Talk:List of Christian martyrs

Would not Jesus be a christian martyr? 121.45.161.18 (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you define Christian? He can't, after all, follow himself. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The fantasies of early Christian martyrologists won't do. Credible academic sources need to be found. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The scope of the article need not be limited to "well-documented" martyrs, in the same way as we have, for example an article about Azrael. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06 5 May 2009 (UTC).

This list can be salvaged by affirming that it contains names of "reputed" martyrs and then citing a WP:Reliable source that backs up that claim. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

Honestly, who keeps taking down his name? His beliefs were christian, and he was killed for it. Ergo, a christian Martyr. --EnderWiggin1 (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, he was not killed for proclaiming Christ. He was killed for claming to be a new prophet, this a heritic. Being killed for heresy is the total opposite of being killed for proclaiming the Gospel. --99.88.180.152 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am reasonably certain that you are the same IP editor who was doing this last week. You are editing against consensus. If you look at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you will see that that article is covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. That means that consensus has already been reached that the Mormons are Christian on Wikipedia. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but as far as Wikipedia goes, Mormons are Christians. As I said, these edits you keep inserting are against consensus, and as such, will be considered edit warring in the future. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

MLK Jr

He wasn't a Christian martyr. At least not in the sense that he was martyred for the Faith. He was assassinated as a civil rights activist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.123.171 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Early sections mix of "tradition". legend and fabrications

I notice this exchange on the talk page from a few years back -

"The fantasies of early Christian martyrologists won't do. Credible academic sources need to be found. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Not at all. The scope of the article need not be limited to "well-documented" martyrs, in the same way as we have, for example an article about Azrael. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06 5 May 2009 (UTC)."

If there were a statement along the lines of "you can believe the items on this list just as much as you might believe in the archangel of Death, or retribution, Azrael", that would be one thing, but here we have a long list of, to be blunt, lies. Inventions, fabrications that never happened but are presented as historical. This is very very wrong, it is presenting outdated Christian propaganda that even most Christians do not believe any more as the truth. I will work on this article and related ones over the next weeks and have put a "neutrality disputed" tag on the page.

Apostolic Age—1st century

Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 34 AD. -according to the New Testament

Saint James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 AD. --according to the New Testament

Saint Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 AD. --legendary, unhistorical

Saint Matthew the Evangelist killed with a halberd (a combination of battle axe and spear) in 60 AD.--legendary. in fact it is a ridiculous made up story

Saint James the Just, beaten to death with a club after being crucified and stoned. - one of the very few on these early lists with any independent historical confirmation as Josephus reports it, but he was stoned, not beaten to death and crucified

Saint Matthias was stoned and beheaded. - tradition

Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified. legendary

Saint Mark the Evangelist, was dragged in the streets of Alexandria then beheaded - late tradition

Saint Peter, crucified upside-down. - no historical evidence for this statement

Saint Paul, beheaded in Rome. - no historical evidence for this

Saint Jude - tradition

Saint Bartholomew flayed alive and crucified. according to late tradition"

Saint Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear in Mylapore, Madras, India in AD 72. - an absurd late tradition

Saint Luke the Evangelist was hanged.-where does this come from? This is a blatant lie. The WP article Luke the Evangelist says he died peacefully aged 84.

Saint Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 AD. - does not even link to the right "character", Simon the Zealot. accounts of his martyrdom are conflicting late "tradtions"

Saint Antipas of Pergamum, according to tradition, roasted to death in a brazen bull during the persecutions of Emperor Domitian, c. 92 A. D. well, whaddyaknow, actually uses the word "tradition", well done

John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod. (Note: Saint John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).--again, congrats for using the word "legend' for the first time

[edit]Age of Martyrdom—2nd to 4th centuries

Saint Afra c.304 at Augsburg, Bavaria, Germany. - legend

Saint Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD. -tradition

Saint Januarius of Naples, Italy in 305 AD. - legend

Saint Justin Martyr of Palestine in 165 AD. - this is only the second one on this list for which there is independent historical evidence

Origen of Alexandria, about 250 AD. -according to Eusebius, in a story of doubtful historicity

Perpetua and Felicity of Carthage in 202 AD.- one of the oldest martyrdom stories and there is probably some truth to it but it has been embellished

Saint Philomena of Corfu, Greece (died in Rome) about 305 AD. a ridiculous story made up in 1833

Saint Polycarp of Smyrna, probably around 160 AD.another early and well-attested one martyrdom story that probably contains some truth but has been embellished

The Martyrs of Scili (in North Africa, about 180 AD) The Passio Sanctorum Scilitanorum is regarded as the oldest Christian text in the Latin language.-another of the very few on this list that there is actually historical evidence for

Saint Alban, Britain in c.283 AD. -according to Bede

Saint Sebastian, died in Rome in the Diocletianic Persecution in 288. Martyred by being beaten to death. Patron saint of soldiers, plagues, archers, and athletes/athletics/sports. - may have a kernel of truth in it somewhere, an early tradition

Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, died in what is now Armenia under the Roman Imperial persecutions of 320 AD. - according to one sermon by Basil of Caesarea

Saint George, died in the Diocletianic Persecution in 303. -legendary

Saint Agnes, died in the Diocletianic Persecution in 304. - legendary

Saint Vincent of Saragossa, died in the Diocletianic Persecution in 304. - tradition

Saint Behnam of Assyria, Iraq - tradition

Saint Lucy/Lucia, martyred in Syracuse for refusing to marry a pagan suitor. Became the patron saint of the blind - legendary

It isn't right to mix real people who actually existed, such as Joan of Arc in the later list, with all these apocryphal tales, some of which concern characters who are almost certainly entirely fictional. Wikipedia should not be promoting fabrications and lies from the dark ages.Smeat75 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

But nor is it right to confuse legend and tradition. I note you say that the crucifixion of Peter has "no historical evidence". Well, as the Saint Peter article notes, his death is attested to by Tertullian, c. 200. Now, that is historical evidence, however weak it may be. In any case, we cannot include evaluations except with reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This is, of course, merely a talk page. I would not put it that way on the main article page. If the article said "according to an early Christian tradition first attested c.200 in the writings of Tertullian", citing a reference,that would be acceptable, but it just says flatly "crucified upside down" as if that were as much as a historical fact as any other.

This article does not cite one single source, just links to other WP pages and according to WP:WPNOTRS"Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."Smeat75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

It would take a while, but the best way to handle this article might be through the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, one name at a time. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, straight away I have issues with the removal of Peter. Firstly, it doesn't need to be sourced, since this is a list, not an article. If you follow the wikilinks, you get to Acts of Peter, where the story comes from. Secondly, it's fine for "traditional" entries to be here. That's why the lead says "reputedly". Thirdly, there is strong evidence that Peter was martyred, and therefore worthy of inclusion, even if the evidence that he was crucified upside down is very weak. StAnselm (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Lists have to be sourced. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists#Listed_items. Can you simply put a reference after his name? That would take care of the matter, I think. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I was following the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#"Lists of martyrs" articles that do not contain any sources, only links to other WP articles. Now, reference is made there to WP:MINREF, and the "likely to be challenged" category applies here. But I have no problems with sourcing it - or indeed, having a column to source every single entry. But the thing is, if we restrict the list to notable entries (which we need to do, and have now done) then the source should be in the listed article. And Saint Peter does indeed refer to Origen's tradition of Peter's upside-down crucifixion. Perhaps we could have a "source" column just for the Apostolic Age section - clarify that all the entries are "according to Christian tradition", and have a column for "earliest reference to the mode of execution". That will be the New Testament for James and Stephen, and Acts of Peter for Peter. As for Matthew, the halberd tradition is so late and so anachronistic that it shouldn't be included. But I think there are old traditions that he died in Ethiopia by some form of impalement. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's scratch Matthew. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says "He is said to have died a natural death either in Ethiopia or in Macedonia. The stories of the Roman Catholic church that he died the death of a martyr on September 21 and of the Greek church that this occurred on November 10 are without any historical basis. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 9) gives the explicit denial of Heracleon that Matthew suffered martyrdom." So - there is an old tradition that he wasn't martyred. On the other hand, the Catholic Church would hardly have taken Heracleon's word for it. StAnselm (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So I raised this article along with another at WP:NPOVN and asked if users felt it to be neutral and the consensus was "no". I raised it at WP:RSN and asked if it was OK for this article not to give any sources for any of its statements except links to other WP articles which say something completely different about their subject and the answer was no. I note user StAnselm's comment on WP:NPOV "What we have here is a curious mix of history, church tradition, and outright legend."I think this article, if it is to have any value, needs to distinguish between those three elements. I question whether any of the names from the Apostolic Age are "Christian martyrs" at all, as the term "Christian" was not widely used until about the end of the 1st century, however I am not going to argue about that. Either each entry needs to coincide exactly with what is said in the article linked to with respect to martyrdom or another source needs to be added on this page. I also seriously question the reason for the emphasis on the (usually legendary) method for execution. Is that the most important thing about the martyrdom of Peter, that he was crucified upside down? The later sections of this article do not fixate on such gory details when they have better historical evidence to do so. I am going to go through each entry in the first two sections one by one and either delete them if they do not agree with what is said in the article they link to or add a source. This will make it easier for anyone to challenge what I have done if they want to on any one entry. I am not particularly interested or knowledgeable about the subject post-Roman times so I will leave those alone.Smeat75 (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: dates. The first section did not have any dates, in the second section some have dates, some do not. I am removing the dates as then you have to add a discussion as to whether the dates are historical, early or late traditional and that is too much. All the names refer to WP articles that discuss probable / likely/ unknown dates of martyrdom.Smeat75 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So I have revised the article as I felt right (first two sections only, I am not concerned about the rest of it, others can deal with that if they want to). I tried to err on the side of not being sceptical in how I categorized the various names and added quite a few both to the "early attested" ones and the "legendary" martyrs. I will wait a couple of days, if there are no changes I cannot live with I will take off the NPOV and accuracy tags, since I am the one who put them on.Smeat75 (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not add entries to the first two sections without reliable sources

I took a lot of trouble years back to make Age of Martyrdom and Apostolic Age encyclopedic. Do not add entries to those sections without a reference to a reliable source. I don't care what happens to the rest of the list.Smeat75 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)