Talk:List of popes by length of reign/Archives 1

Recompute

We need to recompute the total days for John Paul II from scratch, I'll do that in an hour or two. It's probably been goofed up by editing a few weeks/months at a time. Note that either I or the last editor did goof it up. Pakaran 00:54, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

According to his article, Pope John Paul II was crowned on October 16, 1978.

This is exactly 25 years ago before Thursday, October 16, 2003. Of these years, 1980, 1884, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 were leap years - a total of 6 years. 25 x 365 = 9125, adding the 6 days we get 9131 days as of Thursday Oct 16 2003, or 9129 as of today.

Can someone confirm? Pakaran 00:58, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Interesting - neither of us goofed it up, just that I adjusted to today, and the previous editor adjusted to his 25-year "anniversery." I guess there's no problem? Pakaran 01:00, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Note on reverting to prior calculations: Leo XIII elected 20 Feb 1878, died 20 July 1903. If you just subtract one date from the other, you'll get 9280, but he was pope on both those days: you need to add one for an inclusive range, for 9281. If someone becomes pope on Monday and dies the following Saturday, most people would say he was pope six days, not five. And then he'd be surpassed by a pope who reigned on 9282 calendar days. -- Someone else 05:57, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Does this really change the date on which he'd pass Leo XIII? Are we consistent with the [[List of Fffice for 4 years - even though he typically assumes the position at noon, and thus is President for half of the beginning and ending days of those 4 years. Luckily, this shouldn't change the ordering of either list, if they were all computed the same way. The other list, though, may be more vulnerable to ties when rounding to the nearest day. Pakaran 06:32, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, that I kept (and plan to keep) updating the list always on the 16th of a month usually, because JP2 was elected on a 16th, by adding the number of days in the previous month. I didn't really recalculate it every time, so errors would be accumulating. Sorry, if there was one.

And I thought, on the 16th we need to add one more day to Pakarans calculation, making it 9132 days (for the 16th itself), or am I wrong? --denny vrandecic 14:12, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

16 Oct 1978 + 9281 days = 14 Mar 2004. On that day, John Paul II will have reigned on 9282 days. (16 Oct 1978 plus the 9281 we added = 9282 days). This is one more than the 9281 ruled by Leo. -- 141.153.232.88 01:38, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Anyone out there who would like to calculate the days for Pius 9? By the way, who is Pope Nr 11, I would like to take St. Peter out of the List, or at least mention him with a special note, as his papacy is not comparable to the other popes... --denny vrandečić 16:41, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

done. Just need the number of days still (was 1900 a leap year in Italy?) --denny vrandečić 17:07, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

The reason St. Peter "reigned" so long is that he was chosen by Jesus while he was (if the same age) in his thirties -- much younger than all popes since. Whether he should be omitted, as a special case, I don't know. Pakaran . 18:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but his long papacy and him being so young is not the reason I took him off the list. Rather it is the uncertainity about his reign and about calling him really a pope or not. I'm not that eager to keep him out, I just want to have note explaining his, hmm, special case. --denny vrandečić 19:39, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, one can always include him as it is now (which I guess is what you refer to as "take off"). If it does not appear at all, people will keep inserting him. BTW, I've changed the emphasis so that it is clearer I hope. Pfortuny 19:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On another note, is it even known for sure which year the Passion, Crucifixion, etc (and hence Peter's appointment) took place? I've heard 30 AD, 33 AD, and various others. Pakaran . 19:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nope, that's quite debatable (and debated) still. Around 6 years margin more or less. Pfortuny 19:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

33 AD is what it is traditionally given as. →Raul654 20:34, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

St Peter - in or out?

All the news sources are reporting that John Paul will become the third longest serving pope next to Pius IX and Saint Peter. I think this article should be modified accordingly. →Raul654 17:01, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think we need the change as you suggest - we do have an explanation at the end of the article, maybe we should move this up to the top, if you prefer, but no one did call St Peter a pope in his lifetime. Just because the news sources say so does not make it right :) Before just changing the list and putting St Peter in, I'd highly prefer to see something written on it (and thus, making this article nicer with more information than just a plain list does offer), but I am not sure, what this something would be... --denny vrandečić 18:29, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

I did not read this before. I'd rather keep St. Peter as it is now (see above). Pfortuny 19:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should be consistent with the "news sources" at the expense of accuracy. Just as an exercise in reducto ad absurdum, see how many inaccurate names/titles for Prince Charles you can find in 15 minutes on Google News. Pakaran . 19:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From what I read here, it seems like the consensus was to keep Peter as a footnote to the main list. Yet, the list has been changed to put him at the top. I noticed also that the phrase "in Catholic reckoning" has been inserted in the title. "News sources" did endlessly repeat the claim that St. Peter was the first pope, but that is, at heart, a theological claim and it is not well supported by history. I would like to restore the orginal form of the list with Pius IX as the longest reingning pope and delete the phrase "in Catholic reckoning" from the title. I'd leave the notes about Peter intact, though I would like eventually to rework them so the historical and theological issues involved are more clear to the untutored reader. Sumergocognito 21:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be posible to change "by virtue of his commission by Jesus" to "by virtue of his reputed commission by Jesus"? As it is, the article sort of begs the question.Sumergocognito

Sure it would. But what for? I mean, the comission is biblical, and that's still the best source for Jesus, I guess, so why change that? Instead of "reputed" I'd write "biblical", maybe give a source, too. --denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 13:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would tend to exacerbate the problem of POV that the note already has. The issue is whether Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18 were intended as a commission to Peter or not. Protestants have long rejected the idea that Jesus intended to make Peter pope and Orthodox Christians have dismissed papal claims from the very beginning. By inserting the world biblical the note would be placing still more weight on that particular assertion.Sumergocognito

Was JP II given credit for the recent leap day? Pakaran . 17:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The day count seems correct to me. I am just not sure if the words "4 months and 30 days" make any sense since the fifth month in this case only has 29 days... :) If no one else does change it, I will change it on March 16, and make 5 months out of it (and then, 1 day more) --denny vrandečić 19:04, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what the canonical way of resolving that issue is. It's obviously not "5 months and anything" since the same date in the fifth month hasn't been reached. Honestly, the best alternative is probably to just wait for the issue to obsolete itself :) Pakaran . 23:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree! ;) --denny vrandečić 23:30, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Reign of Popes?

Do popes reign? Can we think of a better word? Secretlondon 23:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, popes reign. [1]. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Longest presiding popes? Danny 23:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Most news services seem to prefer longest-serving. [2] --Minesweeper 23:14, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I think longest-serving is the better term, and seems to have been most widely adopted. - MykReeve 01:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I also prefer "serving". Much more neutral. fabiform | talk 01:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Widely adopted by newspapers and websites to describe the current pope, not by encyclopedias to describe all of them.... -- Nunh-huh 01:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And see my note about Prince Charles, and the correctness of news sources, above :) Pakaran . 16:52, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No: they reign as was said abobe because they are monarchs. And because the term comes from "regere": to guide, to lead in a direction, to put straight, not necessarily from "being a king". Pfortuny 20:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then why do the Romance languages use highly similiar words to mean "king?" Does that come from rex instead? Pakaran . 15:22, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(indentation backwards): Yes, rex, regis->"king", rego, regis, regere, rexi, rectum->"rule, manage, guide, direct".... Pfortuny 16:13, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there are two similar Latin verbs – rego, regis, regere, rexi, rectum (to rule, transitive), but also regno, regnas, regnare, regnavi, regnatum (which works as a transitive and an intransitive verb), which is where we get "reign" (intransitive) and its congnates from (check the presence of the gn). If I'm remembering correctly... –Hajor 16:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

¡Ahí le duele! (which for non-Spanish speakers means something like: that's the point). You're righter than me. :)Pfortuny 17:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now, as to the verb: "reigning" is undeniably correct (with 2000 years of history behind it) but perhaps "longest serving" is more in tune with these post-modern, mealy-mouthed, non-offensive NPOV times in which we live. I vote for "reigning". –Hajor 18:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I vote also for "reigning" because of the special status of the Roman Catholic Church, which assumes the Pope is especially a monarch (so, let us call a spade a spade). Pfortuny 20:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There's some churches which are less clearcut (the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints comes to mind, as does the Unification Church) but the Pope is definately a monarch (and nearly an absolute monarch) - and for that matter he is the political head of state of a territory, and probably has more real political power than most of the (other) EU monarchs do. Arguably, Popes do "serve" - but only in the sense that all members of a religion or a cause serve. My parents (feel that they) serve the Methodist church, but they in no sense reigh. Pakaran . 20:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reigning is absolutely the correct term. Anything else is obviously wrong. →Raul654 20:17, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... Obviously??? I happen to agree that "reign" is perfectly acceptable, but if it were "obvious" that any other point of view is "wrong", then what is this debate all about? Let's not get into judgmental language such as this, but let's keep to the Laws of Brainstorming whereby all contributions are equally acceptable. Cheers. JackofOz 23:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Touche. I apologize if anyone else was offended by my comment. →Raul654 23:47, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't one say he pontificates? (joke:) I think reign is the traditional term to describe what a pope generally does.-Sumergocognito

Combine lists

Why not combine list of longest reigning popes and list of shortest reigning popes to be List of Popes by length of reign? Intrigue 22:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:List of 10 shortest-reigning Popes#Combine lists. -- User:Docu

Pope John Paul II

Looks like the current Pontiff wont make it up to second nor the third. WB 18:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Not likely; it appears that April 2, 2005 will be the end...

Photo of JP2

Why is this there? No disrespect to him, but in the context of this list, he's just somebody on the list, not the longest reigner. Why not a photo of a painting of St Peter? Or, if we accept that nobody knows what Peter looked like, why not a photo of Pio Nono, who was, after all, the pope with the longest accurately dated reign. JackofOz 01:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not list all popes in order?

Why not list all the popes in order of their reign? Is there anything special about the number 10? There are thousands of lists on Wikipedia, and very few of them arbitrarily stop at the top 10, most are a lot longer. In this list in particular, the unnecessary existence of a cut-off point has created more trouble than it's worth. Besides, the full list would be just as useful and fascinating as the top 10. Anybody up for it? JackofOz 01:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

check out List of popes - Ektar 14:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was a list of all the popes, sorted by the length of their reigns, from the longest reigning to the shortest reigning. This would obviate the need to have 2 separate lists (Longest Reigning Top 10 and Shortest Reigning Top 10), and would obviate this interminable discussion about whether Peter is in our out. My opinion remains that there is nothing magical about the number 10. Let's list all of the buggers. JackofOz 00:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]