Talk:San Pietro in Vincoli

Moses

The article states

This kind of iconographic symbolism was common in early sacred art, and in this case gives ease to the sculptor (as sculpting concrete horns is easier than sculpting abstract light) and would have been understood by all who saw it as referring to the radiance of Moses' face; they would not have actually thought that he had horns. [misspellings corrected]

No doubt the first half is true; however, it very much needs to be backed up by a link to an article on symbolism in medieval Christian art, particularly representations of Moses, and the Vulgate translation of Exodus 34:29–35.

The rest of it, beginning with the word would, is, sadly, untrue. No doubt it would be understood this way by art historians; however, I and other Jews have occasionally met Christians who said they were taught and once believed that Jews had horns (not only Moses — all Jews!). Because of this, both the statue and the translation offend many Jews. A fair and balanced article should mention this; after all, Moses' horns are what makes the church a famous tourist attraction.

The reference to “early sacred art” reveals the writer's (perhaps subconscious) bias; it implies that only Christian art can be “sacred”, as if the art of other religions is not.

In the sentence immediately preceding the quotation, the article claims that the confusion arises from the similarity of two Latin words. In fact, the problem arose in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew noun qeren means horn in English, and the verb qaran formed from this noun means he had horns. But qaran is also used figuratively to mean he emitted rays of light (sort of like horns) [paraphrasing Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver & Briggs]; usually translated in English by was shining or was radiant or the like.

The Hebrew Wikipedia quotes the Bible passage. The German Wikipedia forthrightly attributes the problem to a translation error, comparing the Latin words coronata and cornuta, without making claims on the understanding of “all who saw” the statue. The Spanish Wikipedia article seems to be a translation of the English, so it has the same faults. The articles in the other languages apparently do not mention the horns, but most of these are stubs.

(Looking at the picture, I am struck by the seated pose. It reminds me of the even more famous statue of Abraham Lincoln [[1]] in Washington DC; here the architect and the sculptor deliberately evoked the Roman Republic of Cicero’s day; still significant today — the statue appears in extreme miniature on the US 1¢ coin and the US $5 bill. Are there statues of ancient Romans sitting on thrones? Links to discussions in art history or political iconography would be interesting.)

--Yudeleli 02:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment, I've separated the statements and asked for a citation.Moonraker12 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's any help, there's another depiction of this 'radiance' in Rome, but I can't remember exactly where. It's a fresco, and has these golden flashes on the forehead, like a severe set of eyebrows. If anyone is in Rome and is able to track it down I can tell you to within six guesses where to look. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

The opening sentence says it is a basiica, but the Basilica page lists only 5 in Rome, not including this one. I'm not clear if this is a case of using 'basilica' as a synonym for 'church'. Or maybe it's a reference to its architecture. I suggest changing the opening sentence to "San Pietro in Vincoli is a church in Rome...", and " It is also a basilica, ..." giving the explanation why. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What are the two wooden planks?

There are two wooden planks or beams mounted in the nave. They are obviously mounted (not part of the support structure) in a place of honor. Does anyone know what they are and why they are mounted there? St. Peter's cross perhaps?

Out-of-process move

This article was moved to San Pietro in Vincoli Basilica, without discussion and with very little explanation ("moved for clarity": Why? What needs clarifying?)
I’ve reverted this as there needs to be a good reason for changing the existing title, and as the current title is PRECISE enough and CONSISTENT with other, similar, articles I can’t see what that reason would be.
Also, the format of the proposed new title is incorrect; if it is moved at all it should be to (for example) "Basilica of San Pietro in Vincoli" (per CONSISTENCY) or "San Pietro in Vincoli (basilica)"/"San Pietro in Vincoli, Rome" (per WP:DISAMBIGUATION).
In any case, there is a doubt raised (above) over whether this place is a basilica at all; does anyone have a source to confirm it? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

1) What needed clarification was at to what precisely the title was referring. Would a person who did not know what it was have a clue to that by the current title? Saint, town, festival? How is it clear and precise as it stands after your revert? As to consistency, the category is a bit all over the place.

2) As to format, I totally agree with you about the first option, but the consistency among Wikepedia editors is such that I have dealt with other editors who object to that format, partly for sorting reasons. Your second option is rather novel and not one I have ever seen for a church.

3) The text itself describes the church as a basilica, as does the Italian version, which actually titles the entry as such. For additional proof, here is a website of the Religious Order that runs it, in which they call it a basilica. [2] Had you thought to check any of this before even asking such a question? Your earlier question seems to indicate that you have no knowledge as to the distinction between a major basilica and minor basilica. Daniel the Monk (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To take your last point first, what I know is that the term "basilica" has an architectural as well as an ecclesiastical meaning (as our article on the subject shows): what I also know is that when I asked the question the article was ambiguous as to which sense the word was being used in, and is little clearer now (someone has added “minor” to “basilica”: Did they know for sure? Were they guessing? Who knows? There was no source, and no answer to the question here about it)

What I also know is that, in an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit, the only safeguard against people writing bilge is that everything is subject to verification, and that the burden of proof is on whoever added something. So I don’t see that I need to apologize for asking for a source for some nugget of information, or for expecting whoever put it here to back up what they wrote.

And I know I'm not best pleased with the implication I am ignorant or lazy for doing so.

What I have checked is our list article, but as that says there are 66 basilicas in Rome, and the category here has 74, plus the 5 patriarchal ones, they still need checking against each other (for starters the first one in the category, Sant'Agata dei Goti, doesn’t even claim to be a basilica in the text)

As for the title here, it conformed well enough to MOS before you changed it, so the onus is on you to show a need to change. It may be less explanatory than some titles (like these, for example) but then it doesn’t need to be; a title simply needs to be unique to the subject and match the common name (ie the name likely to be found in the text of other articles).without the need for redirects or pipes). The relevant criteria are conciseness ("no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject ") and consistency ("consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles") (my apologies, BTW, the link I gave before didn’t lead to this)

As for consistency, Of the 74 items in the category, 62 use the unadorned name; 7 use the disambiguator “ ,Rome” (because there’s another one of exactly the same name somewhere) and 6 use “Basilica of ..” (again, because that disambiguates it from other churches of exactly the same name) only two others use your chosen format, and (as it turns out) that is because you moved them recently. (They should be moved back to the original titles, BTW, unless you have a good reason for them to be where they are).

And if you want to make sweeping changes to page titles you really ought to discuss them somewhere first ( a project page, for example) Moonraker12 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your points, first, as regards conciseness, the examples you give are entries about individuals. The ones in question are of institutions, and there is a difference between conciseness and the use of a short hand reference to one. The best examples might be the common use of the "U.N." as opposed to the United Nations, or the "Empire State" versus Empire State Building, "Westminster" as opposed to Westminster Abbey, etc.

As regards consistency, the fact that some churches' status as a basilica does not show clearly in the text of the article shows both the consistency of editing in Wikipedia and the usefulness of giving the full common name of an institution (there are churches which have extended names, something I am not advocating for using). But if a church's status as a basilica is verifiable here, I do not consider it necessary to have it match other entries exactly. But perhaps the idea of a project would be an excellent idea to clarify the names of the articles. By the way, you will notice that this situation occurs only in English, not the Italian, where common form of reference to a church is the same.Daniel the Monk (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I’m not clear what point is being made here;

As for me talking about individuals (I’m pretty sure I wasn’t!) whilst the question here being about institutions, that seems like a red herring. There is no such distinction in the guidelines, and AFAIK precious little in reality. If “UN” is a common contraction of United Nations, the same doesn’t hold for your other two examples. “Empire State” usually refers to the State of New York, not the building; and “Westminster” has a number of meanings, even in England (it is a city, a palace, and a cathedral, as well as an abbey) and as a contraction invariably refers to the UK parliament. Locally, Westminster Abbey is simply “the Abbey”, and elsewhere gets its full title.

Nor am I clear what you are advocating with these pages; the current titles meet with the relevant guidelines, and if you wish to change that, you will need to make a case for doing so. And the place to do that (the WP Project I was referring to) is here.

As for the wider issue of what churches in Rome actually are basilicas, I’ve posted a list page here, with sources, so they can be checked. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look at your earlier entry, you will see that you gave only some individuals as examples. Your point about the ambiguity of the titles is what I was trying to get at regarding using abbreviated titles of institutions (which are not the same as individual's names). To me your example just shows the wisdom of spelling out clearly to what those titles refer.

Incidentally, here in New York, the building is far more often meant than the state. Your own point about the use of Westminster shows how useful precision is, as recommended by the guidelines. How do you feel that using a fuller title would not be in keeping with that?

Thanks for the direction to the project. Daniel the Monk (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

what is the "this"?

"Next to the church is hosted the Faculty of Engineering of La Sapienza University, in the former convent building. This is named "San Pietro in Vincoli" per antonomasia. The church is located on the Oppian Hill near Cavour metro station, a short distance from the Colosseum." Is "this" the Faculty of Engineering? If so, what does anotonomasia have to do with it? It's just proximity. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential Conflict of Interest / Timothy Schmalz statues

@Jeanne Gravelle writes exclusively about sculptor Timothy Schmalz and seems to be doing a little bit of advertising for him. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)