Talk:Churches of Rome
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Churches of Rome article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
All of them?
If you intend to put all of them, it would be easier just to lift the list from Huelsen (for those before the Renaissance) and supplement it with the others from Armellini. But that's 900 of them; do you really want to do this? (I mean, what's the interest of S. Eugenio, founded though it be by Pope Pius XII?) Bill 12:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think "you" may be referred to me, so I'm going to answer. I am not going to put all the churches of Rome; all I want to do is collect here all the churches that are linked from at least another page in en.wikipedia, or that have media on wikimedia.
- So, to use your example, I do not plan to include Pius XII's S. Eugenio, if that church is not named anywhere else in wikipedia. However, if in Pius XII article S. Eugenio is cited (for example because it was the church in which he was buried), I'll add the link.--Panairjdde 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
On examination, this is only 8 of the churches, and despite the face number of images, not a few of them are slight retakes of others; if these links are worth keeping — I'll let others decide — I feel they should appear not here, but under the 8 individual churches. It would be different it there were thirty-five churches represented, say. Bill 20:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I removed the link from this article, and added it to the single churches articles.--Panairjdde 11:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I am against. This should not be a list of all the churches of Rome, but only of those somehow related to Wikipedia articles. And should be extended to explain the meaning of church-building in the city of Rome. For example, most of the first churches were devoted to Roman saints, or somehow related to wealthy women who supported the diffusion of Christian religion in Rome; or the fact that when the popes looked for support of the Byzantine emperors, they entitled many churches to Greek saints; or the recurrent building programs of the popes. A simple "list" is not suited to accomplish this task.--Panairjdde 22:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I too am against, not only because this entry has the potential of being a real article — what are churches about in Rome, that special place for Christianity, and what unites them stylistically, and their rôle in art history, etc. — but also because the category system answers the need of anyone who just wants a list. (Category:Churches of Rome)
- That said, I feel that your impulse, anonymous friend, is a good one in that this article is beginning very much to look like a list, and frankly that's not great. Yet removing the (painstakingly constructed) chronological list would be to remove information. I'm not seeing the solution yet. Bill 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Category renaming: an alert
By the way, there's a proposal afoot, from the Procrustean but uninformed, to rename the Category "Churches in Rome": see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Churches_in_Italy. Bill 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
San Martino ai Monti: 3rd or 4th c.?
Richard Krautheimer addresses the issue of the hall next to and adjacent to the 4th century church:
The purpose of the Hall of six bays has never been well explained. Vielliard and others have seen in it the meeting place of a third century Christian v community, but to us the evidence seems far from sufficient to maintain such an important conclusion. Indeed, there seems to be no concrete evidence of Christian occupation until the beginning of the sixth century. The original purpose of the Hall is more likely to have been commerical; perhaps it was some kind of exchange or small market.
Source: Krautheimer, R. Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae, vol. 3, p. 115.
Krautheimer's view has never been challenged and indeed has become the accepted scholarly opinion on the subject (see Hugo Brandenburg 2005 for a recent scholarly work supporting Krautheimer's position).
- The very text you provided reports the positions of other scholars, such as Vielliard, who claim the church is to date to the 3rd century. You cannot deleted this fact.--Panarjedde 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
S. Marcello al Corso
Hugo Brandenburg (2005) states: "The building might have been completed at the turn of the fifth century and hence belongs to a series of churches erected shortly before the catastrophe of 410" (p. 164). Moreover, the position of most modern scholars is that there are no *identifiable* churches (with the probable exception of SS. Giovanni e Paolo) that were in use as such before 313. For a discussion, see Krautheimer (1937-77), Corpus Basilicarum Christanarum Romae in five volumes. More recent discussions can be found in E.M. Steinby (ed.) (six volumes, 1993-2000), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, s.v.
This article requires a thorough cleanup because a lot of work has been done (and published, see below) in the past two decades which disputes earlier scholarship. Moreover, Chris Nyborg's page is cited as a source, but his page is neither reliable nor scholarly, and should not be referred to. Panarjedde has repeatedly interefered with my efforts to make this a better page, so I request others who may be watching this to contribute to this article. -dha1216
- "Panarjedde has repeatedly interefered with my efforts to make this a better page"
- Did you provide references for your edits? No. So what are you looking for? Do you expect anybody to trust you without references? You are in the wrong place, as here the first rule is verifiability.
- So, if you really want to improve this article, provide references when you change the page, not after my requests. And it would be nice (even if not mandatory) to show a little of respect for other editors, who have been working at this article for a long time.
- --Panarjedde 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll be sure to include references in future edits. Shall I provide references for all the churches on the page when I change their foundation dates? TSources are lacking for all the churches. The dates of the foundations are either misleading (are we specifying when they were comissioned to be built or when they were dedicated?) and in any case, we don't know firm dates for the completion of many early churches. For example, was San Marcello built and completed in 309 as this page seemed to imply? Almost certainly not. Our first attestation of this church is not until much later (418). So what date should we put there (Brandenburg suggestions late 4th or early 5th century). In the case of the San Martino ai Monti, we know that the original church was built during the reign of Pope Silvester (314-335) but not precisely when, and definitely not the 3rd century (this would be an important discovery if it were true!). In this instance, do we provide the span of Silvester's reign, or do we say "early 4th century" and have it appear at the beginning of the list -- as if it were the first church ever built in Rome as it does now? Where's the support?
And, finally, just because people have worked on this article "for a long time" does not obscure the fact that the details are misleading and sometimes wrong. Not a single scholarly source is referred to -- but thankfully, we have some person's personal page devoted to the churches of Rome! I'd be happy to replace the current references with a long list of published sources.--dha1216
- Yes, you should add references for your edits, even more when they are "controversial", that is changign what is already stated on the page: having the references on the talk page is not enough, as they are part. It would be also nice to keep consistency, that is having the same year here and on the church page. This work should be not difficult, as you were very prompt to change the years in the article, and you coul have done the effort of adding a reference.
- As regards your humor about the references I used and the request for respect, please note I am neither stupid nor naive: I never asked you to stop editing this article because I have been working on it for a long time, I simply asked you to show respect, because you are building on the basis of an already existing work, done by someone else.--Panarjedde 10:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't know this page was factually accurate in all respects and that any change -- regardless of what our present sources say -- must be cited as proof while the "existing work" has ONE amateur source. What's worse, though, is that you take the Krautheimer quote where he cites the work of an older scholar (Viellard) and, apparently without even reading Viellard, cite him as a source to justify the ridiculous placement of San Martino ai Monti in the 3rd century when it very clearly should be placed in the 4th century at least according to Krautheimer and much more recent scholarship. Are you familiar with the recent scholarship? Do you have access to the Topographicum Urbis Romae, which provides a bibliography current up until the mid-1990s? The more recent scholarship has often cast aside much of the early views and these sources need to be investigated and accounted for by people who work on this (or any other page), including you. Dha1216 23:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- If everything you can do is low-quality humor, we can end this conversation here. Krautheimer says that, according to him, the opinion of Viellard is not acceptable. This is what the article now says. If you have something to say on this matter, please do; if you think I appreciate your humor and therefore lose my time with you, you can avoid writing again.--Panarjedde 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)