Talk:Clement of Rome

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Pope Clement I →  – "Clement of Rome" is the normal way to refer to him. See ngrams. Srnec (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The general public does not consists only of Catholics, much less Christians. If Clement is known by anyone mainly as a pope, he is probably no more than a name and a number. The real Clement wrote a letter, an extremely important source for early Christianity, that was translated into most of the languages of Christendom. He is by no means a figure important only to the Latin Church. This is why the majority of sources, as I've shown, refer to him as "Clement of Rome". If he were little more than a name (like Linus) or if his importance were limited to the history of the Roman church, I would not mind the current title. But I can think of few situations in which it would actually make sense to refer to him as Pope Clement I. I don't like the inconsistency that results either, but if there is an exception to the rule (other than Peter), it is this guy. Srnec (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

text:  check Google book sources and then reverse your vote please. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

text:   That sounds like a threat. Discussion isn't even over, and you're already threatening the closer with post-closure actions if it doesn't go your way?  That's rather poor form. Walrasiad (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, call it a "prediction" if you want or a fact. But this is an encylopaedia not the club of any one religious sect - the individual is not known by the current title. A close against WP:COMMONNAME would have to be reviewed. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 April 2022 

message: The identification of Clement of Rome with the Roman consul Titus Flavius Clemens fell out of favor, supported by an article in the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia? There is evidence that clearly identifies this Clement with the Roman consul: 1. The Basilica de San Clemente was built directly over the house of the Roman consul, which was used as a church in the late first century. 2. An inscription was found dedicating the basilica to T f Clemens, Saint and Martyr, discovered while renovating in the 17th century. 
With all the talk of whether there was a monarchical episcopal system in such an early stage of church development, this seems to be the obvious reason that it appears as such, but no mention in the historical record. The RCC can deny history as it wants, but evidence does exist. 
Furthermore, there is no historical record of persecutions of Christians under the reigns of Vespasian and Titus Flavius. This seems to indicate that Titus Flavius Clemens was commissioned to develop the early church, providing worship sites, priests, and bishops, as his own epistle to Corinth will attest.
Titus Flavius Clemens was persecuted by his cousin, the emperor Domitian, which to my knowledge, is the first extra-biblical, historical persecution of a Christian as we presently understand the word. The tradition of Clement's martyrdom in the Black Sea is exactly what it is called... "tradition". That doesn't make this story historically reliable, but should be included for the sake of preserving the Church's literary history and tradition. 67.21.186.78 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased sources 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus; not moved.  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Clement of Rome →  – Reverting undiscussed move to standard format for popes. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any more... Johnbod (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 December 2023 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Killarnee (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Clement of Rome →  – If I search "Clement of Rome" on Google it shows me the results for "Pope Clement I". Google Trends data over the past five years indicates a significantly higher volume of searches for "Clement I" and "Pope Clement I" compared to "Clement of Rome." Furthermore, in Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia.com, the articles about Clement are titled "Saint Clement I" and "Clement I" respectively. There are 265 articles on popes of the Catholic Church on Wikipedia, excluding Peter, with 264 titled "Pope (name)." "Clement of Rome" stands out as an abnormality when we have enough reliable sources to confirm that he was indeed the bishop of Rome (pope): Encyclopedia Britannica, The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church p. 360. The current title also clearly does not follow 
WP:TITLECON. EXANXC (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Italy has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Catholicism has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a poor argument. Wikipedia is not written for Catholics. Walrasiad (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, it's written for the general public. If someone unfamiliar with Clement of Rome were to search on Google, they'd encounter results about Pope Clement I, potentially causing confusion due to the difference between what Google displays and what Wikipedia offers. EXANXC (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was referring to your "there are more Catholics" comment.  A sect having more members than another sect should be of absolutely no consideration here.  Walrasiad (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Support It shouldn't have been moved. The discussions seemed to be along the lines of righting great wrongs rather than an exploration of the common name. I'm not persuaded that this should be a second exception to the papal format, the first being Saint Peter. Killuminator (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 March 2024