Talk:St. Peter's Basilica/Archive 1

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? &mdash;Gabbe 23:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

22:33, 28 March 2006‎ (UTC)

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)

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)

Requested move → Saint Peter's Basilica
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)
 * 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. &mdash;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). &mdash;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  S γ ω Ω η Σ  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." - 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)
 * 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)

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)

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 engraved 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)

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)

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.


 * &bull; WarpFlyght (talk &bull; contribs) 05:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank! :-) Amandajm (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Lead image
I notice a new editor swapped a couple of the pics around, and removed the Panini painting. I returned Panini's pic to the lead, and put the picture of the facade back where it links to the paragraph on Maderno's facade. Several reasons- Amandajm (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Panini pic gives a better idea of the actual scale of the building than any available photo.
 * Being a painting and very detailed, it benefits from being large in scale, but from a layout point of view, it doesn't sit comfortably among the series of pics illustrating the successive stages of the building, which is one reason why it is in the title box.
 * I don't want to simply leave it out, but I also don't want to swap it for the pic of the nave that is in the text, because the photo reveals very clearly the changes in scale made by Maderno. Both interior views have a story to tell.
 * I don't personally like the Pannini picture; I don't think it's descriptive enough. I think we should try and get a proper photograph in there. — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 20:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Panini pic reveals the spaces of the building better than any photo. It shows the aisles as well as the nave. The chancel can be seen beyong the nave. The architectural details have been clearly and precisely drawn with knowledge and expertise. It doesn't describe the ambience as well as some photographs, but it describes the building itself with superb clarity. I dont know of any photo that does this. This is why this drawing is reproduced in books about St Peter's. In the same way, the interiors of Hagia Sophia and the Pantheon are most often shown as engravings rather than as photographs. The artist's eye still beats the camera when it comes to depicting the interior of a vast building. This is the best we've got.Amandajm (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New picture to maybe add
Could this be used in the article some how?



FSU Guy (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

You do indeed look east (but not south-east towards Jerusalem) from to dome if you are looking at the piazza. This is because St. Peter's faces west due to the fact that the original memorial to St. Peter's grave faced west into the Vatican hillside (the hill was destroyed when the original Church of St. Peter was built) and the custom of having the church face east, to the rising sun (reminding us of the second rising of Christ) had yet to be established. Churches are traditionally not built towards towards Jerusalem, however, as even those churches in India and China, if built in the traditional way, face east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.1.233 (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Formatting templates
Please note the correct use of allcaps, lang and  in this edit and use such templates elsewhere, as appropriate. This will improve the accessibility and standards compliance of our articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Word-for-word duplication
In the indroductory section, and in the "Status" section immediately following it, a very large percentage of the text is simply duplicated, word for word. This is very poor article style. Is there a Wikipedia style editor that could correct this glaring mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.251.198 (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Completion Date
I was recently on a tour in the Basilica, and the guide told me that the church was completed in the 1990's when the floor of a side chapel was completed, not when it was consencrated (A church can be consencrated before it is completed). I cannot remember the date, but I know it is true because in each side chapel there is a mosaic on the floor that reads which pope's reign it was started and the date it was completed. If someone could come up with a picture of that, the completion date problem would be corrected. Bobthewalrus (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Bobthewalrus


 * The statement in the article is that "construction" was completed on a particular date. This means that on that date the roof was tiled, the windows were glazed and the door was on its hinges. It was a fully serviceable building. The decoration then went on for generations with tombs, plaques, mosaics and all sorts of work being done piecemeal right up to the present day. The statement that the building wasn't actually finished until 199? is typical of the sort of stories that guides like to tell. The floor of the chapel would have been paved with plain stone, which was eventually covered with mosaic in the 1990s. There would not have been a gaping hole waiting for a floor to be laid, 300 years later.
 * Westminster Cathedral is another such case. The construction has been completed for many years, but the decoration of the interior with mosaics is an ongoing task. Nearly every big cathedral is like this. Amandajm (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to "New St. Peter's Basilica"
A well-meaning editor moved the article to "New St. Peter's Basilica" to "differentiate it from Old St. Peter's Basilica". I moved it back most importantly because there was no visible discussion here to move the article. Second, because Old St. Peter's Basilica already has "old" in the title it is clearly differentiated and is mentioned in this article. Third, the current St. Peter's does not use "new" in the official title or even in the common title; it is simply referred to as "St. Peter's" or "St. Peter's Basilica". On top of that "new" seems a bit outdated since it was "new" in 1626. This is similar to the naming of articles like Yankee Stadium, Wembley Stadium, and Busch Stadium, structures that have names transferred from previous buildings. The current building is called by the name and the former building to bear the name is either "old" or has the year it was built in the title. For instance, Yankee Stadium directs to the current Yankee Stadium that opened in 2009 while the previous Yankee Stadium is found at Yankee Stadium (1923). Before the current stadium was opened, the article was titled "New Yankee Stadium". --JonRidinger (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Thanks, & Happy Christmas. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

stone from the Colosseum
A very persistent editor keeps demanding more citation over this sentence:
 * Pope Nicholas V .......His reign was frustrated by political problems and when he died, little had been achieved.[10] He had, however, ordered the demolition of the Colosseum and by the time of his death, 2,522 cartloads of stone had been transported for use in the new building.[10][15]

There are two citations already, both good ones, James Lees-Milne's St Peter's and Amanda Claridge, Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (First ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, (1998). pp. 276–282. ISBN 0-19-288003-9.

The editor, who is unnamed, has left the following edit summaries:
 * primary s needed, also the claim should also be referenced in the Colosseum and Pope Nicholas V, for consistency (as it is, pretty much, a very big claim), and for notability
 * correction, although a primary source would be nice to have, the issue is the controversal element of the source and the lack of other sources to back it up
 * the fact that a work is published, doesn't guarantee its validity. claim is very serious.more sources are needed for controversial claim of using stone robbing for building St. Pete's

My response to this is that you, editor 83.131.217.210, are looking at this with modern eyes and thnking about the Colosseum in terms of heritage importance. In the 1500s there was nothing whatsoever controversial about demolishing (not "robbing") a "Pagan" building where thousands of Christians were thought to have died. If you have ever been on a pilgrimage around the various ancient churches of Rome, then you would know that most of the Early Christian and Romanesque churches have parts taken from Ancient Roman buildings. Dozens of columns from Roman temples were reused, often not matched and with odd-sized bases and capitals on them.

You have referred to this matter as "controversial". I can assure you, it isn't in the least controversial! When you go to the Colosseum, you won't see piles of fallen stone lying on the ground, on the damaged side of the building. It was lowered down and carted away. The travertine marble which was all over the outside was taken off in the medieval period, mostly to get at the metal clamps which held it on, and were more valuable than the stone. In the 1500s, the metal was all gone, and it was the stone that they wanted.

Keep in mind that Pope Nicholas was planning to demolish St Peter's....the biggest and most significant church in Rome. If he could plan pulling down St Peter's Basilica which was built by the Emperor Constantine and had stood for a thousand years, then why, do you think, would he be even the tiniest bit sentimental about demolishing the Colosseum?

The fact that stone from the Colosseum was used at St Peter's is not rare knowledge. Here is just one of the mentions that I found by Googling:


 * ''The Colosseum's History- The Rise and Fall of the Flavian Amphitheatre in Rome- Dec 8, 2008 Natasha Sheldon
 * Plundering the Colosseum
 * By the 12th century, the Colosseum had once more gone up in the world when it become part of the Frangipane family’s fortress. The family occupied two levels of arches at the eastern end of the structure until the building left their ownership, eventually falling into the hands of the church. Its stone began to be plundered with records showing travertine stone from the building was put up for sale in 1362. By the renaissance, humanists such as Pope Eugene IV were calling for the historic remains to be preserved. This did not prevent the building from being used as a ‘quarry’ supplying stone for great renaissance buildings such as the Vatican’s St Peter’s church. In the sixteenth century, the church sanctified the former amphitheatre, due to the misconception that it was a place of martyrdom for early Christians under Nero. A small church, the Chapel of Santa Maria Della Pieta was built in the north eastern corner of the arena. This in no way stopped the slow erosion of the building’s structure and soon only the north side of the building left relatively intact.

Sorry, I can't link to this because of the spam filter)

Amandajm (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I have just observed that all other edits from this address are vandalism. This person may be simply a particularly cunning stirrer. Amandajm (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discrediting me in such a way, that's bellow the belt and dishonourable. I personally don't care, but I encourage you to not do it to other people, OK? :) And it doesn't make my arguments of any lesser value. And thank you for calling me "cunning", it makes me feel warm inside. :) I didn't do much vandalism, if any. You can check it out.


 * Just for the record, the page for your IP address contains five separate warnings about vandalisms. So to suggest that your actions might be vandalistic is hardly what one would call dishonourable and "below the belt".
 * The fact is that there are editors on Wikipedia who cause friction for the pleasure of it, someimtimes quite by quite subtle but very persistent means. Amandajm (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The stone robbing of the Colosseum has puzzled historians for some generations and quite simplistically, the Wikipedia section about it may make a common Joe think it was all the work of the infamous Pope Nicholas V "Stone Robber" and that it was virtually intact before that and after that, which is far from the truth (it was impossible to even build St. Peter's with all the material missing (mostly travertine stone), hypothetically speaking, from the Colosseum, just compare the volume, and furthermore the composition of material greatly differs from the one used in the Colosseum and regardless of that, perhaps holds only a fraction, maybe even a small one, if any - which I doubt). Oversimplification, among many things, is a tool of propaganda, misleading and let's stick to the encyclopedic style, shall we guys?

I myself, have a habit of verifying every single Oxbridge source, and am very familiar to their impetuousness nature (maybe even demagogic), both spelled out completely or subliminal, all rooted in my past experiences. Their clumsy source material net is just fascinating. The source that you claim may derive from one single source, maybe even the sources listed, and with book publishers like these, it can even make it a commonly spread lie, and it would be perfect for such a claim to be repeated every time, and making it not a big deal, just upholds the obvious agenda. So please, an earlier respectable Italian source or by the Vatican officials themselves, and it would be perfect if they predate the source in the article, this would prove that it isn't just an accusation made because of someones interest and a cheap way of getting attention but let's make it a rock solid truth as much as possible, and historically provable. Wouldn't that be just great? And preferably that to a degree, exclusively deals with the act itself and how the quarring for this particular building was damaging to the Colosseum remains. Everyone has a say in common sense, even if you need to counter Oxford sources with it...

I'd like to hear some other opinions. I'll be more than happy to hear those against, and maybe those who support some of the things I'm saying.

Cheers --83.131.217.210 (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the manner in which you have written a lot of this is exaggerated, and hard to follow.
 * Secondly, I recommend that you write a "footnote" (with appropriate reference of course) to the effect that ..... well, to whatever effect you like, as long as it's referenced. It could start "Historians are in disagreement about how much stone ....." or it could say somehthing like "The Colosseum first suffered severe damage in an earthquake... " or "The removal of building stone from the Colosseum appears to have been ongoing since....." Add whatever you like as a footnote.... but reference it.
 * ...and, make a link to a section in the article Colosseum where you will then write everything that you know about the reuse of stone from the Colosseum, including the (disputed) matter about Nicholas V. With references.
 * Amandajm (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just re-read some of this stuff above, and I want to question:
 * "the infamous Pope Nicholas V "Stone Robber" "
 * "obvious agenda"
 * "just an accusation made because of someones interest"
 * "a cheap way of getting attention"


 * You seem to be implying a conspiracy among English writers, against poor Pope Nicholas V.
 * Let me repeat that Nicholas V had every intention of demolishing one of the oldest and largest churches in Christendom, but didn't live to achieve it.
 * Do you doubt it? That was what rebuilding St Peter's involved.
 * Can't you take on board that knocking down "Old" St Peter's Basilica was far far far more significant to the clergy and laity of Rome than the partial demolition of a disused Pagan building where, it was believed, thousands of Christians had been murdered. Nobody cared two hoots about the stone from the Colosseum. However the demolition of St Peter's Basilica caused both grief and guilt.
 * While you are busy trying to protect Nicholas V against some imagined slur over the removal of stone from the Colosseum, you don't seem to care that he (and his successors) were planning and working towards knocking down a Constantinian basilica that was probably the most famous church in Christendom.... Nowadays this would be considered Heritage vandalism of a most extreme kind. Instead of demolishing it, we would be calling in ICOMOS to advise on the possibilities, raising funds internationally and shoaring up the decaying structure by whatever means possible. Amandajm (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * Really? No matter of debate at all? What about Haghia Sophia? Look out, your bias is showing. 98.180.8.57 (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2010 (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)

'''I'm new so this is bad format, however there are absolutely no paintings in the Basilica, they are all mosaics. I was just there on a tour, and that was the reason that pictures are allowed in the Basilica.''' Bobthewalrus (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Bobthewalrus
 * There is definitely a small painted icon. It's not an oil painting.
 * I believed that there were no oil paintings whatsoever, but then came across an image that was supposed to be a a painting in St Peters. Perhaps the writer meant that it was in the Vatican Picture Gallery. I'll see if I can check this out. Amandajm (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked this out. In the Chapel of the Sacrament is a large oil painting of the Trinity by Pietro da Cortona. It is not a fresco (as it is wrongly described at the fodors website), and is definitely not a mosaic. It reproduced in James Lees-Milne's book. However the story that there are no paintings, omly mosaics is a very pervasive myth. This page of the St Peter's site gives descriptions from various guidebooks. The first one describes the painting and says it is the only canvas in the basilica. Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2009 (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)

Necropolis before Circus? I don't think so!
This is the text from the article today. It seems intended to confuse: "In 1939, in the reign of Pope Pius XII, 10 years of archaeological research began, under the crypt of the basilica, an area inaccessible since the 9th century. Indeed, the area now covered by the Vatican City had been a cemetery for some years before the Circus of Nero was built. It was a burial ground for the numerous executions in the Circus and contained many Christian burials, perhaps because for many years after the burial of Saint Peter many Christians chose to be buried near him."

Blah blah blah bullshit! The vatican hill was owned by Agrippina, the aunt of Nero. There was nothing there save a villa on the hill or whatever, much as there are little palaces up there now. Caligula and Nero had a circus built there early in the first century CE. By the second century CE the area was a necropolis. By Roman law necropoli had to be built outside the city gates. Hadrian had built a massive mausoleum (now known as the Castel Sant'Angelo, which is a 16th century fort that encloses the original structure*) on the west bank of the Tiber, where he was buried after his death in 138AD. By contrast, these necropoli, only a little ways away, belonged to the middle classes.


 * -a neat place to visit, as the entirety of the Vatican archives were once housed in a little wooden cabinet, which you can see there, putting to lie the now pervasive mythology that the Holy See has some sort of secret archive full of otherwise lost records of the early years of orthodox Christianity. There wouldn't have been room.

Vatican archeologists found evidence that there was a shrine attributable to the 2nd century with contemporary grafitto attesting that it was the burial place of Peter. (There were also some bodies buried there, which is hardly shocking to anyone.) Of course (as with all the really important matters where Christian orthodoxy is concerned) there is a hundred year gap to be explained away. The legend that Peter was crucified in the circus (not generally a method of execution preferred in circuses, at any rate) probably arose because of the proximity of the Circus of Caligula and Nero to the site of the trophaeum. (Much of the Circus site was eventually covered by the necropolis by the 3rd century.) The date of 64AD is of course the date of the great fire of Rome. There is considerable controversy among historians as to whether persecutions of Christians even occurred as result of this fire; it was never proven who started it although Nero came under suspicion due to his seizing of all the property destroyed by the fire to build his Domus Aureus.

If you go to St. Peter's you will probably even hear the story that Peter was buried directly at the site of his martyrdom, which even the Church knows to be arrant nonsense. It seems like wikipedia is also busy spreading pious legends, as well as frank confusions, hardly the "neutral point of view".98.180.8.57 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quotes
Because of its prominence I suppose, there are no testimonials, as it were. Nevertheless, I submit for your edification and possible inclusion in the article, the unsolicited comment of a noted Protestant, who did not realize his remarks would be published: "I love St. Peter's Church. It grieves me that after a few days I shall see it no more. It has a peculiar smell from the quantity of incense burned in it. The music that is heard in it is always good & the eye is always charmed. It is an ornament of the earth. It is not grand. It is so rich & pleasing: it should rather be called the sublime of the beautiful." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, April 7, 1833. Student7 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was quoting from a very tertiary source, unavailable for checking. But just found this site online with gobs of quotes (all tertiary, too). Who knows? Maybe more interesting! http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Docs/QUO/Quotes.htm. Student7 (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Indulgence axe grinding"
The way in which St Peter's was funded is part of its history. If the method of funding of the building of St Peter's contributed to a massive rift in the Catholic Church, then it really needs to be stated somewhere in this article. The story told here is mostly one of inspiration, but, naturally, it has a dark side as well. Amandajm (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it turned out to be a bad idea, but besides that (!), there was nothing particularly dark or illegal about it! It was certainly implemented poorly. The pope was quite desperate and wanted to finish the church "in the worst way." as the joke goes. And he succeeded! :)  Poorly thought out, but dark? I'm not so sure. Anything can be badly implemented. Student7 (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (Responding to note on my page). Current version looks okay to me. Has unbiased text IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've linked in the very weak simony article which needs enhancing. Has text on Anglican church! But was condemned in 11xx, long before this.
 * The standing of the local bishops was peculiar. They owed their job to their local ruler and supposedly to Rome as well. They had to pay "tax" on contributions to their local ruler. Thus leading to problems. If you really want to get into it... :) Student7 (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The changes are good except for .....seen as selling indulgences in Germany. It should say seen, in Germany, as the "selling of indulgences". It is the perception, rather than the "sale" that is localised (at least I think that is the implication intended). I suspect that this peception may have been wider. Amandajm (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Holiest?
A phrase reads, "It is regarded as one of the holiest Catholic sites." For starters, Christians generally are not big on places, per se. Nice reminders and all that. But there is nothing to compare to the Kaaba or the Temple Mount or shrines of other religions which are sacrosanct. There is the host/Eucharist, which is regarded as holy. That is probably it for Catholics. Yes, Catholics make pilgrimages. These have changed over the years, impossible if the list were truly "holy" and integral to the religion. Not so sure this adjective is justified for a mere place. Even places in the Holy Land are "mere reminders" not sacred places per se. Student7 (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are probably right that it does not equate with the Kaaba. But I have stood in the nave of St Peter's and watched the pilgrims falling to their knees as they entered the building. This equates it to a place that is regarded as "Holy". There is no statement here that the place is "Holy". Amandajm (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you are saying. The pope opens a special door which pilgrims enter every jubilee. But this is Middle Ages stuff - using churches to attract tourists/tourism. All in the minds of the tourist - not really that sacrosanct. The lead does use the word "holiest" as quoted above. Student7 (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between stating "St Peter's is (one of the ) holiest sites", and "St Peter's is regarded as one of the holiest sites". The first is dependent upon some definition of "holiness". The second is true beyond the slightest doubt. And regardless of whether or not St Peter's draws the same crowds as the Kaaba, it remains significant within Christianity (or within Catholicism, since someone has just changed that). This isn't "medieval stuff". The pilgrims falling on their knees as they enter the main body of the basilica is something that happens every day. That makes it relevant to the 21st century. It is the perception of these pilgrims (call them tourists if you like) that makes it possible to say that the site is "regarded as one of the holiest Catholic sites". Whether it is, in fact, sacred in some way, God alone knows. Amandajm (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There may be some difference between a self-defined religion like Baptist or Mohammedan where people essentially "vote" on what the religion consists of. And top-down religions like Catholicism which tells believers what is true and what isn't. The building contains no more "holiness" outside of maybe some relics and the Eucharist than a fried egg supposedly resembling some religious figure. Does the Church mind all those "pilgrims?" Well, no, but that does not make St. Peters's any holier. It is pov to use that word here. It is article hype perhaps. St. Peter's is just a building, a hopefully atrractive one in which people will want to visit and worship. But just a building. Student7 (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. There is no statement here that the building (or the site) is, of itself, "holy". However, within Catholicism, the building (site) is generally regarded as "holy". To state within the article that it is regarded that way (within Catholicism) is not POV. It is a factual statement. Whether it is more or less holy than a fried egg is of no consequence to the factual nature of the statement. Neither are the apparent differences in Catholicism, the Baptist Church and Islam.
 * While your suggestions are presumably made "in good faith" it is becoming tedious to continue this discussion. Amandajm (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cost
This is an important point:  According to source 40, the price of the incomplete basilica was [however many it was] ducates. Then, on the page, that number of ducates is listed as the total construction cost. I've changed it to read partial construction cost but people change it back to total. Please stop this, do you not read your own sources? The source says very clearly that the price you have listed as the total construction cost was only the partial construction cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.33 (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording has been changed. Please don't revert it again. It now reads that the construction of the Basilica cost that amount. The reference says that the work of Bernini had not begun. The Basilica, however, was "open for business". Bernini had nothing to do with the construction of the Basilica. Bernini designed many important fittings, and the piazza with its colonnade.
 * Amandajm (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason Victory mosque redirects here?
Just curious. I can find no mention of mosques in the article. 71.49.81.124 (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Amandajm (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Capacity of the Building
Last week St. Peter's was setup for Christmas Mass. There were 5,200 chairs in place (I counted them). In my estimation it would be completely impossible to get 60,000 people in the building even if they were all standing. Google Earth indicates that the gross building is 620' long by 150' wide assuming a 35% factor for walls and isles the building has a rough gross area of 60,450 SF. 60,450 divided by 7 SF per person equals 8,635 people. Since a large percentage of this area is in the side isles and doesn't have a view of the altar; a much more reasonable stated capacity would be 8,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryfitz (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What you are saying makes sense. The Royal Albert Hall, which packs people like sardines, has a max capacity of 9,000, no longer permitted because of fire regulations. The figure here has been repeated from a tourist site. I'll try to track down a more reliable one. My suspicion is that it includes the forecourts, and that the figure has been mathematically calculated on acerage or something like that. Can't do anything at this minute. Amandajm (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about 7 SF. I was once at an audience w a Pope in the plaza. We were packed together so tightly we could barely move. Maybe 2 or 3 SF, certainly not much more. When computing capacity, the Vatican would surely use old statistics, none of which would be used in America, used to more open standing room. Without pews or seats. There were none, except for nobility until 1800 or so, in the larger cathedrals. There is a small choir loft as I recall.
 * Anyway, while we can compute all we want, we need a WP:RELY cite for any qualified projection. Student7 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Omens, self-aggrandizement, etc.
A sentence reads "In 1505, Pope Julius II, failing to heed warnings that the death of Nicholas V was an omen to those who might interfere with St Peter's, in order to glorify Rome and also undoubtedly for his own self-aggrandizement,[5] made a decision to demolish the ancient building and replace it with something grander."

The church has tried fight superstition since the early days. So "failing to heed warnings" would not come as much of a surprise. Like today's media, anytime they don't like anything, they "warn" the opposition with some perceived threat which often does not materialize. There are few doers who have not been "warned" about nearly everything they did in their lives. That one rumor should survive is not amazing. What is amazing is what happened to the hundreds or thousands of other warnings he, being a "doer" must have received in his lifetime. IMO, it is usually not encyclopedic to repeat "omens."

"also for his own self-aggrandizement.." sounds pov. Jealousy? Again, anyone who does anything, whether it is Obama with Obamacare, or Bush with Iraq, or whatever, anyone who does anything is likely to be accused of trying to promote himself. We don't start every building with this, do we? L'Enfant and DC? All prominent architecture has someone behind it I am sure. Must they all be "guilty" of ego-tism? And why are they on trial to start with? The old building was falling down. While we doubtlessly have better techniques in the restoration of ancient buildings than they did, it is not unusual to replace rather than restore an old building. And no one in the US has ever had to decide whether to repair or replace a building that was a millenia old and had, most likely, been repaired a number of times over that period of time. Student7 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, why people did it, is irrelevant (non-WP:TOPIC here. We don't care why they did it and only barely care who did it. People are nearly irrelevant to a building/place article. Student7 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, the editor who reversed your last edits prior to 20:40, is a one-edit IP. I want to make it clear that it wasn't me! I was just about to do the same when he edited! Student7 (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Response
 * So our unnamed editor replaces the word "grander" ("grand " being a fairly accurate description) with "more lavish". What does "more lavish" mean, in terms of a building? Amandajm (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a point that is being missed here. I'll rewrite some of it to try and make it clearer.
 * Pope Nicholas V saw the necessity of doing something about the crumbling building, got it repaired and ordered a plan to be drawn up. He began the alterations and then died.
 * Julius was a very different character. He was very much into "self-agrandizement" as Banister Fletcher describes it. It was HIM that was determined to make St peter's "the grandest church in Christendom". Why? Undoubtedly for the "Glory of the Papacy" but almost certainly more for his own glory. It was his plan that his tomb should be placed in St Peter's. In other words, the largest church in Christendom was to be effectively his mortuary chapel.
 * And what of the tomb?... Well, he had collared the greatest sculptor of the day to make it for him, and it was to be (to use the word of the unnamed editor) incredibly lavish. 19 more-than-life-sized statues were to adorn it.
 * But that wasn't enough for Julius. He somehow discovered that his morose reclusive sculptor could paint a little. Well, he could certainly draw. That was clear from his drawings for sculptural works. So Big Julie bludgeoned his sculptor into painting the Sistine Chapel Ceiling.
 * Previous Pope had got a series of frescoes done by Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Perugino, Cosimo Roselli. All very nice, but Julius could go one better than that.  Micky Baby was constrained to paint that ceiling AND make the nineteen statues for the tomb as well.
 * So what are big Julie's projects?
 * Grandest tomb in the world
 * Ceiling painting to better anything that had been done in the history of mankind
 * Biggest church in Christendom.
 * ...all on the go at the same time!
 * Self-agrandizement?....that seems to sum it up rather well!


 * As for the omen. well, yes, you are probably right. The church has always warned about things.
 * But this was the Vatican's own church. This was right on their doorstep. This was not the rumblings of protesting priests in far away England, Germany, Holland and Hungary. This was the people of Rome seeing their beloved ancient basilica demolished.


 * The current edit suggests that it was Nicholas who pushed the idea forward and Julius merely carried out what his successor planned. It wasn't like that at all.
 * It was Julius who was the driving force behind St Peter's. It was Julius who got the plan drawn up that was to make both the demolition and the rebuilding a reality.
 * Luckily for Michelangelo, (and the world) Julius didn't drag him away from his painting and sculpture and make him work on the building as well.  The feat was left to a successor.


 * Iif "personality" plays a part in the creation of an artwork/building/etc then there is room to indicate as much. Basically, if this was Vincent van Gogh's "Crows over a Wheatfield" or Lucien Freud's "portrait of Francis Bacon" we would be discussing personality. Personality is just as relevant when it comes to this project. Not the personality of the ultimate designers, but the personality of the pope who was prepared to tear down a thousand-year-old building of vast scale, and begin something bigger and grander in every way.
 * Now the question is:
 * Do we put in the whole blurb about the tomb, the Sistine Chapel and so on, or do we just allow Banister Fletcher to sum it up with the well-chosen words "self-agrandizement"?
 * Amandajm (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What is this? Vandalism?
The Basilica of St. Peter is een groot hoerenhuis[4] in the

This appears in "overview". Not sure if it should be there or what to replace it with but it looks wrong! Could someone with more knowledge fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.147.219 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

St Peter's Basilica
Message to an unnamed editor who keps deleting a reference.

Your deletion has been reverted, twice. Please stop deleting that reference.

I want to make two points here.


 * Firstly, to describe St Peter's as a "large church" is an inadequate description. It may recently have been surpassed in area, but it was, until the late 20th century, the largest church in the world.  It is overwhelmingly huge.  "Large" conveys different ideas in different contexts: a English parish church, 200 feet long, and with a 175 foot spire may be described as a  "large church".  However, the whole church, including its spire would fit inside the nave of St Peter's.
 * Secondly, the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends, as a general rule, that descriptive adjectives are not used at all. Big, large, beautiful, famous etc are not usually stated.  However, in some instances, the characteristic is so marked that it is integral to the subject.   If St Peter's was merely a large church, then it would hardly be worth mentioning.  However, its huge scale sets it apart from other churches.   It is quite overwhelmingly huge.
 * So that characteristic of the building must be mentioned, but because of the Manual of Style, it must also be referenced.  That is why the reference is there.

Have you been to St Peter's to see how huge it is? Or are you so familiar with it that it has become the norm, and you take its size for granted? Amandajm (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullying 201.214.27.156, you have repeatedly referred to the edit that you keep changing as "childish". However, "childish" is a mild insult compared with the expressions that you commonly use in your Edit Summaries, which include "idiotic", "moronic", "bizarre", "any monkey could do it", "pathetically pointless", "shit writing" and "fuck". In fact, the vast majority of your edit summaries are insulting.

You have concluded, and informed me, that I know nothing about encyclopaedic writing, and I have concluded that you are a nasty bully who leaves edit summaries for the specific purpose of insulting people. Perhaps you could learn some Wikipedia etiquette, and then make positive and creative contributions, if you are at all capable.

Amandajm (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

If the specifications on this page and on The Salt Lake Conference Center at 1.4 million square foot (130,000 m2) are true than it isn't even close to being the largest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.129.2 (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that information. I will modify the article. The Salt Lake Conference Centre is architecturally an auditorium, not architecturally a "church building". Amandajm (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It may be true that it doesn't match the style of a cathedral style building, I would think that the architectural style of the building does not preclude it from being a church building, rather the fact that it is regularly used as a church building should qualify it. If you wish you can just call it the largest religious building. Although if you want to be technical the Salt Lake Temple across the street has more internal square footage than the TOTAL area of St. Peter's. Heck even the Los Angeles Temple has more internal square footage and I'm not sure how either of these structures would be considered a non-church and have religious functions happening on an almost constant basis. --Drewder (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Drewder, read the second sentence of my reply, and then look at how the article was modified. Amandajm (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Date of construction
The text states: "On the first day of Lent, 18 February 1606, under Pope Paul V, the dismantling of the remaining parts of the Constantinian basilica began."

That date appears to be incorrect. By my calculation, Lent of 1606 began on Wednesday 8 February. In the Ambrosian rite (used in Milan), Lent would have begun the following Monday, on 13 February 1606. (Those dates refer to the Gregorian calendar, which was used in Rome beginning in 1582; however, according to WolframAlpha, 18 February 1606 was a Tuesday under the Julian calendar and thus not a first day of Lent.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob99 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have checked my source. Please double-check your source.
 * Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The source I used was my informal calendar spreadsheet (into which I typed the year 1606), which has proven to be reliable. However, for verification, I also checked Wolfram Alpha, which states that 8 February 1606 was a Wednesday (which means that 18 February 1606 must have been a Saturday) and that it was also 1 Adar 5366 on the Jewish calendar and 30 Ramadhan 1014 on the Islamic calendar, both of which data points indicate that the date coincided with a new moon:


 * http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8+feb+1606


 * Because Ash Wednesday is 46 days before Easter, and Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after 21 March (thus, Easter must fall within a period of 1 to 7 days after a full moon), Ash Wednesday must fall on or shortly after a new moon. Therefore, if 8 February 1606 was both a Wednesday and a new moon, Ash Wednesday of that year cannot have been ten days later. In addition, if Ash Wednesday of 1606 had occurred on 18 February of that year, Easter would have occurred on Wednesday 5 April 1606 (46 days after 18 February 1606), which is impossible:


 * http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5+april+1606


 * Is is possible that your source has a typographical error and that the correct date is 8 February 1606 rather than 18 February 1606? -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC))

Tables, columns, and broken citations
This message was left on my talk page. I have moved it here where it belongs.


 * Re the citations for Banister Fletcher, the book that I used is not the current edition. However, some efficient person has come along and fixed all the original citations by changing them to the most recent edition.  I'll will fix it, but it will take a month, as I am about 10,000 miles from my library.  The same problem has possibly occurred in other articles.  If you find more, can you alert me, please?  At present I can't do very much as I'm on a borrowed computer and can only drop by every few days.


 * With regards to the list of artworks in the narthex, if they are not treated as an embedded list then they must become a number of very short paragraphs. The reason that they are listed and not paragraphed is that the objects: two clocks, two statues, two very different doors and three plaques,  all warrant brief description but are not closely related.  Because of the vast number and diversity of objects in St Peter's, embedded lists is the best way to go.


 * Formatting the contents of the three plaques into tables looks ugly in the context of the article. Was the formatting not working efficiently as columns? It looked OK on my screen. (I wasn't the editor who arranged it like that, but I thought that it looked fine.)


 * Amandajm (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Presumably one could hunt around in the article history to see what the Fletcher citations were when they were first placed. If I can find nothing better to do, I might do that though I think it better to leave that to someone who is more familiar with the sources and the article.

I understand your point about the narthex art. I find lists rather a boring read but I haven't got any real ideas about how to make it better. I put the template into the article so that someone who did have a good idea might be urged into doing so.

Beauty and her companion Ugly are somewhat subjective. Before I happened on this article, the three plaques and their translations were clothed within wikitable markup; original text above the translations. On my monitor, each translation required two lines of text. In the original table, there isn't a separator between the columns. The upper line of translated text in one column and the upper line of translated text of an adjacent column are relatively close. The eye starts at the left side of the left column, reaches the end of the upper line and then moves, not to the lower line, but to the beginning of the upper line in the adjacent column. What the eye does isn't surprising, it has been trained for years to continue moving right until some obvious boundary dictates a carriage return – line feed. I hope that this makes sense. I also found that having the translated text below, while somewhat consistent with other translations in the article "felt" wrong. So I changed it.

Also, because it is a table, and because there are people who read Wikipedia with screen readers, I added the column headers and caption so that those readers can identify what the cells in the table contain. So Beauty may be found in what some of us can't see.

Writing this has caused me to wonder if the translations in the templates earlier in the article don't also present similar difficulties to screen readers. I don't have an answer to that. Perhaps someone else does.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll fix the Banister Fletcher refs, but they will have to wait for a few weeks. I can't remember waht the edition is, offhand.
 * Re the tables, I think it would be much easier and tidier to just have the transcriptions with their translations immediately below them.
 * I think that the point of the columns was that it maintained the format of each script, but this is not necessary.
 * Amandajm (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Did away with the table and the columnar form of the plaque inscriptions. The three a now enclosed in  templates.  I also made all of the inscriptions in the article the same by capitalizing all of them, wrapping them in  templates and wrapping all of that in  templates.  Seems that a serif font is more appropriate than the standard Wikipedia sanserif font.  One last thing I did was to organize the three plaque inscriptions chronologically and in a couple of cases (Maderno's façade and the 1983-4 John Paul II plaque) rearranged the wording of the translations so that they more closely matched the original Latin text.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Luke?
First time visiting this page, and this caught my eye:

"In Roman Catholic tradition, the basilica is the burial site of its namesake Saint Luke, one of the four apostles of Jesus and, also according to tradition, the first Bishop of Rome and therefore first in the line of the papal succession."

The "Saint Luke" is a link to his page. What's going on? 120.18.235.52 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What you read was a cunning piece of vandalism in which the troll made six small edits, some of which, like changing a date by five years, could have remained unnoticed. It's fixed now.
 * Amandajm (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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."

Here is a good illustration of "old St. Peters Basilica, from 1457 CE. http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg  Regards, 96.19.159.196 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

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)

Old Picture
Here is a possible view of Old St. Peter's! Dating to 1457 http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg

Ronald L. Hughes 96.19.159.196 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Old St. Peter's Basilica
Here is a representation of Old St. Peter's dating to 1457. http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg It looks rather Gothic to me at least. Regards, Ronald L. Hughes96.19.159.196 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the building was extended over the centuries with towers, a new atrium, porticos etc etc. St Peter's, 1450 gives a clearer view than the illumination does. The core of the building, the greater part of the church itself, was Early Christian.  NOTE: this picture is an archaeological reconstruction from earlier sources, not an image drawn in 1450. Amandajm (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Baldacchino picture has an embedded face
Did anyone notice the face inserted into the photo of the baldacchino? The photo is titled The altar with Bernini's baldacchino on the page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interiorvatican8.jpg ) The face is located at the top of the baldacchino. Is it possible to find a clean version of the file? Should it be removed if a clean one cannot be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.176.165 (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The "embedded face" in the picture is one of the four evangelists realised in mosaics on the pendentives of the dome. I think that he can stay where he is. Alex2006 (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the picture should be removed. The face is not one of the four evangelists, but is a photoshopped joke. I will remove it and replace it with an approporiate one.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I can see it too...Yes, please remove it. Or we can ask the photographic lab to remove it. Alex2006 (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Change infobox image
The current image is already used elsewhere in the article where it is well-suited (a description of Maderno's facade and the statues on the roofline. Additionally, the image shows only the facade, which as the article also states, is due to the design that obscures the dome. I think a more appropriate picture would be one not already used in the article and one that provides a view of both the facade and the dome (it's more famous characteristic). There are a number of pictures on the Commons that satisfy this. My initial proposal was the first image found on St. Peter's Square, but I'm interested to hear other proposals. 15:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Ergo Sum 

"Strong evidence"
There was a phrase in the lead that was added by an editor in 2014 (his only edit, at least under that account): "Strong historical evidence" that St. Peter is buried under the altar. Somehow this went unnoticed. After reading through the entire article and the St. Peter article, it seems to me that there's pretty strong consensus that there is no hard evidence that St. Peter is buried under the basilica - even the tradition that he was crucified in Rome is up for debate. I removed the "Strong historical evidence" phrasing and left the "tradition holds", as that seems more accurate. Rockypedia (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Alex2006 (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, the thing is a bit more nuanced as, if I'm rightly informed, St. Peter doesn't actually lie in the place venerated as his burial place - if they haven't put him back there. He has been found a bit farther behind in the Necropole, and there's evidence that he used to lie in the place venerated as his burial place; probably he has been hidden on some occasion. But while "tradition holds" is true as far as it goes, the thing is that the investigations found - not in St. Peters burial place, but some meters farther behind or so - a Galilaean of St. Peter's age, in a Christian burial, with honorific ornaments due to a leader of the community, and who is proven to have once lain in St. Peter's grave (that is before being hidden some meters behind it). That is just about as much evidence as you can reasonably expect.--2001:A61:2048:4E01:4425:2D0E:1D78:CC17 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed of "mother church of the Catholic Church", "cathedral of the Diocese of Rome" and similar
In the lead there is the phrase "While it is neither the mother church of the Catholic Church nor the cathedral of the Diocese of Rome, ..." in the lead. I think that it would be reasonable having said that St. Peter's Basilica is not these things, to mention what actually are those things.

The article mother church states "The Pope's cathedral, the Papal Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran, is called the mother church of all churches not only in the city of Rome but throughout the world." ...

(actually looking at the reference for this statement, http://www.turismoroma.it/itinerari-a-tema/la-roma-cristiana?lang=en, it says "San Giovanni in Laterano (St John Lateran) is the Cathedral of the Church of Rome" so this seems to be a third thing that St. Peter's Basilica is not)

...but I am not clear if that means Saint John Lateran is "the mother church of the Catholic Church". If not, is there any such thing as "the mother church of the Catholic Church"?

The article Archbasilica of St. John Lateran states that this is "the cathedral church of Rome", but is this the same things as "cathedral of the Diocese of Rome"? If not, is there any such thing as "the cathedral of the Diocese of Rome"?

In summary, I think that if the article says that the subject of the article is not certain things, then it should go on to clarify whether those things actually exist, and if so what they actually are. I do not have enough technical grasp to clarify this myself. FrankSier (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As the diocese of Rome is as it were the mother of all other Churches, so obviously its own cathedral, which is St. John Lateran, is the mother of all Churches - which inscriptions there say too. That being said, in Rome the Lateran "plays the role", as it were, of center of the diocese (which as its cathedral it is), with the Cardinal Vicar having his office in the immediate vicinity and all that, with St. Peter "playing the role", as it were, of center of the world-wide Church. Originally, in the Middle Ages when the Pope still lived at the Lateran, St. Peter's was (and, among other things, it remains) an important sanctuary and pilgrimage Church, being the burial Church of the Prince of the Apostles. (And yes, "cathedral Church of Rome" is the same thing as "Cathedral of the diocese of Rome".)--2001:A61:2048:4E01:4425:2D0E:1D78:CC17 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Including www.stpetersbasilica.info in the External Links section
In my view, stpetersbasilica.info is not an appropriate link to include for several reasons. It's basically a personal web page - one person's self-published repository of information that isn't subject to any kind of review by anyone else. It isn't the official site (which is included in the External Links section). It doesn't meet the definition of WP:RS by a long shot. Finally, there's reason to believe that it's been added to this wikipedia page by the author and/or administrator of the .info page, a clear-cut violation of WP:ADV (the Advertising and Conflicts of Interest section at WP:EL). For these reasons, I'm removing it (again) and if the editor continues to persist in adding it back, I'll have to consider that edit-warring with a goal of promoting that editor's own personal page on Wikipedia, and I'll have no choice but to report it. Rockypedia (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

My name is Alan Howard, and I'm the editor of the website stpetersbasilica.info which was removed as an inappropriate link. I've reviewed the WP:EL guidelines and don't find a big conflict, so here is some information about the site. Ours is not some 'personal web page'. It's a group effort that's been online for about 15 years and contains over 500 web pages and over 5000 images. We've had several meetings in the Vatican over the years to discuss the website and ask for review. As to meeting the definition of WP:RS, we use contributed scholarly articles, and the complete text of several scholarly books. One example is the book by James Lees-Milne, 'St Peter's Basilica', which is referenced on this wikipedia page. The copyright holders have given us permission to display this 328 page book online. Our map of the basilica gives information on every area, which is taken directly from listed reliable sources. We continually review the latest publications, many of which are only available in Italian.

In addition, we don't just refer to published sources. We fact check with onsite visits to the Vatican. In a recent visit with the Fabbrica of St Peter's, I was able to show them that their publication had misnamed one of the saints on the colonnade. The reality is that many publications contain errors about St Peter's. My summary reading of the wikipedia page finds 16 errors, though most are minor.

I'm not here to lobby for a link, or promote a website. My only agenda is to provide accurate information on the Vatican basilica. I now work with Voxmundi, the official guide service in the basilica, to help train their guides and fact check their audioguide. The only question is, do you want the assistance of content experts.

Finally, let me offer an olive branch to those who manage this page. If you'd like more information, or more importantly, want to discuss the basilica, please don't hesitate to contact me at: stpetersbasilica@gmail.com MAlanH (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sold. It's not the official website, but it is rather better than the official website, with no ads, & several complete books (which are RS). Glad the COI has been appropriately declared. There are only a few ELs here, and I don't know why we need the 2nd one, with the building's maintenance department's phone number (& in Italian). Rockypedia, you should know better than removing a book from references without removing the individual citations. James Lees-Milne is certainly an RS.  So I've reverted etc, acting on the above. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2017
St. Peter's Basilica → Basilica of St. Peter – Advocated in numerous publications, perhaps most importantly by much consulted source New Advent. Follows a formula which is generally favored in many essential places throughout Wikipedia; compare for instance Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the rest of the church edifices listed in Template:Old City (Jerusalem). While I generally favor "Saint" instead of "St." for a number of reasons, what I would like to propose here is most importantly the wording sequence. Chicbyaccident (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose NEVER used in English, so fails at the first hurdle. We have far too many "Basilicas" in church names, against WP:COMMONNAME. Here it is acceptable, but I see no advantage in putting it first. St Peter's, Rome is probably the only alternative, and might well be better. Never mind Jerusalem, look at Category:Roman Catholic churches in Rome. I'm sorry to say that Chicbyaccident has been doing a lot of undiscussed and unjustified moves from "St Foo's church" to "Church of St Foo". These are a bad idea and should be discouraged. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose, per common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

5 million cubic meters
There is a comment next to the figure: "5,000,000 cubic meters is wrong. Please check whether the source meant 5,000,000 cubic feet." added in this edit. I agree. Multiplying the length, width, and dome height from the infobox (220 × 150 × 136.6) gives 4.5m m³. Even if the basilica were a perfect cube, 5m m³ would be wrong. The figure "15,160 m²" seems plausible for floor area of the church, but "5 million m³" is equivalent to a structure with that footprint 329 meters tall, which St. Peter's Basilica is not. I'm going to remove the claim of volume until I can find a sufficient or verifiable source.-Ich (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Location map of Vatican City
Is there any interest in changing the rather blocky Location Map of Vatican City? The current map is being used on at least one other site. (Vatican Museums) I've put up a new map on the commons at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VaticanCity_LocationMap.svg  I have a bit of a COI, so I think someone else should make this change if deemed appropriate. The new map isn't being used anywhere else. MAlanH (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the old map, I agree on changing it to the one you proposed. Here is the module: Module:Location map/data/Vatican City. I'll leave it to you to change the image and coordinates. O l J a  12:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * and I agree that the current map used in the infobox looks too blocky and awkard. The map on commons that MAlanH mentioned, I think, would be much better. I do not know how to make that the one used as the map in the infobox. Do either of you know how to do that?  Ergo Sum   05:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate, I don't. I'd love to do that as soon as possible, though. O l J a 21:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this old discussion. I'm more familiar with the modules now, and would like to make your image a locmap, but I need the coordinates that define the borders of the map. Do you have them?  Ergo Sum  23:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we think we can make this happen?  Ergo Sum  16:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Today's article for improvement: St. Peter's Basilica
I have proposed that St. Peter's Basilica be added to the Today's articles for improvement list. The nomination is here. Input as to whether it should be listed would be appreciated.  Ergo Sum  19:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of pics
I have just removed a number of pictures from the article.

They were all good nice interesting pictures.

Everybody who has ever been there has at least one.

They do not all belong in between the pictures illustrating the stages in which the building was constructed.

When adding pictures, read first.

If you see a plan, a plan, a plan, a cross section, a cross section and and a black and white draft of the finished building, then it is very likely that your panorama of the completed interior oes NOT fit neeatly between the plans and cross sections. They are there because they illustrate the text.

Likewise an image of the building in a grainy old photo taken in the 19th cenury has nothing to do with the narrative concerning Michelangelo and his plans for the building.

Amandajm (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Liturgical instructions of 12th March 2021
On March 12, 2021, the Holy See's Secretariat of State has diffused a liturgical instruction for the St. Peter's Basilica, which forbids individual Eucharistic celebrations and also limits the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated solely in the Clementine Chapel between 7.30 and 9.00 a.m. (sources: ilmessaggero.it, providing a static image of the controverse document; ncronline.org).

This information can be integrated in the WP article.Theologian81sp (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano September 2015-1a.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano September 2015-1a.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 2, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-07-02. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of pics
I have just removed a number of pictures from the article.

They were all good nice interesting pictures.

Everybody who has ever been there has at least one.

They do not all belong in between the pictures illustrating the stages in which the building was constructed.

When adding pictures, read first.

If you see a plan, a plan, a plan, a cross section, a cross section and and a black and white draft of the finished building, then it is very likely that your panorama of the completed interior oes NOT fit neeatly between the plans and cross sections. They are there because they illustrate the text.

Likewise an image of the building in a grainy old photo taken in the 19th cenury has nothing to do with the narrative concerning Michelangelo and his plans for the building.

Amandajm (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Liturgical instructions of 12th March 2021
On March 12, 2021, the Holy See's Secretariat of State has diffused a liturgical instruction for the St. Peter's Basilica, which forbids individual Eucharistic celebrations and also limits the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated solely in the Clementine Chapel between 7.30 and 9.00 a.m. (sources: ilmessaggero.it, providing a static image of the controverse document; ncronline.org).

This information can be integrated in the WP article.Theologian81sp (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano September 2015-1a.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano September 2015-1a.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 2, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-07-02. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove the full stop after "St"
I believe that the full stop after "St", both in the title and the rest of the page, ought to be removed. As it says on the banner on this talk page, the article is written in British English. According to the Manual of Style for Saints, MOS:SAINTS, the St should be without a full stop for British English, and with one for American English. Xx78900 (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)