Talk:List of popes by length of reign

message: OK, so we have a single list with the top ten popes in order as defined by the dates given by the Vatican list. The names on that list whose dates of reigning are somewhat "suspect" because they rest solely on "legend" or "tradition" and cannot be substantiated by solid historical evidence are to be accompanied by an "asterix", and then a note at the bottom of the list explaining what the asterix means. A good source to begin with for what deserves an asterix is Noonan's book.
Ektar, john k, Sumergocognito are all OK with this solution. Sumergocognito is OK with this solution provided there is discussion of the details of Saint Peter's anomalous nature at the end. I personally think this is fine (more information is better, even if it somewhat duplicates info in a "parent" article), although of course that discussion will change and evolve (right now, e.g., I note that the section "was peter a pope at all" makes claims that definitely need sources.)
Just to be laborious, we all know this, but it's important to remember that wikipedia articles are always in flux and that they may change drastically over the years, so no-one can promise that any of these things will "stick". But I think we have an agreement between the three people who seem to be involved right now.
I believe this resolves the problem? If there are any objections to this, please reply; I'll wait twenty four hours or so, and then close this out as a happily resolved conflict. Sdedeo (tips) 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible solution

message: I would add, again, that I would still like to see some evidence as to what the "official Vatican list" says about Peter's pontificate. john k 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, I have a xeroxed the relevant page of the Annuario Pontifico, if it would help, I would be willing to type in the notes (in Italian) for someone else to translate. Sumergocognito 20:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: post mediation discussion

message: Would this be more appropriate on the page about St. Peter? A short note in this list should be sufficient. -- User:Docu
: I second these concerns. It is certainly an interesting section, but it's arguments are not very directly relevant to an article on the longest reigning Popes. ANB (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Peter section

message: Would anons please stop adding the words "they believe" to the statement that "no bishop of Rome claimed the papal title until centuries until Jesus death" (I'm paraphrasing)? 
The burden of proof rests upon those advancing a claim.  To say that skeptics must prove that something isn't true is illogical and well-nigh impossible (you cannot prove a negative).  As I said in the first place, if you have evidence that Peter or his early successors claimed the papal title than cite it.  Otherwise there's not need to distance ourselves from a factual statement.  As far as "dissenters" bearing the burden of proof, apart from self-interested mythology promoted by the Catholic Church, there isn't any claim to dissent from.  Sumergocognito 19:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the title "pope" wasn't used... the belief of Peter's leadership is what counts. 222.127.122.27 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any proof of that belief either.  (Cf. St Paul reproached St Peter to his face Gal 2:7ff)  Papal claims concerning the origin of the Papacy have no more credibility than claims that English kings were descended from Woden both are self-serving legends Sumergocognito 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9805chap.asp -  "PETER IN GALATIANS" By Jimmy Akin. Not trying to convert you, just airing a side. 222.127.122.27 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Burden of Proof

message: I added an  tag, as while the list of popes themselves is referenced from the Annuario Pontificio in the lead, both the lead and the "What about Peter" sections are entirely unreferenced. --Storkk (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: unreferenced tag

message: Why is this section here? This is a list page, FFS. There's some logic to a separate section on him, given that there's a query over how long he lived, etc, so that's fair enough. But treating this page as another battleground over RC/non-RC quibbles is not. Surely a simple statement, such as 
"The Roman Catholic Church recognizes Saint Peter as the first Pope, though non-Catholics regard this claim as too proprietary; sources also differ on the length of his reign." 
would do the trick. Opinions? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All that is in the article is an argument of words. It cannot be doubted (on biblical ground) that Peter was vicar of Christ and neither can it be sincerely doubted on historical grounds that he was in Rome. (Nota bene that the section in the article doesn't doubt this as well.) Peter, head of the apostles, in Rome makes him by nature leader of the Church of Rome, whether there was another bishop or not. It has no consequences to Catholic dogma whether Linus was ordained bishop and successor of St. Peter, or was bishop at the time of St. Peter's death and inherited his primacy as such (as he would, being the first man in Rome left-over, as the primacy was instituted as a perpetual one), though the pontifical list seem to indicate that it was the firstmentioned thing that took place. --84.154.66.141 (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And whether Pope means Successor of Peter or Visible Head of the Church has definitely no significance - of course Peter was no successor of himself. --84.154.66.141 (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Peter a pope at all?