Talk:Basilica of St. John Lateran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.
Basilica of St. John Lateran is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the city of Rome on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Name Translation

The other articles on Italian basilicas use their proper Italian names because they are known moreso by their Italian names (outside the United States), even by English-speaking people: Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, Basilica Palladiana, Basilica della Santissima Annunziata di Firenze, Basilica di San Lorenzo di Firenze, Basilica di San Miniato al Monte, Basilica di San Zanipolo, Basilica di Santa Croce di Firenze, Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari, Basilica di Santa Maria Novella, Basilica di Santa Maria della Salute. Even many American institutions refer to the basilica by its Italian name. [1] These examples establishes precedence to move this article to the proper title, "Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterno" with a redirect from its lesser used (outside the United States) English translation. --Gerald Farinas 02:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wish I'd seen this when posted. In the case of St. John Lateran, it's just plain not true; Wikipedia looks very pedantic for the move. And "Basilica. . . ." is almost never used in speech, and infrequently in writing, to precede S. Maria Maggiore, S. Maria dei Frari, and most of the others in that list. Bill 11:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
someone moved this article to the english title, and you're bent on using the italian name within the article. if you're going to do that, use at least ONLY the italian name, and not a combination of both. there's still 9 "st. john"s in the article. you could have done a quick find-and-replace if you wanted to use the italian version. also there's no such thing as a "st. savior" as listed under the 'Roman Catholic liturgy' section. the only 'savoir' christians recognized is Christ. and no pope has canonized Him saint yet (that i'm aware of). so its "Holy Savior" no 'and/or' needed. in italian (as in spanish) 'santo' and 'santa' are used for people, places, things, and concepts. in some cases it means 'saint', in others 'holy'. in this case, its 'holy'. 4.230.153.169 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (old) Requested move

  • Laterno doesn't exist; the name of basilica is Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano

[edit] Support

  • Support The correct name is San Giovanni in LATERANO not Laterno - St John in LATERAN
  • Support Italian name is LATERANO, not LATERNO. AFAIK Laterno hasn't got any sense. GhePeU 10:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Even with a google search you get much more hits with LATERANO than with LATERNO. Nova77 14:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support The family were Laterani not Laterni. Why is this a voting issue? What if a bunch of people "voted" for Laterno? --Wetman 18:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

just searching a clear consensus; I can't move the page, probably because Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano exists as a redirect GhePeU 21:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so if nobody opposes I can move the page! Nova77 20:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I moved the page. I had to delete the already existing redirect in order to do so. --Gerald Farinas 21:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good, I have erased the warning. Nova77 00:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

1. Stated that it is "known in English as Saint John Lateran Basilica". I've never seen or heard that, not once. It is usually referred to as "St. John Lateran", or, in full, "the Basilica of St. John Lateran".

2. It is thoroughly misleading to state that it is one of "the five great ancient basilicas". An "ancient Roman basilica" is something totally different from a Catholic basilica dating back to ancient Roman times: see the various basilica articles. What is "great" about these is their canonical status in the modern Catholic Church; as ancient Roman edifices, they were insignificant or late, qualifying rather as paleochristian. Furthermore, there are many churches in Rome that date back to ancient Rome, including some that are also canonically basilicas in the Catholic sense (S. Agnese in Agone, S. Clemente, etc.); and at least one salient example that is a basilica in the architectural sense (S. Sabina).

3. An enumeration of the other four is not needed, and is taken care of by a link to the Category:Major Basilicas.

4. "Originally called Basilica Salvatoris and Archbasilica of the Holy Savior" is nonsense. The basilica system came much later than the origins of the church; the first is an (abbreviated) Latin name translated by the second; and most importantly, the phrase, as written, implied, that the church is no longer called that: but in fact it is, that's the current official name of the church (properly, Archibasilica Sanctissimi Salvatoris: Archbasilica of the Most Holy Savior) — the confession board at the entrance of the church so calls it.

5. "cathedral of the popes" is not as informative as it could be, and, again, somewhat misleading. Properly, it's the cathedral of Rome; the popes are the bishops of Rome.

Bill 11:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with 1-4, though number 5 doesn't make much sense. The office of Pope is exactly the same as the office of Bishop of Rome. The ecumenical powers that the Pope exercises are tied to the Roman see. Thus, if the Pope resigned the episcopate of Rome, he would cease to be Pope. Since Pope is merely a nickname for "Bishop of Rome", the terms "Cathedral of the Bishop of Rome" and "Cathedral of the Pope" are equivalent. Pmadrid 19:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Hang on, I think I misunderstood your #5. Here's an experiment. If I were to say in the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis article that it is the cathedral of the Archbishop of St. Louis, would you object to that as well? I.e. is your objection one of tying the cathedral to the person instead of the particular church? If so, I think that's understandable, but it is notable to point out that the Pope's cathedra is in the Lateran and that, historically, it was his principal church and is now his seat de jure. Pmadrid 19:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not the best writer, am I! Yes, a cathedral isn't to be tied to a person, but to the place. Yes yes, I would object to a church being the "cathedral of the Archbishop of..." That church is the cathedral not of the archbishop, but of St. Louis. On the other hand, it's useful to point out that the Lateran is the pope's church: your edit does the trick. Bill 20:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The cathedral is the seat of the bishop of the diocese, not as a person but ex officio. Cathedral churches have been shifted: see Bishopric of Sion, for one example: the cathedra is not inherently tied to the place. --Wetman 22:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
(Just noticed this today.) Wetman is right on this; I was mistaken. I do stick by my edit, though — no accounting for human stubbornness! — on the grounds of simplicity. The technically correct form is as Wetman says, but might as well kept the almost universal shorthand, "cathedral of Placename". Bill 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move (Dec 05)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: it was moved—jiy (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The basilica, unusually among Roman basilicas, is not widely known by Italian name but by its English translation. (The others simply aren't widely known.) Only in American English is there much usage in English of the Italian name, and that is probably because the US after Italy has the highest number of people of Italian descent who understandably use Italian names. Google searches show that the English name is more common among English speakers worldwide. Sourcebooks use it. It is used all over. Wikipedia policy is to use most common name (not the version in English!). If the Italian version was most common among worldwide speakers of English then the article would belong there. It isn't so it doesn't.

BTW WP does not always put a set of names in the one linguistic format. If some in a list are known in the native language and some in English, it follows that usage. So we have Victor Emmanuel III of Italy (English) followed by Umberto II of Italy (Italian) because for some reason English speakers refer to them that way. Ditto with Spanish monarchs. The same is true of locations. Just because most Roman basilicas are recognised (in so far as they are recognised at all) though Italian names does not mean that St. John Lateran must also be in Italian. We don't use the Italian for St. Peter's Basilica, for example. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

  1. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. JG of Borg 05:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. LuiKhuntek 06:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support move per reasons clearly spelled out by FearÉIREANN. It is essential that an encyclopedia, any kind of sourebook, or a news agency follow a set of standardized naming and style conventions. Wikipedia clearly has a very long way to go in that regard; but correcting any single non-standard page is always a step in the right direction. Wikipedia:Naming conventions lays out a set of guidelines under which "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The topic of this article is way outside my area of expertise. Still, looking at the religious and art history texts that I have on hand, I see that they use the English name. Since no one can seem to point to much evidence suggesting that the Italian name happens to be the more common usage among English-speakers, this article should be moved back. 172 07:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. AnnH (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. As much as I usually am in favour of using domestic names, in this case I can't be in favour of the Italian variant, sorry. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. I concur: on the English Wiki the English form should be the default option, if there's no reason for doing otherwise (and the original is Latin anyway). But take care that it's "Saint John in (the) Lateran" and not "St. John Lateran", as if Lateran were John#s family name (not that you would, but I've just read it above). Str1977 09:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. English speakers surely never talk about "the Basilica di anything". They may call some Italian churches or basilicas by the Italian name, but always with "of", never with "di". If the other articles mentioned by Gerald Farinas do in fact have "di", they should all be corrected. For instance, who really says in English: "the Basilica di Santa Croce di Firenze", rather than "the basilica of Santa Croce in Florence"? Should the name of the church itself be in English? I think usage varies. But English speakers certainly know the four major basilicas in Rome best by the English form of their names, which they often use without expressing the word "basilica" or "church", saying: "Saint Peter's", "Saint Mary Major's", "Saint Paul's outside (or without) the Walls". When those who built the American Episcopal church in Rome called it "Saint Paul's within the Walls", they were obviously thinking of this last name in its English form, not of "San Paolo fuori le Mura". Lima 10:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support We commonly use the anglicized name in English. Basilica of Saint John Lateran. I know there is a concern about "of the" but the use is commonly John Lateran. Dominick (TALK) 13:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. While an Italian-speaker would look for the church as now titled, why would she be doing so on English Wiki rather than on Italian Wiki? And to the rest of us mortals, the almost universal name for the church is St. John Lateran. I'd even drop the "Basilica of" — there's only one in the world: "Lateran" identifies the place. Bill 14:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support Would note alternative names and would make sure that alternative names point to the entry, but would call the entry by the phrase used most often in the English speaking world to refer to the basilica. Makes perfect sense. Used2BAnonymous 08:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support using the most widely recognized English name. CDThieme 00:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Pmadrid 01:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  1. Tentative Support Not because I object to using the english name, however the name that is proposed is wrong in my opinion. Isn't it "Basilica of St. John in Lateran" or something similar to that? I think we need to have a discussion first on the correct english naming, anyone please comment. Gryffindor 22:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The English language version used in St. John Lateran. in may be the literally correct translation but it isn't used in that form in English. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
And I confirm that St. John Lateran (no *in) is the standard English form. Bill 00:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

On page 3 of today's International Herald Tribune (at least the European edition) there is a photograph of some homeless people who yesterday "öccupied Rome's biggest church, St. John Lateran". Italian and German use the preposition "in"; French and Spanish (Saint-Jean de Latran, San Juan de Letrán) use "de" (of); but the centuries-old English usage employs no preposition whatever. Lima 12:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah ha I see, because when I do a search on Google (yes I know, not the annoying Google search again but sometimes useful for orientation purposes) i get 23,600 hits for the in version, and 57,500 for the without version. hm... the (St. John) basilica is after all in the Lateran, which is the name of the place, correct? Gryffindor 19:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It may well be, but it is not called that, simply the St. John Lateran. The fact that 23,600 hits show up for the in version just shows yet again the amount of bullshit google searches throws up (another case of the Charles Windsor fiasco, methinks!!!). FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Another name that's used (though I don't know how common it is in English) is simply Lateran Basilica. Str1977 03:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We can make that a redirect. JG of Borg 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of that name as the title of the actual article, not just a redirect. I'm still unconfy with "St. John Lateran" without the "in" - it sounds like "St. John Fisher". Maybe the missing "in" was the actual reason for preferring the Italian name. Lateran Basilica also deals with the fact that the basilica was not always dedicated to St. John. Please consider this. Str1977 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is simply that the in in never used in English name. The name is simply St John Lateran in English. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
While it's true that languages evolve, and often on the principle of "bad money drives out good", i.e., uneducated and popular forms eventually win out, especially when assisted by analogy or simplicity, over the originally correct form — in the case of the English names of monuments in Rome vel sim., the people talking about those monuments are most likely going to be following traditional nomenclature. By and large I'm an evolutionist in language matters, but there's no point in artificially speeding up the decay. (And no, "St. Mary Major" shouldn't call to mind St. Mary Magdalen....) Bill 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Given 100% support in voting for the renaming, the renaming has now been done. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Deleted text

The following text has been deleted from the article, perhaps in error: "Twice the Lateran Palace and basilica have been rededicated. Pope Sergius III dedicated them to Saint John the Baptist in the 10th century in honor of the newly consecrated basilica baptistry. Pope Lucius II dedicated the Lateran Palace and basilica to Saint John the Evangelist in the 12th century. The church became the most important shrine in honor of the two saints, not often jointly venerated (but see Peruzzi Chapel, Santa Croce, Florence). In later years, a Benedictine monastery was established at the Lateran Palace, devoted to serving the basilica as a devotional to the two saints." The text appears informative and essentially correct. --Wetman 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misidentified photo

In attempting to use Wikipedia to label my own Rome photos, I realized that a photo on this page is mislabeled. The one labeled "Triclinium of Leo III" does depict not a triclinium at all. It is an apse, apparently called a tribune, with copies of the mosaics from Leo III's triclinium (dining room) in the ancient Lateran Palace (see that article, last paragraph of text, for a good description). Also found some other links identifying it. [2] [3] Just thought I'd explain myself before I edit. And all because I am trying to be too anal in labeling my some thousand Italy photos (at this rate, I'll never finish). —LonelyPilgrim 05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it would help if I would actually read this article. Still, I think the picture needs a better caption. —LonelyPilgrim 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody think this picture needs to be also (or perhaps instead) in the Lateran Palace article? —LonelyPilgrim 05:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The illustration of the "Holy Steps" does not show the Scala Sancta either. The naive text that accompanies the illustration here might be replaced with a condensed version of Scala Sancta, to the general improvement of this somewhat eroding article. --Wetman 10:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inscription and location

The inscription
The inscription

In the Lateran Palace section this article states "the words Sacrosancta Lateranensis ecclesia omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput are incised in the main door". But the article Lateran says that the inscription is "at the base of the columns on either side of the central entrance door", and reads "SACROS LATERAN ECCLES OMNIUM URBIS ET ORBIS ECCLESIARUM MATER ET CAPUT". Which of these is correct, or are both correct? --Blainster 04:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

IIRC the Lateran version is at the base of the columns. The Lateran account is a simple transcription of the inscription in abbreviated form. The full version is easier to read and should be preferred in my opinion. It appears for instance on this vase, offered by French President Charles De Gaulle as an honorary canon of the basilica. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still confused about the name

Forgive my ignorance but the question I can here to clarify isn't really in either the article or the discussion. What it the relationship between the names: St. John & Our Saviour? The article and discusion lead me to think that Basilica of Our Savior at some point replaced St. John's which is no longer an offical name. Yet it is almost always as in this article in practice referred to as St. John's which would be incorrect or at least no longer correct. I heard somewhere, (no, i don't remember where, hence I was looking it up here) that it is the Basilica of Our Saviour & Cathedral of St. John's Lateran BUT NOT Baslica of St. John's or the Cathedral of Our Saviour. The only similar arrangement I know of is that in Monreal the same church is both the Basilica of Mary Queen of the World and the Cathedral of St. James the Greater. (editing my own comment per teh wikipedia article on same the Montreal Cathedral is Mary Queen of teh World completely replacing the St. James nae, so this doesn't help with St. John's/Our Saviour If someone could make quite explicitly clear the status of this church's name or names, I'd appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)