Talk:St. Peter's Basilica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

St. Peter's Basilica 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.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
European Microstates This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European Microstates, which collaborates on articles related to European Microstates. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
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.
A This article has been rated as A-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.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Is it the largest?

The statement "The basilica is perhaps the largest church in Christendom" needs to be revised. It does not clearly state if the basilica is in fact the largest church in Christendom.

The UNESCO web site claims that it is the largest religious building period.


==

In the article of Mecca Mosquee it also says that it's the largest...

...and the largest religious building on Earth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Haram —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.8.156 (talk)

The reason that it says "perhaps the largest" is that exact figures are lacking for the church in Africa which claims to be larger. It is believed that other buildings are included in the measurement.
As for the Mecca Mosque, it may be a place of worship, but it is a mosque, not a church. And it isn't in "Christendom". Amandajm (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Burial Site Controversy

The current section on the burial controversy appears to be poorly edited - can somebody examine and revert to an accurate text?

Not only that, but the Burial Controversy part is certainly unencyclopedic and one is hard pressed to figure out why it is so prominently featured. May I respectfully suggest it be removed to here while it is reworked and maybe reinserted in a more appropriate place in the text? Ramdrake 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and moved the text to this page right away. Not sure this is real history; it sounds very much like something out of the Da Vinci Code. Ramdrake 17:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Just below the floor level, an ancient Roman grave was discovered. It soon worked under a vow of secrecy. The decade-long investigation, which brought to light, along with the necropolis, the aedicula thought to mark Peter's grave, was closely overseen by Pius XII's longtime collaborator Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, and the actual digging was done the hereditary corps of Vatican City workmen. It was an inside job.

"In 1951, after twelve years of silence from the excavators and feverish speculation in the world outside, Ferrua and his colleagues published their official report. It caused an immediate had in fact worked with remarkable with Ferrua that she announced that a workman had given her a box of bones which had been entombed in a wall and somehow overlooked in the official report. She argued that they included Peter's bones. of a mouse." Yet Guarducci, for a while, carried the day. Nearly 30 years later, in 1968, Pope Paul VI announced that those bones belonged to St Peter{{ref|inside, the box was removed and Guarducci banned from the site.

[edit] Pictures??

Is it possible to get some pictures on this page? There has to be some un-copyrighted stuff out there...This is one of the most influential buildings in history and all we have is text.

Concerning the pictures, the picture of "St. Peter's bones" is actually a picture of the chest that contains the wool used in some clerical garb, which is blessed by the Pope and then placed there. The bones themselves are actually in a the catacombs/crypt underneath, accessible only by joining a "scavi tour."

[edit] Crypt?

I think this article might be enhanced with a section on the crypt, and Saint Peter's tomb. That said, I have no such information on hand at the moment. Does anyone have data on this? Hiberniantears

Recently I visited St. Peter's and saw a crest with 3 bees. The crest was repeated many times in the area around St. Peter's tomb. Does anybody know what the symbolic meaning behind this is?

Bees for Barberini, Maffeo was Urban VIII. Wetman

According to good authority, it is not St Peters's, but San Giovanni in Laterano which is the cathedral of Rome and "mother" of all (Roman Catholic) churches. See http://www.roma2000.it/schgiov.html

S.

Yes, San Giovanni is the see of the Bishop of Rome.
Please note, regarding St.peter's, it is a rare case in which we ought to use Rome, Vatican. G

Anyone watching this page may wish to contribute to the stub article titled Saint Peter's Square. Michael Hardy 22:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By separating the square from the basilica, one may miss some points. Is the facade of St Peter's to be discussed as part of the Piazza, then? Wetman 22:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It goes without saying that the facade is a part of the church. But Bernini conceived the plan for the piazza with Maderno's facade in mind. Rienzo 18:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The pictures are very moving. The way they capture the color and the rare artwork of the building is spectacular.Jenn 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move → Saint Peter's Basilica

  • Oppose No reason not to use an abbreviation; current name is by far the more common, according to the "google test". Alai 19:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. That doesn't make it right, especially since Google tests aren't the end-all/be-all of Wikipedia and most of the websites listed on Google are by no means "official"...for instance, get down a little after #2000 and you have "I visited St. Peter's Basilica on March 23 2000". Note that the Vatican website refers to Saint Peter's Square and the Vatican Basilica, the saints themselves are listed as "St.", not the buildings named after them. —ExplorerCDT 22:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't necessarily make it "right", but the rule is "common usage", not "official name". If you have other evidence as to common usage, I'm all ears, but a factor of five difference on google is at least a start, I suggest. Alai 23:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Common usage does not have a guideline regarding abbreviations, and especially "Saint" vs. "St." is up in the air given its usage here on Wikipedia in naming articles. Given that most abbreviations I can think of on Wikipedia lead to the articles named after the full name. We should consider discussing amendments to the convention regarding the absence of a guideline on this matter. As for the google test, we don't call the Central Intelligence Agency article, "CIA" despite there being more links (by 5 to 2) for "CIA" on google (a few of those would be for Culinary Institute, btw), or Federal Bureau of Investigation as "FBI" (abbreviation gets 3:1 on google). —ExplorerCDT 23:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. "St." looks unprofessional. —Cantus…☎ 02:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Use common name. Jonathunder 08:01, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Cantus SγωΩηΣ tαlk 12:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment - "Cathedral and church names, unless they individually use something different, are written as St. not Saint. Hence St. Paul's Cathedral not Saint Paul's Cathedral, St. Mary's Pro-Cathedral not Saint Mary's Pro-Cathedral, etc." - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) It might be worth debating whether this convention is right, because it is the opposite of the convention for actual saints. However, while the convention remains in place it should be followed, and any change to it needs to be debated on a whole-wiki not an individual-page basis. TSP 22:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per TSP. - UtherSRG 04:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. -- Necrothesp 10:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm a new user, but I invoke my right to oppose with TSP 24.205.34.217 00:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 12:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You call 5 votes to 3 a consensus not to move? —Cantus…☎ 20:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
No, it's a lack of consensus either way, and so the template calls it, it seems to me. Alai 02:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UT)

[edit] Largest or Second Largest?

The main article says this is the second largest church in Christianity, while the caption under the top image calls it the largest church. One of these (or possibly both) needs to be corrected.

If it's the second largest, which one is bigger, anyway? Who put that in in the first place?

The Guinness Book of World Records claims that the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro is the largest Christian church. This statement is actually included in the St. Peter's Basilica article. Since the truth of that claim is disputed, the introduction & caption should say something to the effect that the Vatican could possibly be the largest Christian church without making a claim as to whether it is or not until other sources can be consulted. Pmadrid 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the nature of the dispute actually? The Yamoussoukro church has undisputedly a larger surface area than St. Peter's, right? The Guinness Book of Records also notes that until the Yamoussoukro church was completed St. Peter's had the largest area. On the talk page for the Yamoussoukro church there's a bit of a dispute over whether it is the tallest church in Christianity, which is demonstratibly false. Obviously one can use different criteria, like asking "What is the tallest building in the world?" yields a different answer depending on how you define building, and whether radio masts are included, etc. Similarly the question "What is the largest church in Christianity?" could produce different answers depending on how you define Christianity and what you mean by large. But I haven't seen anyone dispute the claim that the Yamoussoukro church has a larger surface area than St. Peter's. Does anyone know more about what this "dispute" is really all about? —Gabbe 23:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you looking at Jerusalem from the dome view?

Is it true that when looking at the view of the piazza from the dome (as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Viewfromdome1.jpg ) then you are looking at Jerusalem? I've heard that Christian churches are also headed east (towards Jerusalem) in the position the priest is when adressing the audience. Any ideas? --86.127.41.162 16:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There are four majore basilicas in Rome; San Pietro, San Giovanni in Laterano, Sant Maria Maggiore and San Paulo. I have ammended the stated number. Anthony.bradbury 22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dome

The sentence beginning "It is not simply that..." is poor grammar. This construction must always be followed by something like: "... but also" --72.60.10.20 14:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architectural history

The architectural history of St. Peter's, with the exception is a discussion of the dome, is mnissing. This was the architectural project of the high Renaissance. It has to be discussed. --Wetman 09:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - I have reduced the project classes to start in the hope of attracting improvements. I don't think the words Bramante or Raphael even appear! Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please write a section on the history of its construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UtahSurfer (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, Guys! This has just come to my attention...all you needed to do was shout in the right direction! Amandajm (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query

  • Consecration year "1626": this is the completion date, no? --Wetman (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Should just be removed (like, ideally, the whole disinfobox) Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Who designed the Dome?

"There is a widespread assumption that the dome, or cupola, as it presently stands, was designed by Michelangelo, who became chief architect in 1546. In fact, Michelangelo's design called for a spherical dome. At the time of his death (1564), only the drum set, the base on which a dome rests, had been completed. The dome proper was redesigned and vaulted by the architect Giacomo della Porta, with the assistance of Domenico Fontana, who was probably the best engineer of the day. Fontana built the lantern the following year, and the finial was placed in 1593."

This paragraph which refers to the knowledge that Michelangelo designed the dome as an "assumption" is ridiculous. It goes on to say that Giacomo della Porta "redesigned" it! One would also assume from the writing of this that Fontana was responsible for the lantern. The impression given here is that we are looking at della Porta and Fontana's dome, not Michelangelo's.. This is nonsense. It all hangs in the misuse of the words "designed" and "redesigned". Before Michelangelo's death his designs were engaved and published, and he left a large wooden model. Giacomo della Porta did not "redesign" the dome. What he did was change the profile of the outer shell.

An early stage of the alteration was to change the wooden model. His changes are clearly visible and give it a steeper profile than the engavings of 1569, but not as steep as eventually built. Since the engravings predate the death of Michelangelo by some years, we cannot confirm whether the change in profile was instigated by Giacomo or by Michelangelo himself. There is considerable stylistic evidence that it was Michelangelo. Amandajm (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most-famous church

This was changed to "one of the most famous churches". I think this latter statement belies what James Lees-Milne refers to as St. Peter's "unique position". There is no other church which is so famous for its connections to Early Christianity and pilgrimage and architecture and historic associations and theology and its continuing, ongoing role in the lives of millions of people. Its position is hardly a matter of debate. Its a bit like saying Jupiter is one of the biggest planets of the solar system or Ghandi was one of the most famous Indian leaders of the 20th century. Amandajm (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted or altered quite a number of Arpingstone's recent edits because they did, in fact, change the meaning.
  • For example: To say that there are two water stoups yea-big is not the same as to say that the interior is so stupendously large that it makes it difficult to guage proportion. "Stupendous" being the word used by numerous writers.
  • To say that the most famous painting is a little icon is simply not the same as saying that (surprisingly) in all that vast place there are no oil paintings or frescoes. And this is 16th-17th century Italy.
Correction "No" should read "few".. There are in fact a few oil paintting. Most pictures have been copied as mosaics. Amandajm (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

However, in this instance the lack of paintings is quite remarkable, and requires an adjective that expresses that. I will change the word to "remarkably" unless someone comes up with a better one. There is probably a quote out there.

  • As for the foot of Peter, to say it is "polished" is a real understatement.

Amandajm (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Could someone please add addresses and contact information to the main Wikipedia pages for the Largest Churches in the World? This would be extremenly helpful for those researching these churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyagray9 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clement's letter and martyrdom of St Peter

Clement's letter to the Corinthians chapter 5 does not mention Peter's martyrdom in Rome. Here's the text:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Wfgh66 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sizing of images

The images in this article have been carefully arranged and sized so that they do not disrupt the text, regardless of whether the monitor on which they are viewed is wide, or more square.

There is a nnotion among some editors that all wikipedia users know how to "please themselves about how they size images". They don't! We are not writing here for the highly computer literate, and the Wikipedia expert. We are writing for every person on the planet who has a computer and can read information in English.

Art and architecture articles need images that are sized so that their content may be viewed while reading the article, without having to hop over to another page, just to see what the writer is talking about. Thumbnails of highly detailed subjjects are useless to most general readers. The pics here that are of 250px format are all those that contain a lot of detail. The only exception is the pic near the beginning, which for reasons of layout, has been sized up to match the box immediately above it.

Amandajm (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your reasoning. Diliff's edit appeared to me to have accidentally restored thumbnail sizes (the edit summary didn't say anything about it, and there was no mention on the talk page), so I looked over it carefully and tried to merge it in. I typically don't remove image sizes from articles that have them, but when someone re-adds them without explanation soon after removal, I do lean towards reverting the change. These sorts of things seem to occur most often by accident.
I haven't seen this issue discussed in relation to the St. Peter's Basilica article, so I made the call that seemed most appropriate at the time. I'm not a WP:IUP crusader. ;) You've been very active in editing this article recently, and seem to effectively be its maintainer at this point, so I have no problem deferring to your judgment. I'll leave these be in the future.
• WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank! :-) Amandajm (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

...to the sharp unnamed editor who picked up this error: The engraving by Stefan du Pérac was published in 1569, five years before the death of Michelangelo. Michelangelo died in 1564. The engraving was published after his death. Amandajm (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)