Talk:Old St. Peter's Basilica

message: "In 846, Saracens sacked and destroyed the basilica, causing retaliation by Lothar.[3]
However the church was falling to ruin by the 15th century..."
Something seems to have dropped out between these two paragraphs.  Was it rebuilt after 846? --Jfruh (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something missing? 

message: Am I to believe that any of you in charge of this site can still believe that the original Basilica made mostly of wood, survived for over 1,000 years?  If so, I have some great beach-front property for sale!  I just know that most of you are not idiots, like the majority of the population of this planet, both Catholic and other.  But it seems that you "religiously" follow the Vaticans view about this building.  Based upon the information provided by the New Advent, etc., and other sources showing representations of the first "Basilica" until its destruction over 1,000 years later is, as I am ready to show, is "bull s---!"!!  With the plethorea of diagrams, drawings, etc. found upon the "net" there exists a few that show some of the problems but not one that shows all of the possible views of the site in the middle of the 15th century CE.  Since none of you would ever consider any source provided by A. T. Fomenko, then I can only refer you to a "better?" source which might well be Anthony Grafton!  He has published/edited a book concerning Rome and the Vatican, entitled "ROME REBORN, The Vatican Library & Renaissance Culture"  ISBN= 0-300-05442-4.  If any of you have the guts, then peruse pages 102-104, and examine a man made drawing of St. Peter's, identifed as plate 84, in the supposed year of 1457 AD/CE!, and thus the very period that the "New St. Peter's" was being built!  Please note that this view into the past has, it seems, never made its way into the mainstream of history!  Can any of you explain why?  It seems to show a near perfect "Gothic" church, overlooking Rome!  Almost any of you brains can identify a few of the things in the background, such as the "fortress" or the Tomb of Hadrian/Adrian, and the Pantheon or the "Ara Coeli", without much trouble!  And as well it seems also easy to identify the "Passeto". if one cares to try, the river is easier.  Here is a visual aid I did not find until now.  http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg  
Little regards to you, the defenders of the "status quo"!96.19.159.196 (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says that the roof gables were wood; the walls, floors & roofing were certainly not. There is plenty of roof timber 800-900 years old in good condition in cathedrals etc, & if it is not, it can be replaced relatively easily. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I can't see the 1457 image, but I'm also not seeing any problem. The design in the various images we do have seems entirely consistent with the many other other Late Antique churches that survive. Romanesque was much later. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Read it again, more carefully. But I'm losing interest in this frankly. What you or I think is not important, it's what WP:RS say that is. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is amazing that you (or anyone) can believe the currently accepted time -line! 

message: Dear Johnbot, et. al., just why should you as a "historian" and a fan of Encyclepedias, resond that you are tired of this topic.  I have shown to you all a site, that is has some bonifidies, and dates (1547 CE) with an entirely "Gothic in style" church right on the land now occupied by a relatively New Basilica.  You seen to consider that all that needs to be known is "known !"  That attitude is very anti-academic and also very anti-Encyclopedic!!  Certainly you and your fellows are not without the ability to actually view my respected sources, or do you merely ignore information that challenges the current lack of academic curiosity that is part and parcel of a respected scholar.  Thus if you have not actually viewed the "source" and its verifibility, then you are either brain dead, or merely you don't care about the truth?  So, which is it?  I can give no "regards" to you at this point.96.19.159.196 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What site? You have just referred to a book, without saying clearly what it says. I am not an administrator. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: That really isn't at all clear, is it? There is a nice clear engraving of the east end on p. 32 here, where it doesn't look at all Gothic. I'm really not interested in pursuing this conversation, as you can't produce any Wikipedia:RS that support your view. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is entirely compatible with our article. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

text: You look at them! None of them support a Gothic building at all. Enough of this. Please stop. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The aversion of site administrators to the introduction of new and possibly controversial "facts". 

message: The claim that the celebrant faced the people is dubious (though I left it in). Some liturgical historians suggest that the entire congregation faced east, at least during the consecration. Another theory, in keeping with current practice, introduces the concept of "liturgical east," in which the altar end of a church is treated as de facto east. (Note that side chapels are usually oriented differently than the central nave of a church anythow.) JediKnyghte (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facing the people 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion