 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure EALacey, I have no particular attachement to the word "persecute".

As far as your alternative is concerned: to me it sounds a bit like Nero himself believed his claims. Also, by talking about unspecified "Christians" and then about "them executed", one could surmise that he accused a few Christians of arson and put them to death, when in fact he moved against all Christians in his reach. How about: "The non-Christian Roman historian Tacitus states that Nero *laid the blame for the fire on the Christians/blamed the Christian for the fire/accused the Christians of having started the fire* and had many *killed/executed*"

One more note to Hoshidoshi: We are already in the process of discussing this. You don't own the article and changes need not be approved by you beforehand. Down at the page it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I have just as much a right to change the article as you have. However, I am more than willing to discuss them with you, as I have above and you are welcome to join in with arguments. Hitherto, I must say, you have not provided any argument why my changes are wrong (in contrast to EALacey, who expressed concerns about the word "persecute"). Even if the previous version (the one you revert to) is okay, we can always make it better. That was and is my aim. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

1. On Tacitus and religion. Was Tacitus religious? We don't know. He doesn't talk about it. That's not the point. His histories are not religious. You might find a few spots where he talks about lightning crashing at certain points, but he does not talk about gods or the supernatural. That makes him secular. If you remove the word "secular", it sounds like he is included among Christian writers in the opening. That's why its there. In the "Christian tradition" section, it important to note that non-religious people also mention Christians. I don't understand the fuss over a perfectly good word that isn't misleading at all. I don't non-Christian in the opening because Christianity is, for the most part, outside of the scope of Nero.

2. On Christians and the fire. They are declared guilty and they are not declared innocent. Tacitus leaves it all open. Was is accident or arson? He doesn't know. Was it Nero? He doesn't know. Was it Christians? He doesn't know. I don't see what is wrong with the word punish. I don't think it implies guilt.

3. New Testament's silence on the death of Peter and Paul is relevant. I don't see why one would want that taken out when speaking of Christian tradition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Hoshidoshi,

could you please make it a standard procedure to sign your posts? Thanks!

Now concerning your points:

1. Does calling Tacitus a "non-Christian Roman historian" bear the danger that anyone thinks Tacitus a Christian? "His histories are not religious." I am afraid you haven't thought this issue through. What makes histories religious? Josephus' histories are not "religious" either. Strictly speaking, there is no such things as a religious and a secular historian scholar, unless this is brought about by the subject matter. Eusebius talks about Church history, Tacitus about Roman history. But even the latter does include religion.

2. Where does Tacitus declare them guilty of the fire. "Hatred of mankind" is just plain bigotry and maybe you can enlighten the articles on Hitler and Goebbels with your thoughts. Of course Tacitus doesn't know whether the fire started by accident or arson and who could have been the arson. However, the point is he does NOT say the Christians did it ... rather he says that evil evil Nero was blamed and that he shifted the blame to these evil evil Christians. Tacitus despises them both but he does simply not say what you want to include here.

3. Basically you are ascribing here to a narrow Protestant POV which claims the Bible as the only relevant sources on all things Christians. The New Testament does not cover the time of these events in its narrative. Letters might stem from the beginning of the persecution but they can give no clear picture.

Finally, "Christian tradition" is a bit fishy as a section anyway. The suprasection says "Nero and religion" (also a bad wording, as there is not one religion but many) - is this supposed to be "Nero in religious traditions"? Or is it Nero and how he treated religions? Is his divine aspirations and his relation to the Roman religion relevant? This all is unclear too. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You have the right to change it. Just have a legit reason. Pushing your religious agenda is not legit.Hoshidoshi 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never run in to anyone who would describe Tacitus' histories as anything but secular. This is in stark opposition to say, Persian histories, which combine myth, legend and the supernatural. What it is the problem with this word?

Punish. Perhaps this word can be changed. To torture and execute? That seems fine

New Testamate. I haven't heard a good reason why this should be excluded.Hoshidoshi 19:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You say that you "don't own the page" but then you claim a special status because you "have put it much more research than (I)". That's a perfect example of trying to OWN the article. The three tiny bits I changed are not of such a kind that they require an in-depth study of Nero (and as such "uncited" is clearly a ridiculous point to raise. I raised my point on the basis of common sense and what sources were already there). However, don't treat me like I an ignoramus because I am not.

You are claiming to be willing to talk but you shower me with accusations instead of AGF ("Pushing your religious agenda", "irrational"). BTW, a "religious POV" is not illegal on WP. Sure I have a POV but so have you. What is not in order and what I have not tried to do is have the article espouse a POV. It should be NPOV! Your preferred version indeed had POV problems (implying, confirmed by your postings above, that Tacitus held the Christians were guilty of the fire.

"I have never run in to anyone who would describe Tacitus' histories as anything but secular." - but that's not the point. I did not say he was not a "secular historian", I said that this is a useless label. "non-christian" is clearer and provides any information without sneaking in any supposed neutrality or supposed superioty. To restate this: Tacitus is secular in as much as he writes about worldly (that's what secular means) history. In this vein, Plutarch is a secular writer too when he writes about Caesar, despite his position at Delphi. When he writes about specifically religious questions, he is not. As I said, it is a useless label. Especially in antiquity which knows of no distinction of that kind - it is a Jewish and especially Christian idea.

The NT should not be excluded. It just has nothing to say on this. Maybe we should list all books that have nothing to say on the topic? This article will become very long.

So instead of telling me to slow down, maybe you should take a look at WP:AGF and rethink your ownership of the article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand your preference for "secular" over "non-Christian", when the only relevant fact conveyed by "secular" is that the authors were "non-Christian". Any other implications the word "secular" has are beside the point even if accurate. (When Tacitus attributes Sejanus' influence over Tiberius to divine anger against Rome, I think a description of his history as "secular" is at least possible to doubt, which "non-Christian" is not.)

As for the silence of the New Testament, that is already stated by "The apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah ... is the first text to suggest that Nero killed an apostle." If the point of mentioning the NT explicitly is to imply that its silence casts doubt on the claim that Nero killed an apostle, then that needs a modern scholarly source to avoid the article containing OR. EALacey 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Tacitus and the word secular- under the Christian tradition section, I would not have a problem with calling him non-Christian, but in the opening, it places the wrong tone on the article. There are Pagan (Oracles), Jewish (Talmud) and Christian histories of Nero. Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio, despite being biased are none of these. They are secular. Yes, Josephus is a secular historian when speaking of Nero, despite his religious views. He doesn't mentions supernatural events, myths or legends when talking about Nero. Eusebius, on the other hand, discusses many, many supernatural events and legends.

2. He does not say one way or the other whether Nero or Christians are guilty of arson. He is very careful here. He says Nero placed guilt on them because of their "hatred of mankind". Its a weird passage.

3. Narrow? I'm for including not excluding. Look, many people including Christians are going to come to this page looking for information on Nero and Christianity. Many people believe Nero killed Peter and Paul. In truth, it probably didn't happen. But, who knows, maybe it did. Its important that they know that the Bible doesn't cover it. Stories about Nero killing Peter and Paul come from other sources that were not considered canon. That's important Those sources are listed. People can read all about Nero cutting off Paul's head and having milk come out and Nero being the anti-christ. Its all there. I just don't want anyone thinking that Nero killing Peter and Paul is in the Bible, which many people do.Hoshidoshi 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Oracles are not historians. The Talmud-writers are not historians. There are Christian historians but these all came later, the only one qualifying would be Luke (for the Acts) Tacitus, Suetionius and Cassius Dio are historians and they are not secular (other than because they write on wordly matters). There is no such thing as secular meaning non-religious in Antiquity. (BTW, I don't know your Persian histories, but these sound rather like legends.) Mentioning supernatural events a) is not the issue. b) "your" "secular" historians do so too. Eusebius doesn't talk about miracles all the time either (they form a rather meagre part of his history). I see your point about making a distinction further up in the article and agree - but non-Christian would do there too, as the others immediately mentioned, from which you want to distinguish, are Christian writers.

2. So why do want the article to imply that he says Christians might have been guilty of arson when he does not. He clearly states that Nero used them as scapegoats. If you want to add a note about the claim of "hatred of mankind" I won't stand in your way. Something like "blamed them for the fire and accused them of "hatred of mankind" is okay.

3. Thanks for sharing but it probably did happen. What is or is not canon is completely irrelevant. The "belief" that Peter and Paul were killed at Rome at about that time is well-founded. Nevertheless, the New Testament is irrelevant to that as it has nothing to say on this. Maybe we should point out that the Old Testament, and Josephus, and Livius and the Talmud have nothing on this. (About what is in the Bible: I cannot read others people's mind as you can. Some hints are indeed included in the NT: Peter in Rome (his first letter), Peter being killed (Gospel of John) - of course nothing about Nero being involved.) But, despite your stone-walling attitude I am willing to consider compromises. We can add a note to the sentence saying that the first book relating this is the Ascension of Isaiah that the Acts of the Apostles stop with Paul's arrival in Rome. Either in a footnote or, if we can keep it really really short in the main text.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1. History is any narrative of past events. The Oracles are history, the Talmud is history, the Bible is history. It may be religious filled with supernatural events, but it is history nonetheless. When we are talking about Nero, there is a very clear distinction between secular history and religious history. The religious history has God as a character talking to people, people surviving executions and talk of Nero being the antichrist. The secular history does not. You seem to have odd definitions of common words. Please, look up "secular" and "history".

2. The article doesn't imply Christians burned the city. For the most part, the article claims it was an accident. If you had bothered to read the article and any of these texts before going around making changes, we wouldn't be in this mess. Tacitus is very careful in what he claims. He wants to claim nothing, but imply everything. He says he doesn't know if was an accident or arson. Then he says that Christians confessed and were killed. Then he also says it seemed as if Nero did it. It is purposely ambiguous. Maybe the Christians did it. Maybe Nero did it. Maybe it was an accident. According to Tacitus' history, it up in the air. Modern historians almost all agree it was an accident (though there are a few, not many, who think Nero or the Christians did it).

3. "Well-founded"?!?! Did you read a single source? They are all completely different, contradictry and laughable stories that were written hundreds of years after the events. This is why they were kept out of the Bible in the first place. I'm sorry, which story is this great foudnation? The one with God talking to Nero and Nero abiding? How about the one with milking spewing from Paul's neck and Paul surviving execution? How about all the ones claiming Nero is the antichrist? How about all the sources about Paul going west to Spain, but also Britian, but also not going west and being in Rome?

I'm sorry to come off as rude, but please, stop pushing what you learned from other people and READ A SOURCE. I have done considerable work to provide readers with all the texts and citations so they can read things and make up their own minds. It is quite easy- click a link and do some reading.Hoshidoshi 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hoshidoshi, you are absolutely acting like you own the article. You write "discussion, discussion, discussion" - you haven't provided good reasons against my changes. My last edits reflected the discussion. You completely ignore that another editor disagrees with you too.

I have no interest in discussion anything else but these few editing issues here. There is no use in talking about paintings with a someone who's blind. It is you who started with religious expressions (probably it never happened). Don't bother me with that.

Even if your relations about "secular" were true (and indeed oracles are not history but oracles ... unless a historian interprets them as vaticinia ex eventu and therefore considers them as sources. Anything can be a source, from a pot to a poem ... neither of these are histories)

Your distinction between secular and religious history is nonsense and irrelevant. WP does adhere to NPOV not to APOV (atheist POV).

I am sorry about your rudeness too - why don't you stop it. Why don't you stop your stonewalling valid edits. I have very few nuanced points that do not really change much of the article and are largely issues of wording. You have provided a single reason why MY wording is wrong. Simply stating YOUR version to be okay is not enough. And then you constantly blanket revert while I am inserting comprise solutions. For instance, e.g. the NT has nothing to say on the issue but still I am willing to include a short note ... but what do you do? You revert!

Also, it is not only extremely rude but also against WP policy (at the risk of repeating myself: AGF!!) what you are doing. You know sh** about my having read sources or not. Your comments clearly betray that your expertise lies in economics and not in history. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've let many of your changes stay. I don't own the article, but I do feel obligated to protect it from uninformed POVs.

Actually, Oracles are histories unless you actually think they are predicting the future (shutter to think). They are written after events and describe the past. They just claim to be written prior.

I have already told you that, in the opening, putting "non-Christian" in front of Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio creates the wrong tone for the article. There were hardly any Christians existing at the time and they have little to do with Nero. Nonetheless, their opinion does change modern opinions of Nero, but we don't want to overdo it. I've left it in the "Christian tradition" section as its about Christians. There is nothin wrong with the wrod "secular" and your offense to it is unfounded.

I have only stopped 2 edits. I believe "secular" in fine in the opening and the article needs to mention the NT is silent on Nero. No one should think that Christianity was ubiquitous during Nero's time and no one should think religious sources all say Nero killed Peter and Paul and was the antichrist. In fact, many modern historians say the "persecution" of Christians by Nero either didn't really happen or was played up.Hoshidoshi 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your repeating yourself clearly demonstrates that you think you own this article. You are not the arbiter of what changes are allowed and which aren't. And you mix this attitude with constant unfounded attacks. I have made my case and another editor has largely agreed with me. But Your Highness says it's "uninformed".

Regardless of what you say about secular (and there are serious misconceptions in your talk), "non-Christian" is more precise. If calling Tacitus et al. "non-Christian" is the wrong tone, then we just as well omit it or just say Roman (since there were so few Christians anyway). On the other hand, if we need to distinguish them from the Christians that follow then the best choice is "non-Christian". But you don't seem to care about this but rather about protecting your chosen word. You put it there and there it must stay since you OWN the article.

And you are so mistaken about oracles. I did not say that they accurately predict the future (though I cannot a priori exclude this) - I say that oracles, if taken as "vaticinia ex eventu" (I hope you know what this is), can serve as sources for actual events. This practice is not unproblematic methodologically, but still it is useful. An oracle that fails to come true is taken as evidence that it was genuine.

As far as the persecution by Nero is concerned, historians say that about the alleged persecution by Domitian but not the by Nero.

In any case, you have violated the 3RR and have been reported. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I still have no idea why you have a problem with the word "secular." Its a very basic, unloaded term. Still, for the sake of ending this silly war, what if we remove secular and change the "and" to "along with" in "These accounts follow the secular histories of Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio and a number of early Christian writers." That way it'll read: "These accounts follow the histories of Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio along with a number of early Christian writers". His eliminates any confusion and removes the word "secular", that you, for some odd reason, disagree with.Hoshidoshi 17:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, not that its relevant to our feud, but there are pleanty of modern historians that believe there was no Christian persecution by Nero and that passage by Tacitus was either added by later Christian scribes or influenced by Christians who were contemptorary with Tacitus.Hoshidoshi 17:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have clearly stated my objections to the word. They were 1) the anachronistic nature of the term 2) the non-descriptiveness 3) the wrongness of the notion that they don't deal with the supernatural 4) the implication of being somehow more objective 5) the (IMHO) wrongness of the whole notion of classifying historians into two camps of "secular" and "religious" - every human being has views, so have historians then and now. But there are more than just two camps.

Also I have clearly stated that the alternative "non-Christian" is actually more expressive - quite apart from any merit or non-merit of "secular".

As for your second posting: sure you can find some proponent of any odd view. But the suggestion that Christians added the passage in Tacitus, quite apart from having zero evidence and methodologically unprovable, is so silly that not very many would consider it. Sure, Christians did write about their "hatred of mankind" and their "superstition" etc. etc. Doesn't seem right to me. But, as you said, that's totally irrelevant to our dispute. You will not convince me, I will not convince you. Go in peace, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and yes, I do consider your giving up "secular" as a sign of good will, which made me withdraw my report. — Str1977 — continues after insertion below

I don't condone edit warring, but "secular" is a perfectly valid word in this context, and it certainly isn't anachronistic. The fact that Hoshi broke 3RR before you did doesn't mean you have any sort of upper hand at all on that point. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a battleground; if you have some issue with the usage of a word, you should bring it up with Webster's, not Wikipedia. I advise taking this article off of your watch list for a week or two and gaining some perspective about this, lest this issue find its way onto the list of lamest edit wars ever. Kafziel ^Talk 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What still remains is the issue of whether or how to cover the silence of the New Testament. But I will not press it, as it was the least important of my three initial issues.

Others are welcome to weigh in. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On the question of covering the silence of the NT, I agree with Str1977. I don't see a good argument yet about why we should report on what the New Testament says, esp. since it doesn't say anything about the matter. The argument presented that its "very relevant as many people believe it is true," is not complelling. So what if they do? People generally don't believe fictional works so why elevate the NT to that degree of importance? To go out of the way to make a point that "it is important to note that these early Christian writings are not supported or refuted by the Bible" seems to be a point that is not justified except by a desire to push that POV. Lots of things are nto supported or refuted by the Bible. Why concern ourselves with what it says on this matter--or any matter--unless the topic is specifically about what it says, which is often contradictory, or if the point is esp. noteworthy for historical reasons (i.e. proves or refutes a point that is commonly held to be true, and is sufficenty about that very issue). I understand what you are trying to do, however, ironically, by doing so, though, you are imparting a degree of importance to the NT that it objectively doesn't have. Unless there is a better reason to report on what the NT says or does not say on this matter, I say leave it out as irrelevant and trivial.Giovanni33 19:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gio, don't try to wash your clothes on this article (wonder how you got here). The NT is not a fictional work but a collection of a variety of books, some of which contain a narrative about actual people, which one may find reliable or not. But I agree: that many people believe in its content is no proper reason when the book doesn't say anything on the issue. The question is not the importance (or lack thereof) of a book in general but always whether it is relevant to a certain issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I move this whole off topic discussion to your talk page, Gio. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, what exactly do you mean by "wash your clothes on this article (wonder how you got here)" ? El_C 06:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

El C, Gio and I have quite a history here on WP. As far as I can see he never posted to or edited this article and I have the strong feeling that he came here through my "user contributions" (which in itself is not wrong). What I meant by "wash your clothes" is that apart from his one line on the issue he then proceeds to beat one of his usual drums, the New Testament as fiction (he once edit warred to have the word "story" included in various articles). I hope this clears things up. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

what I meant is that

Actually I found this article only because I noticed it on the 3RR report you made against another editor, and that make me curious to know what the dispute was. My comment here was actually in agreement with your edits, after you had asked for others to comment (notice I did not even join in making any edits to the actual article). Also, while I knew you would diagree with my POV/reasoning behind my comment to agree with you, others would not automatically understand, hence my explication. The comments are relevant to my reasoning for supporting the possition of not reporting what the NT does not say on this issue. If I "beat my drums" then so do you, everytime you explain a consistent line of reasoning. Nothing wrong or special there. No need for the "don't wash your clothes" comment, in my opinion, although I don't take any offense. I will say that its not true that I edit warred to have the word stories included in several articles, as you say--at least not that I can remember. My recollection is that I found the use of the word "stories" the best solution to a problem over the language of teh introduction of the Christianity article, when talking about the accounts of the life of Jesus, etc. Since all that we know are based on stories. Stories can be true or false, but stories they are. This is different than calling it fictional, although I do think it is largely fictional, as I've argued, which is relevent to the point of relying on it here.Giovanni33 01:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The silence of the NT on Paul's and Nero is a little different than other issues of silence. People are attracted to the story because the NT has a hole. Acts ends with Paul arrested and he "appeals to Caesar." He arrives in Rome and is then released (perhaps put under house arrest). It ends on a cliffhanger. What next? The last we hear of Paul, he's "in bonds" (maybe in Rome) writing Philippians, but he also says in Romans that he wanted to go to Spain. How did he go from freely preaching to "bonds"? Does he make it to Spain? No one knows. So, we have all these other sources that fill in the blanks in different ways. Acts of Paul says he was preaching, Nero arrests him, ordered his beheading, Paul survives (God protects him and milk spews from his neck) and then he leaves to go to Spain. This story fills in all the blanks (Rome, bonds, Spain), but is a little weird. Acts of Peter says he was arrested, but is released and goes west (again, Rome, bonds, Spain). But it also has God telling Nero to stop killing Christians (which he abides by). Again, the story is a little weird. The Muratorian fragment and Clement also say Paul goes west. Eusebius then writes that Paul was beheaded, but not by Nero personally and nothing like in Acts of Paul. After that, its accepted by quite a few early Christian writers than, in fact Nero did know Paul personally and beheaded him. Sources violently contradict and many people use the Bible as the authority to resolve these contrdictions. The Bible, though, is silent, thus we are left with contradiction. That's the point of mentioning silence.Hoshidoshi 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but despite that some people regard the Bible as an authority, 1. it is not reliable--even less so than suspect secular sources that are contradictory, and 2. the bible does not resolve the contradictions either, as it remains silent on the question. Now, if it was really authoritative, and one would expect this source to resolve the contradictions, then I agree it might be interesting to mention that it remains silent on the matter. However the nature of the bible is such that it simply does not stand up in import that justifies reporting on what this ultimate story book of contradictions has to say on historical matters---unless its an article about the stories of the bible, and esp. not when it says nothing on it. Its no news that the bible is full of holes and contradictions, and doesn't stand up to plain logic, much less questions of fact.Giovanni33 21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoshi

the NT doesn't have a hole, or rather: not the hole you are talking about. Acts ends not with a release of Paul (as you seem to think) but with his arrival in Rome and his being put under house arrest while awaiting his trial. Tradition (or should I say some sources that later were generally accepted) says he was released later until Nero's persecution caught up with him. However, the important thing to Luke, the author of Acts, was the arrival of the great missionary in the big city. As Acts is written as a history of the Christian mission it makes perfect sense to end something that begun with eleven men and a few women in an Jerusalem upper room with Paul's arrival in Rome. There actually is no cliffhanger from the perspective of Luke and his contemporaries (who either knew perfectly well what happend or, if one subscribed to an early date, had not yet time enough to find out). Of course, we would like to know but that's hardly a valid criterion.

The Silence of the NT has nothing to do with the variety of existing accounts, which BTW do not contradict as violently as you make it out to be. Those you mentioned agree on basic lines (the problematic "weird" bits are rather that beheaded people commonly don't travel to Spain, and that Nero did not, as far as we know, actually put an end to persecution - it rather simply faded out - that God would talk to him is only weird in as much as I wonder how the author got to know this, apart from asking Nero). But this this is irrelevant to the issue: the NT doesn't talk about an event outside its scope (and I think I have already suggested a compromise I could live with, didn't I?)

Gio,

I was just curious how you got there. No begrudging involved. However, we do indeed disagree on the reasoning by which we come to an identical conclusion. I will say nothing more on this and simply ignore your malicious snides. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What tradition? Generally accepted by whom? You really need to stop with what you've heard and really look at the text. Read the source. Acts ends just as I say. Paul is released. There is no mention of house arrest and no mention of a trial. Some people assume house arrest because people come to his house to listen to him speak, but, then again, the house is "rented" like he is a free man. Do not contradict as bad as I think? They all say completely different things. Some say Nero knew Paul, others say no. Some say Paul died, others don't. Some say Nero is the antichrist, some don't. Its all over the map. I don't know where you get these weird ideas from. None are supported by texts. You said Nero killing Paul was well established and that is just wrong. Persecution faded out? We have no idea if it faded out or ended in one day (or if it even happened). Its all unknown and that's the whole point. The truth is unknown. For those that believe the NT would solve it, they are out of luck. (Also, I like mentioning the NT is silent because many may believe these stories are in the Bible.)Hoshidoshi 07:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoshi, though this squibble is quite irrelevant to the article - stop lecturing me like a child. I have read the texts, though it's been a while since I have put my nose into Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter and the like. The canonical acts do not end in a release but in Paul's arrival preaching and the not that he stayed in his habitation for two years (without saying anything about how these ended - that is speculation).

The truth is unknown but that doesn't mean that we can wildly speculate without regard for the sources (as bad as they might be).

Also, great that you overlook words like "probably" and the possibility that we might judge differences differently.

And great that you overlook the actually relevant issue - relevant to the article. I made a compromise offer, which you first reverted and then ignored. How about it!? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, footnote added on where the NT leaves Paul and Peter.Hoshidoshi 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about Paul in Rome, but not about Peter in Antioch. 1 Peter has Peter in Babylon, which is most probably Rome, and this is generally considered the last biblical occurence of him (2 Peter being considered as pseudepigraphical). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the footnote hopefully for the last time. Peter being in Rome and the "Babylon" ref is a HUGE can of worms- Prot vs. Cath war on this issue. I tried to make the footnote nuetral with no conclusions made.Hoshidoshi 07:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't work. You cannot make a footnote neutral by ommitting the actual last reference. IMHO the "war" on this issue is irrelevant, as only a few Protestant writers actually resist the identification of Babylon as Rome - quite in contrast to historians (even "secular" ones - ;-) ) in any case, the identification is not worded as a fact but given as a common identification. And I think those Protestants resisting the identification with Rome (for obvious reasons) AFAIK opt for a literal interpretation as Babylon. All in all, mentioning Antioch as the second-to-last known location (not as your version wrongly has the "last known" location) is not needed, certainly not relevant in regards to Nero. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is on Nero and is not a place to push a religious POV. Saying Babylon is Rome is certainly not a settled case. The sources that support Babylon being Rome are post-1 Peter. Obviously, with Jesus saying "you are the rock on which I build by Church", many Caths want Peter to die in Rome and many Prots do not. The bias is double-edged (I'm athiest, I have no stake in this war). "Common" or not (I don't think the "common" person is aware of this fight), obvious or not, saying "Babylon" is "Rome" is an interpretation. Now, please, let the article rest. I added the footnote as a compromise and to put this issue to rest, but if you're going try to use it to push a religious POV, I'd just as rather delete it.Hoshidoshi 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a religious POV but the opinion of historians. The sentence is nuanced enough to allow for those who, for their own religious POV, reject the identification. It is stated as an interpretation, the one most commonly made. If we removed everything from this article that is interpretation the article would shrink considerably. Not that it would be in line

You say the sources are post 1 Peter. The sources are from all times, including modern scholarship, which is in Wiki-terms more important ("secondary sources" etc.).

To call Antioch Peter's "last know location" is factually wrong and also original research.

If you are troubled by this article being about Nero (I agree) and this going beyond this scope - you insisted on having such a note. But you cannot have a note and ignore the relevant content for the note. And you cannot manipulate the evidence by ignoring a supposedly "controversial" item.

That's like writing that the Freimaurerkantate is Mozart's last piece of music because of controversies surrounding the Requiem - only that the reference to Peter in Antioch points to roughly 15 years prior to the fire and the persecution. Even if we didn't have Romans, we wouldn't just use Galatians as the "last location".

WP is supposed to transport knowledge and not some "we do not know" fad (especially when our situation is better than you make it out to be).

As an atheist you might not care whether Peter was in Rome (which makes your opposition all the more strange) but you cannot claim neutrality, as you have your own views on things just as everyone (here we are back again to secular).

Finally, you say you wanted the footnote as a compromise. I appreciate that. I suggested that as well. But we cannot have a compromise when the note gives a wrong picture and ignores a piece of evidence. (see above) If you want to delete it - that's okay by me. I said all along that we do not need this. Better nothing than a wrong picture. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, WP is supposed to transport knowledge, but this really is a "we do not know" situation with big consequences if one goes one way or the other. JC says Peter was crucified and JC says Peter is the rock. The whole problem is early Christian lit wants Peter to be martyred in Rome so the church there has legitimacy. There is a motive to interpret the text in a certain way and big consequences if one does. If we accept JC's words (as many people do) and one accepts Peter is in Rome, who needs to do the crucifying for everythying to fall into place for the church? Nero. Who is scapegoating whom now? In truth, though, early Christian lit contradicts and is problematic (that's the whole reason much of it was rejected from the NT). If we isolate the NT from early Christian lit (as many people do), we have no idea if Peter was in Rome. There are several scholars that say Babylon isn't Rome. Only with early Christian lit, which already says Nero killed Peter, do we get Babylon=Rome.

Anyway, I'll delete the footnote all together and hopefully this issue will finally rest.Hoshidoshi 14:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole controvery/issue is insteresting and there shoudl be some article where this debate is discussed, and reported on. Perhaps a footnote here pointing to the article would be a good idea?Giovanni33 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Christians Usualy use Secular to me Not Christian or Of the World, therefore Tacticus does count as Secular.

Mentioning that the New Testament doesn't ention it is completly Valid, reading to muhc into that fact isn't, point is the NEw Testament doesn't Contradict it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

The article is very well cited- I especially like that it relies heavily on ancient texts. Overall, a lot of hard work and effort has gone into this article, and it is most definitely a valuable source of information on Nero. ErleGrey 22:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

Does anyone know for sure what his ethnic background was? I mean, I'd always taken it that he was Italian in terms, but someone once told me that his surname 'Ahenobarbus' means he was Germanic. Can anyone clarify please? Mogtheforgetfulcat 23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

'Ahenobarbus', according to legend, is a Roman name that means "bronze beard". "Barba" means beard in Latin. "Barbarus" is foreigner in Latin, which is probably why your friend thinks its German.

People from the Ahenobarbus family apparently became famous for having redish hair. The name, though, is very significant in Roman legend and history and becomes almost synonymous with republican struggle against tyranny. In Plutarch's Parallel Lives, Life of Aemilius Paulus 25, Plutarch claims that during the republican expulsion of Tarquin (the last Roman King), a loyal Roman soldier is greeted by Castor and Pollux who change his hair color to red and give him the name 'Ahenobarbus'. Lucius Ahenobarbus (Nero's great-great grandfather who Nero shares a name with) was a loyal senator who supported Pompey and dies defending him and the Republic against Julius Caesar. Lucan (Nero's poet friend) writes about Lucius Ahenobarbus in his poem 'Pharsalia' as a symbol of the Republic. Ahenobarbus dies cursing Caesar and supporting the Republic. This firey poem involving Nero's many names and ancestors was a bit much for Nero, which probably led to Nero banning the poem (Lucan then joins the Pisonian conspiracy to overthrow Nero, is caught and is killed).

Cool name, right? Hoshidoshi 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hoshidoshi, many thanks for that mate. I probably should have googled around a bit I know, but I wouldn't have done as good as that anyway. Yep, a name fit for an emperor! Mogtheforgetfulcat 06:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Surprised by this article

This article paints Nero as not-nearly as barbarous and cruel as his contemporaries painted him. Is this really true? Is there no factual basis for the legends of his cruelty? I know the article states that he killed family members and early Christians, but for those days, it seems practically par for the course if you're an emperor. - Cyborg Ninja 03:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer is that no one knows for sure. The original sources nearly universally paint him in a negative light, though modern scholarship questions the impartiality of those sources. Djma12 ^(talk) 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've editted the intro to better reflect this. Yes, modern scholarship calls into question the extent of his alleged atrocities, but the original sources are (nearly) universal in their condemnation. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Nero's surviving contemportaries (Lucan and Seneca) only praised him. The later surviving ancient sources are the ones that condemn him, mostly on a personal level. The article lists all the major bad things he supposedly did, but they are balanced by events of historical importance (i.e. Parthia). What specific negative aspect about Nero do you think are glossed over? I personally cited every single line of the article to its historical source. What factual basis is lacking? We have a whole section about his power consolodation and another one on how the Christians thought he was the anti-Christ. Hoshidoshi 22:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if you want to dwell on biased sources, Lucan and Seneca are about as biased as you can get. (Well, that and Suetonius.) I'll address the other statements in a separate section. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All of the sources are biases. That's what makes Nero so difficult and fascinating. Anyway, let's not get in a revert war. I have worked on the article for a year. I certainly understand the pain of having work reverted, but the info needs to be correct. Bring up the issues one at a time. I've cited every line of the article, so it's fairly easy to check my work. If you have an issue, please bring it up with opposing citation so I can read the source. Thanks.Hoshidoshi 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The way to avoid an edit war is to avoid summarily reverting edits that you disagree with. PerWP:OWN and WP:BOLD, I don't need to have my edits approved by you before proceeding. I'll clarify my positions a little more so that we can debate them in an open fashion, but let's avoid the fast-approaching WP:3RR situation. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ennumerating Changes

• Alright, let's start with the intro. It does the article a great disservice to only list out Nero's accomplishments when he was, in actuality, a controversial figure both then and now. Furthermore, it is important to place in context that few of the surviving original texts, and none of the major original texts, place him in a favorable light. The old intro brushes on this, but uses dismisses phrases such as "popular history" to the point where it is fairly POV. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The intro fits things in three paragraphs. The first is his name, lineage and rise. The second are his factual major accomplishments and events. The third is historical perception, ancient and modern. You've added a few things that are incorrect and misplaced. You claim his rule was marred with reports of "corruption, extravagence, and systematic persecution." Persecution of any group was minor, despite later Christian claims. There just weren't that many Christians. Additionally, the orginal sources put little emphasis on this (1 paragraph in Tacitus). Persecution is just not true, plus its mentioned in the next paragraph anyway. Corruption? Sources mention little of corruption. Cassius Dio, our worst source, mentions Nero stealing funds, but that's it. In fact, there's more sources for Nero fighting corruption than being part of it. Extravagence? Yes, lots of reports of this, but was his rule marred by it? No, the people loved him. He was Roman Emperor; they all lived a life of extravagence. He was kicked out by Vindex (due to a tax revolu) and by Galba who wanted rule for himself. Your sentence makes it seem like the nature of his "corrupt, extravagent" rule led to his expulsion. That's just not true

Now, I don't know why you're removing the line about Neor being popular. He was very popular, which is repeated by both ancient and modern sources and that's an important fact to go along with the fact that sources condemn him. And please, stop reverting. It's a pain.Hoshidoshi 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the line about Nero being popular, especially in the East, is still present. If you want VERY popular, that's a POV statement that is NOT supported by the ancient text. And yes, needing to revert an afternoon's work is a gigantic pain. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

An afternoon? I've spent countless hours over a year on this, verifying every line. I've got you beat on that. Yeah, it stings when stuff gets reverted. You're doing it to me right now, get it? I had "quite popular" which is supported by the sources. He also popular in Rome too. There is lots of support for this. Read the cites.

And you've done a great job too, but it's a sign that you have too much WP:OWN towards an article when the word VERY can't be removed without drama. And I agree, he was also popular in Rome, but let's work on wording that's less flamboyant than what was originally there? Djma12 ^(talk) 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as we remove the whole "marred" sentence from paragraph 2, which I think go too far into the negative, I'm fine the changes to the intro.Hoshidoshi 03:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fair. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant delete that whole sentence. 1. His contemporaries only spoke well of him. Tac, Suet and Dio aren't contemporaries. 2. It his reputation that was marred, not his rule (the info is already in the next paragraph.

Fair enough. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• The Administrative Policies section is informative, but filled with excessive editorialization out of the scope of the original text, and downright mis-citation. To wit:

1. The Suetonius which is referenced never states "at the expense of the rich and powerful", and the stating that this is implied is original research.

The citation was to him being obsessed with being popular. The whole section supports the first line.

The whole section definitely does not support this piece of original research. Find a specific citation for it or keep it out.

1. Furthermore, the Tactius citation used to support "Nero worked to protect the rights of the lower" is off an individual case and is incorrectly generalized as a policy. We can state exactly what he did without adding the editorial.

Again, its the section that supports that line, not that citation.

Again, find a specific citation or keep out original research.

1. "Limiting public corruption was a major part of Nero’s rule" is especially egregious, b/c no where in the original sources is this stated as a major policy thrust of Nero's administrative rule. He did alter tax collection, but this is far from "a major part of Nero's rule."

Again, as above.

per above.

1. "for fear that the venue was being used as a method to extract bribes." is a simple misciation. Tacitus is clear in the citation that Nero was afraid that public entertainment was being used to bribe the public, not vice versa.

I'll read this again

Djma12 ^(talk) 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems if you can find SPECIFIC citations for your statements, but synthesizing information together into definitively POV statements counts as original research. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no big problems with the changes the Admin section.Hoshidoshi 03:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am open to suggestions to the intro but some more balanced wording is required to present the controvery surrounding Nero a little more neutrally. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, in my opipnion, speaking of Suetonius, Tacitus and Cassius Dio as the "major historians", while absolutely true, is misleading. We know that these guys were incredibly biased and filled with inaccuracies, but a novice reader might see that and say "hey, the major historians agree, it must be true." Just a thought.Hoshidoshi 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We know these guys are incredibly biased, but we base more than 80% of what we know of Nero from these guys. So the solution is that we tell it as it is -- a fact you addressed well with "some modern historians question the reliability of ancient sources."Djma12 ^(talk) 03:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but kind of also makes it sound like these were the only three guys on of the whole imperial period. I mean, we mention the big three sources by name, I hope people infer that they are the three major sources.Hoshidoshi 04:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but the only other sources from that general time period are poems and fragments -- far from the detail of, say, Tactius. I do see what you mean though. Even though they were the "major imperial historians", we should draw more attention to the fact that they were biased. Let's strengthen the "modern historians question" section by making it a separate paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djma12 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would go with "tyrany" instead of "corruption" for the first sentence of the third paragraph. Tacitus and Suetonius didn't want non-corrupt rulers, they wanted republican rule without emperors. (Anyway, to bed for me right now)Hoshidoshi 04:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mourning section

Much of the content in this section is already covered in a separate wiki article, Nero Redivivus Legend. As such, I have trimmed it per WP:STYLE. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have removed the block texts concerning the mourning of Nero for several reasons:

1. They unnecessarily clutter the section as they quote verbatim nearly all the sources favorable of Nero. If some reduced and cited version of this can be created, it would be greatly appreciated.
2. The linking of "Mourning" with Nero Redivivus creates the unsupported impression that public sentiment for Nero was such that the public wished his return. Almost all sources for the legend (Suetonius, Tacitus, the Sibylline Oracles, and early Christian text), speak of it with fear, that Nero would return to destroy Rome.

Djma12 ^(talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I believe you have gone way too far by eliminating this section. I will return it. Sources are not to be counted, but to be weighed. Yes, the sources you list hated Nero, but let's keep in mind that other people loved him. The mourning section is an essential balance of the probable slander that Nero received. You attempt to simplify the section by claiming it was all just a belief that Nero would return as the anti-Christ. This is untrue. There were large pro-Nero movements and uprisings. Otho and Vitellius wanted to link their names with his. People were erecting statues to him centuries after he lived, despite years and years of Flavian propaganda and Christian writing. Let's keep in mind that Nero did rule over a very peaceful and prosperous time in Roman history and was a Caesar

Having worked with you in the past, I have to say that it appears you have a POV agenda (I see a pro-Christian POV in your work). I urge you to please drop it. Nero was a real person and his rule needs to be factually separated from the legends of him being the anti-Christ and ruining Rome.Hoshidoshi (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a large segment of the population missed Nero and wanted Nero to return is supported by several pieces of evidence: -Otho's use of his surname -Vitellius' honoring of him -Tacitus speaking about the military's longing for him and saying the military liked Otho because he looked like Nero -Suetonius saying that the common person liked Otho because he looked like Nero -Vespasian's great efforts to defame Nero -Dio Chrysostom's writing -The Talmud -At least three major uprisings in support of him -Philostratus' writing -The many statues and icons of Nero that appear after his death

In fact, only Christian literature speaks about Nero's return fearfully (and not even universally; there was a least one pro-Nero Christian text). Tacitus and Suetonius mention it in a neutral fashion. The Sibylline Oracles, though claiming Nero would bring destruction, actually sort-of present it as a positive thing in places, considering that later books are written by Jewish individuals who wanted the destruction of a corrupt Rome.

Also, Nero never received damnatio memoriae (an official comdemnation of one's memory). Only one emperor ever received that- Domitian. Hoshidoshi (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then we should include *both* views within the section, and rename it as an "after death" section or something of the like. The current revision is completely POV as it creates the unwarranted appearance that Nero was universally mourned.

Oh, and Nero was declared damnatio memoriae, and I have several citations to prove.

Djma12 ^(talk) 00:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the following on the grounds of being OR:

• The statement "Through the civil war and well into the Flavian dynasty, public sentimentality for Nero continued. This was especially prevalent in the eastern provinces, where Nero was the most popular" is unsupported by the citations provided. Two citations from individual admirers does not constitute universal support, and the linking of the two constitutes OR. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• I've also added balancing quotations to the section. If you want to argue that the sources are unreliable -- they are no less unreliable than fragments from poets and admirers of Nero. At least they are from histories, rather than letters or poems. Either both views stay in, or they both go. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, please slow down. I am happy to argue each point individually, but right now you're changing several things at once and it is quite exhausting to keep track especially when you're not justifying your changes. I am going to revert things back for now and let's start one at a time. Let's not get in revert war. Right now, there's three issues on the table. Bring up more if you'd like, but slowly. 1) "Through the civil war and well into the Flavian dynasty, public sentimentality for Nero continued. This was especially prevalent in the eastern provinces, where Nero was the most popular" is unsupported by the citations provided." This is supported by the text. Philostratus' writing and 3 uprisings all point to popularity in the East (plus the Talmud). 2) Balance in the Mourning section- there is a reason why there is more positive quotes about Nero than negative. It's because the rest of the article heavily lists bad things. We already get that Suetonius doesn't like Nero. It all over the place. We're not learning anything new. The Mourning section is one place where the other perspective gets some space. BTW, Cassius Dio is a pretty poor source and should be used sparingly only when other sources are silent. The point of the Mourning section is to communicate that feelings were mixed on Nero. The lower class liked him and the upper class didn't. 3) Damnatio memoria is official condemnation of memory. Nero never got it. Reworking statues and coins happened all the time to all emperors. Everyone had rivals, plus there was economic incentive to do it. Damnatio memoria was law. You "link" is not justification.Hoshidoshi (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I am not the one creating a revert war -- I have not reverted anything. See WP:BOLD and WP:OWN.
2. One text by Philostratus does not support an universal statement. A less universal statement is fine, b/c it is source supported. If you want to speak about universal popularity, INCLUDE SOURCES.
3. Concerning the "Mourning" section, are we here to actually discuss the circumstances after his death or dedicate a section to a POV?
4. Furthermore, this article has tons of pro-Nero perspective already. The administrative section speaks all about his peace with Parthia and construction projects, etc... Your need to include a specific section for "pro-Nero", and then disguising it as a section about the universal reception of his death, is POV and against the tenets of Wikipedia. I merely balanced the section.
5. I am well aware what Damnatio memoria is. I have two sources, one from an academic journal, one from a reputable historical website stating that this was invoked for Nero. What do you have, personal assertion?

Djma12 ^(talk) 13:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoshi, this is the 3rd reversion you've done in less than 24 hrs. If you disagree with the edits, we can discuss and come to a compromise, but please stop the revert war. Djma12 ^(talk) 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing! You're the one that is reverting and changing without discussion! You're doing it so quickly and broadly that it's impossible to discuss issues!

1. Discuss first, change second. We'll get to things. Don't worry.
2. I didn't mean for the philostratus to sound universal. How about instead of "public sentimentality for Nero continued", we change it to "many still felt sentimental for Nero"?
3. Mourning. The point of the section is to show that Nero's reputation was not necessarily bad at the time of his death. In fact, the evidence shows that a lot of people were pretty upset. Vespasian's propaganda, Tacitus and Suetonius and Christian lit shift this, though. The fact is Nero was wildly popular with the people, but the upper-class hated him (which is what the section says). I think there's room to explain the shift is reputation, but saying or implying he was universally hated is just incorrect.
4. You don't seem to know what damnatio memoria is. But, to be fair, this is modern, debated term. This is a description of it in Domitian (Suet, Domit 23):

they passed a decree that his inscriptions should everywhere be erased, and all record of him obliterated. As a result, very few busts and statues of Domitian have survived. Nothing like this existed for Nero. There was no decree. In fact, he got a big funeral. Additionally, a great number of Nero artifacts have survived. This isn't to say that the Flavians didn't take great efforts to destroy Nero statues and slander him. They did. But, there was no official policy or erasing of memory.Hoshidoshi (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Using the 3 revert rule is clearly a scheme to get around discussing issues. If someone puts in something bad and there is a corrective revert, the correcter is going to hit 3 reverts before the original poster. I'm here to discuss and reach consensus.Hoshidoshi (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoshi, what more discussion do you want, we have half the page as discussion. What this boils down to is that you will not allow any edits without your explicit approval. You know, you could ALTER my edits, or change them up so there is a compromise, instead of reverting. Again, I am not the one who is reverting. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more to discuss. The reverts are really only in response to so many blanket changes at once. They're hard to keep track of when we both have jobs and other things to do. I agree that "Mourning" may be too strong a title for the section. Perhaps changing the section title to "Reputation" would be better? Then we can come to terms with why Nero is simulataniously loved and hated for a few centuries. I envision maybe a starting sentence like "Though Suetonius claims there was celebration with Nero death, Tacitus describes a much more complicated political environment."Hoshidoshi (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See, this is what irritates me so much about the whole discussion. Your general statement is "You changed too much and I didn't have time to approve each edit, so I just reverted it." This flies completely against WP:BOLD, and is ownership at worst, patronizing at best. Just b/c you've put work in this article doesn't mean you have the right to dictate its content.

In the future, if you have issue with my edits, send me messages, put it up for discussion in the talk page, add your own alterations. I am willing, and have, compromised with you on the past on the article. If you persist with using whole scale reversion as your method for "discussion", I will have no compunction about invoking 3RR again.

That said:

1. "Reputation" is more neutral, but does not encompass Nero imposters and Nero legends. "Reputation After Death" is probably more descriptive.
2. Since we are talking about after death, the internal wiki "see-alsos" should go back in.
3. If we are doing a "simultaneously loved and hated for centuries" section, block quotes from both views should be given equal weight. It is terribly POV to do a "Some sources say Nero's death was celebrated (citation)(citation)", then give whole block quotes on the loved sections.
4. For the Philo quote, "many" is still not supported by one or two citations. "Some" felt sentamentality is what is supported by the citation. If you have a citation that large crowds of people actually still longed for Nero, by all means include it! Until then, keep the statement NPOV.
5. Where in the Augustine quote does he state that he's speaking about Nero admirers? The quote is specifically about the Nero legends - it never mentions anything about admirers.
6. Do you have a citation to counter the damnatio statement? Do you feel that your interpretation of damnatio is more appropriate than an academic journal on ancient history? If not, per WP:V, it goes back in.
7. Why did we remove the "major historians of the imperial period" from the intro? We discussed and arrived at consensus for this last week??

Djma12 ^(talk) 22:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll start with 6 and 7 and get to other stuff later on. 7. I originally let this issue go even though I disagreed with it to end a dispute. Now that disputes are back around, I decided there was no more need to let it slide. I feel the sentence is inaccurate and misleading. The "Imperial period" is 1500 years. Tacitus covers less than 50 years of history. Suetonius covers non-imperial times and imperial times of roughly 200 years. Cassius Dio covers hundreds of years, but his writing isn't really his, but a 11th century monk. "Major" is also misleading. They weren't the major historians of Nero's period either. Cluvius Rufus, Fabrius Rusticus, Pliny the Elder and some pro-Nero historians were. Tacitus and Suetonius are secondary historians, but alas, they are the only in-depth sources that have survived. A word like "major historians" implies that these guys are authorities on truth. They are not. With every statement, one must read between the lines and figure out what is really going on. Yes, they are our "big 3" sources on Nero, but they are nothing more than that. 6. Damnatio. My source isn't online, but its Edward Champlain's Nero, p. 29-30. You can probably find the book at Borders if you want a read. I'll type out some of it: It is repeated endlessly in modern literature that Nero underwent something called damnatio memoriae, damnation of memory. He did not, and the term is incorrect and misleading in various ways. Indeed it is found in no ancient work, being modern coinage crafted from the quite unrelated legal concept of memoria damnata, which referred precisely to the posthumous condemnation in court of a person accused of perduellio, high treason. Nevertheless, the phrase had come to be applied indiscriminately to various posthumous attacks on emperors, members of their families, aristocrats, and high officials who fell from power. It originates in specific punishment in law which were meant to dishonor condemned criminals by attacking their memory, by harming their reputation not only in life but in death as well: thus portraits of a criminal might be destroyed, his or her name might be expunged from records and monuments and others might be forbidden to bear it, burial and mourning might be refused. Nero had been declared a public enemy in his last days, but none of these penalties had been applied to him; indeed the funeral had been splendid and normal, his statues reappeared in the Forum, and his acts as emperor were not abolished by the senate of his successors. His name might be, and sometimes was, erased from monuments, but, as with the destrustion of his statues in the chaotic days after his death, such acts were outburts of private zeal, not responses to public mandates. Nero's memory was not condemned, and how openly or secretly it was celebrates was more a gauge of the state of populate opinion and imperial policy..... The passage goes on to talk about its misuse in the art world and why artists crafted .Hoshidoshi (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Augustine. The way I read the passage from City is God is that Augustine brought up two groups who had ideas that he disagreed with. The first was a group of people that believed Nero would rise from the dead as the Antichrist and destroy Rome. The second group, though, believed that Nero was still alive and would be restored to his position. This second group, as I see it, are admirers because they see Nero being "restored." The second group is also clearly not a Christian group as they don't call him the Antichrist. Additionally, whoever added citations to the text on CCEL page seems to agree with me, as they mention Suet. Nero 57, where people follow a false Nero.

Now, I admit, there is a rub. Augustine presents these as conjectures to Paul saying "shall the wicked be revealed?" So, he presents a seemingly non-Christian group hypothesizing about a Christian text (weird). That, or he's presenting Christians who believe Nero is immortal and will be restored, yet not as the Antichrist (also weird). Or it could be that the "conjecture" he speaks of is his conjecture and he's applying a non-Christian story he heard to Christian text (the most probable). The only thing that is clear is that Augustine was a very sloppy in his writing here.

For this reason, I guess I agree with you that "disgusted by Nero's lingering admirers" should be removed. Though probably true, it cannot be proved because of textual ambiguity and choosing an interpretation would be original research.Hoshidoshi (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

4. I would say "many" people longed for Nero in the East during the Flavian dynasty based on two Greek sources, the later two false Neros and Rabbi Meir. The Philostratus Greek quote is the first one and the second, much more shocking one is the Dio Chrysostom quote (which is in the Historiography section). Philostratus claims "everybody" wanted Nero back and that the "majority" of people believed he was alive. Now, clearly Dio C. is going a little far (everybody?! yeah, right), but it is understandable that many people in Greece wanted Nero back. Nero granted Greece autonomy and Vespasian rescinded it. The false Neros also all came from the East. The last was perhaps supported by the Parthians because Nero made peace with them while Vespasian would not help them in one of their wars. Rabbi Meir also claimed to be the son of Nero during the Flavian dynasty (Talmud is the source). The Jews were understandably not fans of Vespasian and Titus after the seige on Jerusalem.Hoshidoshi (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems another perspective may help, so here are my thoughts on some of the disputed passages:

• "These accounts follow the histories of the major historians of the imperial period...". This is an overstatement, but the sources in question are the main surviving sources for Nero's reign, and that's an important fact however (un)favourably one views Nero; the "anti-Neronian" will point to the lack of dissenting sources, and the "pro-Neronian" will say that the sources' consistent dislike of Nero means we can't take the "tyranny and extravagance" claims at face value. I would suggest something like "This is the view of the main surviving sources for Nero's reign, Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio." Then go on to say, as at present, that "some modern historians question" the sources on this point; in fact, that sentence should possibly be combined into the "Nero's rule is often associated..." paragraph.
• "After his death, the Senate declared Nero Damnatio memoriae." This sentence is syntactically faulty, and probably inaccurate as Hoshidoshi points out. He was declared a public enemy, but this is noted in the previous paragraph. But "portraits were destroyed", etc., is appropriate for the "after death" section, as long as we don't imply that this was all a centralised official policy.
• "After death" vs. "Mourning". I would avoid "Mourning", which effectively excludes discussion of hostile viewpoints from the section.
• On posthumous attitudes to Nero, both version seem to be encouraging generalisations based only on ancient sources. I don't think any of it quite constitutes original research but, given the disagreement over what we should emphasise, it may be better to follow some modern scholarship here. We could quote or cite something like the following, from M. T. Griffin, Nero (1984), p. 186: "The plebs were loyal to the end and beyond, for Otho and Vitellius both thought it worthwhile to appeal to their nostalgia. ... Tacitus, it is true, remarks that the better sort of plebeian, specifying those connected with the great families, the clients and freedmen of Nero's upper class victims, were given hope by Nero's end. It was no doubt these same people whom Suetonius describes as putting on liberty caps and running about in their joy. But the plebs sordida, who missed his games and largesse, decorated his tomb with flowers, erected statues of him in the forum and posted up his edicts in hope of his return." Similarly, I think we should have a modern reference for the sentences preceding the Philostratus quotation.
• "...disgusted by Nero's lingering admirers...". We seem to have consensus to omit this, at least without a source that interprets Augustine this way. (Note that "lingering" may imply continuity with first-century admiration, which is not necessarily true even if Augustine is writing about admirers.) EALacey (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the outside views. I agree with all your suggestions. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I have is still with the damnatio -- I have two references (one from an academic journal) stating that he was declared damnatio. The fact of the matter was the he WAS declared damnatio, but it wasn't strongly enforced. We could temper the statement by stating the "despite the declaration, etc...", but unless we have some citation stating otherwise, we should take assertion over citation. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected the page for 48 hours because of the edit warring that is going on. Once you have agreed on any changes you can either drop me a note or make a request at requests for page protection to have this lifted. You are both liable for blocks for edit warring but since you seem to be discussing I think we can manage with a warning and a short page protection. If you have to come back to AN3 blocks will ensue. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Wrong link --

The disambiguation page for "Nero" contains Nero as the Roman emperor and Nero_Caesar as member of the family... and yet both links go to Nero the Emperor.

I cannot find the original page for Nero_Caesar. It was working well just a few days ago.

If someone knows where the page is, could it be amended and the link properly modified?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehemesut (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Consensus

I am implenting the third party suggestions as proposed by EALacey (talk). I have spent some time to detail which specific point was being altered with each edit. If you have an issue with a specific point, please detail it here. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's generally an improvement, but I still don't think we should say that the Senate condemned Nero's memory without a better source. John Pollini's review of Eric R. Varner both discusses the reworking of portraits of Nero and accepts that the Senate was often involved in condemning a deceased emperor's memory, but doesn't actually say that the Senate made such a declaration about Nero. (I don't know if Varner's book says anything on the issue, though it might be worth checking.) That leaves only Jona Lendering's website, which is generally useful but doesn't cite any sources in this case. Meanwhile Champlin, who's writing specifically about Nero, concludes that acts of destruction "were outburts of private zeal, not responses to public mandates" (quoted above by Hoshidoshi). I've tried a replacement paragraph in the "After death" section, though there are probably ways this can be improved. EALacey (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to mind another source that mentions damnatio. If I can't find additional support, I think your version is fairly balanced. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Things are looking pretty good. The damnatio memoria is a tough issue since its a modern concept without a clear definition. If it is merely a distruction of his name and image on occasion, then he falls into it, but then again, almost every other emperor does as well. If its a public decree, only Domitian falls into it, so it isn't very useful. I've read every classic source on Nero and none say that the Senate damned his name. They only declared him a "public enemy", which is what Galba was declared just days before. Anyway, my vote is to steer clear of "damnatio memoria" completely.

Otherwise, things are looking good. I'd like to add one sentence after the first sentence which sums up Tacitus- "Tacitus, though, describes a more complicated political environment."Hoshidoshi (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Historiography

The inclusion of individual quotations from the Historiography section seems to be excessive. Some of the quotations are appropriate, such as Josephus and Tactius, as they go to directly support the bias issue. The Suetonius quote is nice as it points out possible excesses in his history.

Other quotations seem to be inserted simply to give the authors something to say -- it clutters the article length and contributes little to the concept of Historiography. I also find it just slightly suspicious that the bulk of the quotations are from what sparse sources we have from Nero supporters -- it seems like a pretty transparent POV slant. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that its POV, but the whole article is pretty quote heavy. We could probably eliminate quite a few of them or, at least, shorten them.Hoshidoshi (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Specific deaths in the intro

The deaths of Nero's relatives in the grand scheme of history and his rule are largely irrelevant. They have no place in the intro. I am reverting to an earlier version.Hoshidoshi (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify why the intro is the way it is (since people love to edit intros). First paragraph is his family, second paragraph are his significant achievements, third paragraph is how he is commonly remembered, fourth is modern historical opinion on him.

The death of Nero's family, while given lots of space in Tacitus' history is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Every emeperor killed family members and rivals off; it was pretty common. Additionally, this isn't what he was remembeed for.Hoshidoshi (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the reversion. Your proposed structure for paragraphs 2–3 is intrinsically POV, since it allows "achievements" to be noted regardless of how memorable they are, but requires negative material to be "commonly remembered". (By whom? Modern non-specialists?) This structure would only make sense if "how he is commonly remembered" had no basis in his actual life.

The lead as it stands mentions that ancient sources report "alleged tyrannical acts", but the only ones it specifies are "fiddling while Rome burned" and persecution of Christians. This simply isn't representative of what the sources focus on. Look at the summaries of Subrius Flavus in Tacitus Annals 15.67, who claims he hated Nero as "the parricide of your mother and wife, a charioteer and an actor and an arsonist", or of Aurelius Victor's De Caesaribus 5, which refers to public performances, sexual misconduct, parricide and punishment of conspirators without mentioning either Christians or lyre-playing during the fire. When Suetonius actually separates what he perceives as Nero's unblameworthy and his shameful deeds (Nero 19), punishment of Christians is in the former section (16), and the fire receives one chapter containing a brief mention of Nero's singing (38); in contrast, there are six chapters on his public performances (20-25) and three mainly about the deaths of family members (33-35). In Suetonius' section on contemporary quips (39), matricide is the most prominent accusation. And I don't need to count chapters to observe how much more emphasis Tacitus gives to maiestas-trials than to the fire or Christians.

The "every emperor" argument is irrelevant. Many emperors also built theatres and made diplomatic settlements with Parthia (certainly more than had their mothers killed), but that's no basis for excluding mention of these. And if ancient dislike for Nero contributed to the rebellion that ended the Julio-Claudian dynasty, started a year of civil war, and brought the Flavians to power, then it is important in the larger scheme of things.

My edit also qualified the statement that "some modern historians question the reliability of ancient sources when reporting on Nero's alleged tyrannical acts", which I think may falsely imply that these historians think he did none of the things the ancient sources criticise him for. EALacey (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hoshidoshi that the four paragraph format works well, but I think that the "major achievements" paragraph should be a "major achievements and controversies" paragraph, followed by popular depiction, followed modern scholarship. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with EALacey that the major controversies of Nero's rule should be included in the intro as well.

That said, the inserted section, as is, could use some trimming, but I think a compromise solution can be found rather than simple reverting. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this is an historical encyclopedic summary of Nero's life and rule. This is not repetition of ancient biographies on Nero. Nero was called a "tyrant" because the Flavians wanted to trash him. He ursurped power from the Senate and taxed the upper-class. That's why he was overthrown. His little scandles are irrelevent. Britannicus was a nobody. Nero's wives were nobodies. His mom was famous, but her death really doesn't affect history at all. People didn't care that these people died in the long run and they influenced few. The amount of time and attention given to them in the article is already huge considering how unimportant they were. Let's be realistic. Britannicus, a 14-year-old-boy, gets more attention in the article than the war in Britian which involved hundreds of thousands of people. He gets as much attention as the Pisonian conspiracy, the war in Judea, Vindex's rebellion and Galba's rise. Huge events that really affected people like the liberation of Greece and trade with Africa get no attention at all. Just because Tacitus and Suetonius give them attention doesn't mean we should.

Now, as for major controversies. The thing is, Nero's major controversies were mentioned in the reputation paragraph. He is blamed for burning Rome and mass persecution Christians (two things he didn't actually do). None-the-less, it's there because that's how he is remembered, for the most part. Who remembers Nero for killing his mom, marrying a eunich, beating his wife, raping his brother or having sex with his mom? Those were the ancient accusations. Do you really want the article to be list of crazy ancient accusations or do you want significant facts? If so, you have to take the Christians out because Tacitus and Suetonius didn't really spend much time on them. You can't have it both ways.

And actually, Nero was the only Emperor to have a major diplomatic settlement with Parthia. His building of theatres and games were unique. His diplomacy with Greece was unique. They were important achievements and just because Tacitus and Suetonius don't want to talk about them, doesn't mean they didn't happen.Hoshidoshi (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, other emperors, specifically Augustus, Trajan, and Hadrian, had major diplomatic settlements with Parthia as well. His building of theatres and games were definitely not unique. You seem to want to include every minor achievement of his rule while wanting to brush over the "slander" that most historical sources concentrate on.

More distrubingly, you make no effort to compromise when invited. Despite the fact that we have consensus on this issue, we are inviting you to participate in the creation of a compromise, but all you do is revert. This is simply not acceptable behavior. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I made my additions to the lead in order to clarify the statements that were already there about the negative views of ancient sources; if you don't think these views are noteworthy, that's a tenable opinion, but it's confusing and potentially misleading for the article to say that "some modern historians question the reliability of ancient sources when reporting on Nero's alleged tyrannical acts" without saying what these "alleged tyrannical acts" were. I happen to think that the matricide and maiestas-trials are more noteworthy than the reception-history material, and I'd rather remove the Christians and the "fiddling" from the lead if brevity is the issue. But our opinions about notability aren't really important, since Wikipedia is supposed to treat issues in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable sources. I think it would be hard to find a published general account of Nero's life that gave more prominence to theatres than to executions. EALacey (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I realise the last two sentences of my paragraph above call for data. I'm working on it. EALacey (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A plea for COLLABORATION

ELacey and I have been working on a version of the intro that can include both the major accomplishments and controveries of Nero's reign. If you find this edit unacceptable, please feel free to change or amend the intro so that a compromise can be reached.

Hoshi, I invite YOU to write the controversies section in the intro to better suit your liking (see Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy) and we can use that as a basis for further debate. However, constant, simple reversion is not helpful and does not contribute to a collaborative atmosphere. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I compromise when there is a good suggestion and you have seen this. Talking about how Nero killed his family in the intro is ridiculous. He was emperor. He actually did things as emperor that affected Romans and affect us today. Certain things didn't affect Romans and don't affect us. Raping Britannicus and marrying a transexual don't affect us, thus they aren't mentioned. Do you not agree with this or am I burshing things over? Would you rather remove the Christian persecution section and give ample attention to transexual marriage?Hoshidoshi (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop attacking me personally and argue the issues.

I am sorry if you view a plea for collaboration as a personal attack. I invited you to write the controversies section for the intro in good faith, though you have rejected numerous calls for collaboration.

I remind you that we are writing an encyclopedia article that details a well-rounded picture of the INDIVIDUAL, as well as his legacy. This is not a college dissertation paper for pushing a specific thesis, but a biography detailing Nero's acheivements, controversies, and yes, personal details. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep claiming I don't collaborate when I do. That's the personal attack. Keep in mind, though, a barrel of wine with a teaspoon of sewage becomes a barrel of sewage. Not all suggestions need to be incorporated. This isn't the Hegelian dialectic. I put in a mention of executions and removed any mention of specific people in the intro. There's a compromise, so let's end this.Hoshidoshi (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Britannicus, Olivia and Poppea shouldn't be mentioned. First Britannicus was a 14-year-old boy and few people care he died. The Flavians wanted historians like Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius to mention him to discredit Nero's divine Caesarian right to the thrown. Olivia is really unimportant. Modern historians believe Poppea died of miscarriage complications.Hoshidoshi (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant you Olivia and Poppea. "Few people care he died" is a statement that requires citation -- it was one of the first things I learned about Nero as a schoolboy in history class.

Britannicus was heir-apparent and his murder alerted the course of Roman history. I'll hardly call that minor. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, we can leave it, I don't care that much, but he was just a historical tool used by the Flavians. Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius all killed off pleanty of rivals including brothers. Nero killed off pleanty of other family members too (i.e. cousin Faustus Sulla). Oddly, Britannicus gets massive attention. Maybe its because of I, Claudius or the ring of "Britannicus", but ancient historians seem to highlight it as well. Josephus, the most Flavian controlled historian, writes only a couple of paragraph on Nero and goes to the trouble of mentioning Britannicus. Modern historians theorize that because the Flavians were trying to discredit the Julio-Claudians, but still wanted to push Claudian reforms, they trashed Nero, but tried to rehabilitate Claudius. Who knows.Hoshidoshi (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

THe focus is b/c, as you so adequately point out, it speaks directly to legitmacy. Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula all killed plenty of family members, but they were heir apparent or emperor at the time of execution. A technical, but important difference. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

hello!!

こんちーーー笑笑 なんヵたのしんぢゃってまーーーす！笑笑 ココにコんなヵヶるとコろがぁったなんてしりませんでしたーぁぁぁ！！笑 はゃくみつヶてればょヵったとぉもってぃます！涙涙 でもコれヵらゎココでぁそびたぃとぉもぃまーーーす！！笑 しろょくでーーーーーーーーーーす！！笑ｗｗ ぢゃぁにーーーーｂ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.107.126 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Improved ties with Greece?

The second paragraph mentions that Nero's reign included "improving diplomatic ties with Greece". How is it possible for the Roman Empire to improve its diplomatic ties with a collection of its own provinces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.25.205 (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The concept of Greece being an internal entity of Rome as if the Roman Empire was a modern day nation-state is a bad assumption to start with. But even if one assumes that, Greece was given autonomous status under Nero. Additionally, the term "diplomacy" is not limited to state to state relations. Greek society and culture was very much considered foreign to Roman. Nonetheless, if the word "diplomatic" is misleading, it can be removed without with change to the meaning of the sentense.Hoshidoshi (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Serious Citation Check

The citations in this article require a through a serious re-evaluation. Some of the citations are to random, unrelated sections in Tactius. More disturbingly, entire sections that are condemning of Nero have been respun as praises. Sections speaking about how Nero depleted the tax base were used to talk about "the encouragement of fiscal responsibility." I hope this is a simple oversight, but it really smacks of dishonesty. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

At times it's impossible to keep track of vandalism on this page, so maybe some edits slipped past unnoticed. On the subject of your complaint however, I'm afraid this article has a far larger problem with its citations than the one you mention. One which is probably the source of your past debates with Hoshidoshi. The fact is, this article relies too heavily on ancient authors as a source of reference. As evidenced by this talkpage, their statements are often contentious and very much open to debate. This goes against Wikipedia policy which requires citation of "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It's not the job of editors (or even readers) to try and make sense of primary sources. That is the task of academic literature, which is what this article should mainly refer to (for a good example, see Augustus). As much as I admire the hard work that went into the creation of this article, at one point or another it will have to start citing more scholarly sources. Ancient authors are fine as long as their statements are a) uncontroversial or b) directly referenced from the text, but obviously the first point is a major issue with Nero. I've made this mistake in the past myself, but I'm trying to improve. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, the article is going to have mistakes and we can work through them. Steerpike is right, though. Ancient citation by itself can often be used to say anything and one can be used with undue weigh to push POV. Djma12, please slow down and avoid adding your POV. Your input and advocacy are valuable, but it clear that you have an agenda to trash Nero (for instance, adding a useless block, quote about how taxes left the provinces in ruin when the text already mentioned the tax and few modern scholers would really believe the degree that Tacitus claims). Much of what you deleted can be supported. All you needed to do was ask for support and go slowly.

So now, I need to start from the from the beginning with Ostia and malaria. Please slow down.Hoshidoshi (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Added Reclaimation theory to the malaria one.

I don't know why the transfering collection to commisioner line were taken out. The text clearly supports it. There was accusations of embezzlement, so Nero changed the collectors:

"Helvidius Priscus, a tribune of the people, followed up a personal quarrel he had with Obultronius Sabinus, one of the officials of the exchequer, by insinuating that he stretched his right of confiscation with merciless rigour against the poor. The emperor then transferred the charge of the public accounts from these officers to the commissioners."

Okay, got through most of the stuff. The Agrippina-Britannicus stuff was at 13.14 not 13.15. I softened Agrippina's influence to "pushing for." (I'm not sure what else to call it) It seems she was going around doing a lot of campaigning for Britannicus, but Djma13 is right that there is no mention of Britannicus' involvement.Hoshidoshi (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's start one at a time. I got a little pissed off at the randomness of the citations but I can accept that they may be honest mistakes.

1. The Romans did not have a biologic theory of disease. (See Galen and Four Temperaments.) Indeed, the citation that YOU provide confirms this. (It can be found on Google books. (This citation goes over the demographic effects of malaria on the Italian population with reference towards nutrition and thalessmia trait, btw.) It is fair to state that Nero filled in the marsh, but it should be left at that.
2. There is no mention that the personal quarrel of Priscus and Sabinus were substantiated, or is there a comparative statement towards competency. Therefore we can say that a transfer of power occured, but no claim towards "more competent" officials can be made.

Okay, but we should at least say, in "in reaction to claims of embezzlement' or something.

1. The citations used towards Nero's reaction to the grain shortage in no way justify the statement "encouraged fiscal responsbility." It states that celebratory arches were being constructed despite the political reality on the ground, that Nero dumped the rotting public corn supply into the Tiber, and that he claimed to make a personal contribution. Having a statement that accurately reflects the citation is essential.
2. Why is the Tacticus quote a "useless block quote." After all a) YOU were the one who first cited it. b) Just as you claim that I'm "trashing Nero" (with accurate citation...), I have a strong feeling that you have revisionist claims towards history. If you believe otherwise, please provide these academic sources that you refer to and I will withdraw my claim. I will, however, rephrase to make the full extent of Tactius's claim speculative.

Okay, I added a little more that tells the story a little better.

1. I'll leave the Britannicus section alone for now, but can you quote where it states that she was actively pushing for Britannicus, or that she her motivation for doing so was b/c her influence was severed? The quotation I find only states the she belittled his title during fits of rage: "Thereupon, with instant fury, Agrippina rushed into frightful menaces, sparing not the prince's ears her solemn protest "that Britannicus was now of full age, he who was the true and worthy heir of his father's sovereignty, which a son, by mere admission and adoption, was abusing in outrages on his mother." Alternatively, this can be interpreted to mean that she BELIEVED Britannicus to be legitmate, but it in no way implies that she pushed for an active course of action.

Djma12 ^(talk) 14:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question that highlights the idiocy of the story. Agrippina is angry about Acte. Somehow, the events sever her power. How or why is never explained. I mean, Nero is having sex with a slave, Agrippina tells him to stop, he says no, power severed, Wha?, she gets so angry she turns against her own son who she supposedly murdered for in the first place. Cassius Dio says "Agrippina was distressed because she was no longer the mistress of affairs in the palace, chiefly because of Acte" (CD 61.7) Now, maybe "push" for Britannicus is too strong. I'm just not sure what "go to the camp" means. I guess it means side with, but that implies there was an argument going on. "her stepson was yet alive; with him she would go to the camp," (T 13.14)Hoshidoshi (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the recent edits are fair. The citations are fixed and a more balanced view is presented. Djma12 ^(talk) 17:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agrippina was actually threatening to have Britannicus proclaimed emperor in Nero's place. "Going to the camp" means "to take him to the Praetorian Camp", where he could be proclaimed emperor. See for instance this book by Anthony Barrett. --Steerpike (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)