![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Archives: See also Talk:list of 10 shortest-reigning popes
Talk:List_of_popes_by_length_of_reign/Archives 1
"there is no proof of any Bishop of Rome claiming the papal title until centuries after the death of Jesus" This line has to change. What does the phrase "claiming the papal title" mean exactly? The title "Pope", the title "Pontiff" or the authority? The evidence for the authority claimed by the early Papacy is subject to interpretation on both sides. Certainly, in the Epistle of Clement (c. 95 AD), Clement (traditionally the fourth Pope) is already writing with authority to a church in Greece. Irenaeus in Adverses Heresies (c. 180 AD) lists the first twelve bishops of Rome and speaks of the Roman Church's pre-eminent authority. This evidence can be discounted, but cannot be said not to exist.
I realize I might be beating a dead horse, but I just don't get it: Could someone explain to me the reason St. Peter is not officially on this list?
First, it seems capricious to have a List of popes (from the Annuario Pontificio) which lists Peter, and then this list which makes him a footnote. If we are going to use the official Catholic list of popes, why would we alter the contents here and not there also.
Second, the "Notes on St. Peter" state "Most non-Catholics dispute St. Peter being on this list (and the list of popes) at all". So actually it would make sense to have the argument, as to whether or not Peter was a pope, made at the list of popes and not here at a "sub-list".
Third, I think it reads rather strangely on the Pope John Paul II article that he is the "second-longest pontificate (or the third-longest, as enumerated by Roman Catholic tradition)." considering that the pontificate IS a Roman Catholic tradition.
The inconsistencies continue at the List of 10 shortest-reigning popes, where we have Stephen as a footnote because he is NOT listed in the Annuario Pontificio. We should either follow the Annuario Pontificio or make our own list of who we think is a "real pope". But then again, that is an discussion to be made at Talk:List_of_popes.
So, finally, I will be bold and place Peter at the top of the list if there are no objections.
- [[User:Ekta;ot about recognizing Peter as a Pope, but is about recognizing one officially accepted and verifiable length for his reign, which there is not, and so Peter is excluded.
Interested parties might want to see here for a discussion of the POV issues involved in saying without caveat that St. Peter was "pope". Personally, I think that NPOV requires us to rely on secular history and as such relegate St Peter to the footnote, given that claims made for him cannot be proven from credible sources.
I would also note this from the NPOV policy:
Obviously, this is a conflict over emphasis, I am somewhat troubled to see secular history regarded as an "alternate POV" to sectarian doctrine. Sumergocognito 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It is to be added that most lists I have ever seen do what this site linked by our list does, and give Peter 42-67, which is to say, the 25 years he was reputedly in Rome. At any rate, a wikipedia article is not a source. Since not all of us have the Annuario Pontifacio at hand to reference, could you please indicate what it says that supports your position? It is not enough to just say that a source says what you says it does. john k 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that in the traditional list Peter is always listed as Pope. How long he is considered Pope seems to be up for dispute, and I would strongly object to giving 34 or 37 years as some sort of undisputed traditional figure. The traditional figure was always 25 years until 1871, when the Church was faced with the awkward fact that Pius IX had now reigned longer than Peter. I'm not sure if this was simply accepted (it appears to have been accepted by the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1911, which gives Pius IX as the longest reigning Pope), or if it was at this point that this "Peter was Pope from the time Jesus called him his Rock" business was conjured up, but the idea that someone can be Pope without also being Bishop of Rome hardly seems to be well-established to me, and Peter certainly cannot have been Bishop of Rome before he got to Rome (likewise, it is hard to see how a man living in Jerusalem and then in Antioch without ever having visited the west can be considered to be Patriarch of the West). So, we are left with a) the fact that there is no independent evidence of any kind about the length, or even the existence of Peter's papacy; and b) the fact that tradition, our only source on this matter, does not give a terribly clear answer as to how long Peter's pontificate is to be considered - 25 years is at least as valid a possibility as 34 or 37. Indeed, I find these dates utterly confusing, as 30 AD was not a date early in Jesus's ministry, as claimed by our article, but rather the year of the crucifixion, assuming we use 4 BC (the year of Herod's death) as our year for the birth of Jesus, and 33 as Jesus's age at death. Once again, I would like to see some kind of specific information on the claims made in the "dates of his reign" section of the article that the claims made there are actually ones made by the Catholic Church. It is not enough simply to say that this is all in the Annuario Pontificio - if you have that document in front of you, some quotations, or at least specific paraphrases with page numbers references, would be helpful. If you do not have it, then how can we know that this is what it says? john k 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
To anyone who wishes to change the source of this article: PLEASE cite a source. "Contemporary historical data" is terribly vague and wrought with POV. If you will not use List of popes as a source, please give another source. If you are using List of popes (but wanting to exclude Peter), please give your parameters for not listing him AND leave him on the list. Not listing him and making him a footnote makes it seem you are not using List of popes as your source.
Granted the List of popes has a Catholic POV to it, not many seem to have a problem with that list since it is well noted. (Not too many people have a problem with information on the Jesus page having a religious Biblical POV. To put it crudely simple, the Bible "made" Jesus, and the Catholics "made" the Pope.) - Ektar 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
RfC I would rewrite the section that discusses Peter to include cited arguments both for and against his inclusion, and both for and against the terms listed. I would use the official Roman Catholic account for all items on the list including Saint Peter. This is the official doctrine of the religion that has popes. To remove him from this list because some other church doesn't regard him as a pope would be like removing the Book of Wisdom from an article about Roman Catholic biblical scholarship. Religions have an inherent right to define themselves on their own terms. Durova 08:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Ektar made a request for mediation on the issue of whether or not to include St. Peter [2], so here I am!
As far as I can tell, the list here is an assertion of fact; i.e., it asserts how long various people have served as pope. In that case, I believe the usual practice of WP:CITE applies.
My feeling is that a number of the problems here come from the need to produce a single list of "top 10" popes. ( Top of the Pop[e]s). Perhaps one way to solve this problem is to have two lists: one list of the longest-reigning popes as defined by official (or, rather, quasi-official) Vatican tradition, and one list of the longest-reigning popes for which historical documentation exists.
There seems to be a debate over what "historical documentation" is; let me attempt to clear that up: it includes sources that historians are happy to take "at face value". The gospels, e.g., probably do not count; similarly, a long-standing "traditional" set of dates do not count. A record made at the time a pope "ascended" (is that the term) is probably valid.
As for "who counts as Pope", I think it is fair to allow the Vatican to decide that. The nature and name of the office has evolved over the years; for example, the term "scientist" was I believe a mid-19th century coinage, but that doesn't mean we can't include Newton on a list of scientists.
Of course, in all of this, the rule must be that where there are tricky questions, the article must cover them. Also, bear in mind that a lot of the work you guys are doing could also appear in other pope articles.
Does this help at all? Sdedeo ( tips) 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the POV is avoided by using the Vatican list as the starting point. Then you have two lists in the same article:
You don't have to "title" the lists; just explain why two are necessary (some of those early dates are pretty vague.) Again, just to be clear, the reason some entries in the "list of popes" list might not be included in #2 is only because good historical sources for their reigns are not available.
Another option would be to have a single list, and put asterixes next to names whose dates don't have satisfactory historical evidence.
Sdedeo ( tips) 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Everyone do please remember WP:AGF; I suggest we wait to hear from other folks involved in the dispute to see if the "asterix" solution is OK with them. Sdedeo ( tips) 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Certaintly more sources can be used; I only meant that the Noonan book was a good place to start with and as a place to resolve the deadlock. Definitely seek out other reputable sources to use so that the asterixes can be better sourced and substantiated. Sdedeo ( tips) 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, so we have a single list with the top ten popes in order as defined by the dates given by the Vatican list. The names on that list whose dates of reigning are somewhat "suspect" because they rest solely on "legend" or "tradition" and cannot be substantiated by solid historical evidence are to be accompanied by an "asterix", and then a note at the bottom of the list explaining what the asterix means. A good source to begin with for what deserves an asterix is Noonan's book.
Ektar, john k, Sumergocognito are all OK with this solution. Sumergocognito is OK with this solution provided there is discussion of the details of Saint Peter's anomalous nature at the end. I personally think this is fine (more information is better, even if it somewhat duplicates info in a "parent" article), although of course that discussion will change and evolve (right now, e.g., I note that the section "was peter a pope at all" makes claims that definitely need sources.)
Just to be laborious, we all know this, but it's important to remember that wikipedia articles are always in flux and that they may change drastically over the years, so no-one can promise that any of these things will "stick". But I think we have an agreement between the three people who seem to be involved right now.
I believe this resolves the problem? If there are any objections to this, please reply; I'll wait twenty four hours or so, and then close this out as a happily resolved conflict. Sdedeo ( tips) 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, haven't heard any complaints, so I'm assuming everyone is satisfied with the solution; I'll close out this mediation. Sdedeo ( tips) 19:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I would add, again, that I would still like to see some evidence as to what the "official Vatican list" says about Peter's pontificate. john k 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Would this be more appropriate on the page about St. Peter? A short note in this list should be sufficient. -- User:Docu
Would anons please stop adding the words "they believe" to the statement that "no bishop of Rome claimed the papal title until centuries until Jesus death" (I'm paraphrasing)?
The burden of proof rests upon those advancing a claim. To say that skeptics must prove that something isn't true is illogical and well-nigh impossible (you cannot prove a negative). As I said in the first place, if you have evidence that Peter or his early successors claimed the papal title than cite it. Otherwise there's not need to distance ourselves from a factual statement. As far as "dissenters" bearing the burden of proof, apart from self-interested mythology promoted by the Catholic Church, there isn't any claim to dissent from. Sumergocognito 19:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I added an {{ unreferenced}} tag, as while the list of popes themselves is referenced from the Annuario Pontificio in the lead, both the lead and the "What about Peter" sections are entirely unreferenced. -- Storkk ( talk) 12:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is this section here? This is a list page, FFS. There's some logic to a separate section on him, given that there's a query over how long he lived, etc, so that's fair enough. But treating this page as another battleground over RC/non-RC quibbles is not. Surely a simple statement, such as
"The
Roman Catholic Church recognizes
Saint Peter as the first Pope, though non-Catholics regard this claim as too proprietary; sources also differ on the length of his reign."
would do the trick. Opinions?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
18:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: See also Talk:list of 10 shortest-reigning popes
Talk:List_of_popes_by_length_of_reign/Archives 1
"there is no proof of any Bishop of Rome claiming the papal title until centuries after the death of Jesus" This line has to change. What does the phrase "claiming the papal title" mean exactly? The title "Pope", the title "Pontiff" or the authority? The evidence for the authority claimed by the early Papacy is subject to interpretation on both sides. Certainly, in the Epistle of Clement (c. 95 AD), Clement (traditionally the fourth Pope) is already writing with authority to a church in Greece. Irenaeus in Adverses Heresies (c. 180 AD) lists the first twelve bishops of Rome and speaks of the Roman Church's pre-eminent authority. This evidence can be discounted, but cannot be said not to exist.
I realize I might be beating a dead horse, but I just don't get it: Could someone explain to me the reason St. Peter is not officially on this list?
First, it seems capricious to have a List of popes (from the Annuario Pontificio) which lists Peter, and then this list which makes him a footnote. If we are going to use the official Catholic list of popes, why would we alter the contents here and not there also.
Second, the "Notes on St. Peter" state "Most non-Catholics dispute St. Peter being on this list (and the list of popes) at all". So actually it would make sense to have the argument, as to whether or not Peter was a pope, made at the list of popes and not here at a "sub-list".
Third, I think it reads rather strangely on the Pope John Paul II article that he is the "second-longest pontificate (or the third-longest, as enumerated by Roman Catholic tradition)." considering that the pontificate IS a Roman Catholic tradition.
The inconsistencies continue at the List of 10 shortest-reigning popes, where we have Stephen as a footnote because he is NOT listed in the Annuario Pontificio. We should either follow the Annuario Pontificio or make our own list of who we think is a "real pope". But then again, that is an discussion to be made at Talk:List_of_popes.
So, finally, I will be bold and place Peter at the top of the list if there are no objections.
- [[User:Ekta;ot about recognizing Peter as a Pope, but is about recognizing one officially accepted and verifiable length for his reign, which there is not, and so Peter is excluded.
Interested parties might want to see here for a discussion of the POV issues involved in saying without caveat that St. Peter was "pope". Personally, I think that NPOV requires us to rely on secular history and as such relegate St Peter to the footnote, given that claims made for him cannot be proven from credible sources.
I would also note this from the NPOV policy:
Obviously, this is a conflict over emphasis, I am somewhat troubled to see secular history regarded as an "alternate POV" to sectarian doctrine. Sumergocognito 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It is to be added that most lists I have ever seen do what this site linked by our list does, and give Peter 42-67, which is to say, the 25 years he was reputedly in Rome. At any rate, a wikipedia article is not a source. Since not all of us have the Annuario Pontifacio at hand to reference, could you please indicate what it says that supports your position? It is not enough to just say that a source says what you says it does. john k 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that in the traditional list Peter is always listed as Pope. How long he is considered Pope seems to be up for dispute, and I would strongly object to giving 34 or 37 years as some sort of undisputed traditional figure. The traditional figure was always 25 years until 1871, when the Church was faced with the awkward fact that Pius IX had now reigned longer than Peter. I'm not sure if this was simply accepted (it appears to have been accepted by the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1911, which gives Pius IX as the longest reigning Pope), or if it was at this point that this "Peter was Pope from the time Jesus called him his Rock" business was conjured up, but the idea that someone can be Pope without also being Bishop of Rome hardly seems to be well-established to me, and Peter certainly cannot have been Bishop of Rome before he got to Rome (likewise, it is hard to see how a man living in Jerusalem and then in Antioch without ever having visited the west can be considered to be Patriarch of the West). So, we are left with a) the fact that there is no independent evidence of any kind about the length, or even the existence of Peter's papacy; and b) the fact that tradition, our only source on this matter, does not give a terribly clear answer as to how long Peter's pontificate is to be considered - 25 years is at least as valid a possibility as 34 or 37. Indeed, I find these dates utterly confusing, as 30 AD was not a date early in Jesus's ministry, as claimed by our article, but rather the year of the crucifixion, assuming we use 4 BC (the year of Herod's death) as our year for the birth of Jesus, and 33 as Jesus's age at death. Once again, I would like to see some kind of specific information on the claims made in the "dates of his reign" section of the article that the claims made there are actually ones made by the Catholic Church. It is not enough simply to say that this is all in the Annuario Pontificio - if you have that document in front of you, some quotations, or at least specific paraphrases with page numbers references, would be helpful. If you do not have it, then how can we know that this is what it says? john k 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
To anyone who wishes to change the source of this article: PLEASE cite a source. "Contemporary historical data" is terribly vague and wrought with POV. If you will not use List of popes as a source, please give another source. If you are using List of popes (but wanting to exclude Peter), please give your parameters for not listing him AND leave him on the list. Not listing him and making him a footnote makes it seem you are not using List of popes as your source.
Granted the List of popes has a Catholic POV to it, not many seem to have a problem with that list since it is well noted. (Not too many people have a problem with information on the Jesus page having a religious Biblical POV. To put it crudely simple, the Bible "made" Jesus, and the Catholics "made" the Pope.) - Ektar 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
RfC I would rewrite the section that discusses Peter to include cited arguments both for and against his inclusion, and both for and against the terms listed. I would use the official Roman Catholic account for all items on the list including Saint Peter. This is the official doctrine of the religion that has popes. To remove him from this list because some other church doesn't regard him as a pope would be like removing the Book of Wisdom from an article about Roman Catholic biblical scholarship. Religions have an inherent right to define themselves on their own terms. Durova 08:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Ektar made a request for mediation on the issue of whether or not to include St. Peter [2], so here I am!
As far as I can tell, the list here is an assertion of fact; i.e., it asserts how long various people have served as pope. In that case, I believe the usual practice of WP:CITE applies.
My feeling is that a number of the problems here come from the need to produce a single list of "top 10" popes. ( Top of the Pop[e]s). Perhaps one way to solve this problem is to have two lists: one list of the longest-reigning popes as defined by official (or, rather, quasi-official) Vatican tradition, and one list of the longest-reigning popes for which historical documentation exists.
There seems to be a debate over what "historical documentation" is; let me attempt to clear that up: it includes sources that historians are happy to take "at face value". The gospels, e.g., probably do not count; similarly, a long-standing "traditional" set of dates do not count. A record made at the time a pope "ascended" (is that the term) is probably valid.
As for "who counts as Pope", I think it is fair to allow the Vatican to decide that. The nature and name of the office has evolved over the years; for example, the term "scientist" was I believe a mid-19th century coinage, but that doesn't mean we can't include Newton on a list of scientists.
Of course, in all of this, the rule must be that where there are tricky questions, the article must cover them. Also, bear in mind that a lot of the work you guys are doing could also appear in other pope articles.
Does this help at all? Sdedeo ( tips) 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the POV is avoided by using the Vatican list as the starting point. Then you have two lists in the same article:
You don't have to "title" the lists; just explain why two are necessary (some of those early dates are pretty vague.) Again, just to be clear, the reason some entries in the "list of popes" list might not be included in #2 is only because good historical sources for their reigns are not available.
Another option would be to have a single list, and put asterixes next to names whose dates don't have satisfactory historical evidence.
Sdedeo ( tips) 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Everyone do please remember WP:AGF; I suggest we wait to hear from other folks involved in the dispute to see if the "asterix" solution is OK with them. Sdedeo ( tips) 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Certaintly more sources can be used; I only meant that the Noonan book was a good place to start with and as a place to resolve the deadlock. Definitely seek out other reputable sources to use so that the asterixes can be better sourced and substantiated. Sdedeo ( tips) 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, so we have a single list with the top ten popes in order as defined by the dates given by the Vatican list. The names on that list whose dates of reigning are somewhat "suspect" because they rest solely on "legend" or "tradition" and cannot be substantiated by solid historical evidence are to be accompanied by an "asterix", and then a note at the bottom of the list explaining what the asterix means. A good source to begin with for what deserves an asterix is Noonan's book.
Ektar, john k, Sumergocognito are all OK with this solution. Sumergocognito is OK with this solution provided there is discussion of the details of Saint Peter's anomalous nature at the end. I personally think this is fine (more information is better, even if it somewhat duplicates info in a "parent" article), although of course that discussion will change and evolve (right now, e.g., I note that the section "was peter a pope at all" makes claims that definitely need sources.)
Just to be laborious, we all know this, but it's important to remember that wikipedia articles are always in flux and that they may change drastically over the years, so no-one can promise that any of these things will "stick". But I think we have an agreement between the three people who seem to be involved right now.
I believe this resolves the problem? If there are any objections to this, please reply; I'll wait twenty four hours or so, and then close this out as a happily resolved conflict. Sdedeo ( tips) 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, haven't heard any complaints, so I'm assuming everyone is satisfied with the solution; I'll close out this mediation. Sdedeo ( tips) 19:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I would add, again, that I would still like to see some evidence as to what the "official Vatican list" says about Peter's pontificate. john k 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Would this be more appropriate on the page about St. Peter? A short note in this list should be sufficient. -- User:Docu
Would anons please stop adding the words "they believe" to the statement that "no bishop of Rome claimed the papal title until centuries until Jesus death" (I'm paraphrasing)?
The burden of proof rests upon those advancing a claim. To say that skeptics must prove that something isn't true is illogical and well-nigh impossible (you cannot prove a negative). As I said in the first place, if you have evidence that Peter or his early successors claimed the papal title than cite it. Otherwise there's not need to distance ourselves from a factual statement. As far as "dissenters" bearing the burden of proof, apart from self-interested mythology promoted by the Catholic Church, there isn't any claim to dissent from. Sumergocognito 19:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I added an {{ unreferenced}} tag, as while the list of popes themselves is referenced from the Annuario Pontificio in the lead, both the lead and the "What about Peter" sections are entirely unreferenced. -- Storkk ( talk) 12:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is this section here? This is a list page, FFS. There's some logic to a separate section on him, given that there's a query over how long he lived, etc, so that's fair enough. But treating this page as another battleground over RC/non-RC quibbles is not. Surely a simple statement, such as
"The
Roman Catholic Church recognizes
Saint Peter as the first Pope, though non-Catholics regard this claim as too proprietary; sources also differ on the length of his reign."
would do the trick. Opinions?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
18:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)