Talk:Clement of Rome

Requested move 28 April 2022

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)

---

Pope Clement I → Clement of Rome – "Clement of Rome" is the normal way to refer to him. See ngrams. Srnec (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 晚安 (トークページ) 15:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The Google Ngrams are persuasive. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose While theological works like to refer to him as "Clement of Rome" to avoid sectarian issues, to the general public he is more recognizable as "Pope Clement I". While I can appreciate the desire to be judicious, this could be tricky. Protestant and Orthodox works prefer to drop "pope" when they can, while Catholic sources tend to insist on including it (e.g. New Advent). Excluding it could be interpreted as a sectarian gesture, which could become a minefield not only for this pope, but for others too. As a consequence, I would prefer to default to MOS:POPES, which posits the norm "Pope Name #", and refer to it as justification, rather than coming down on either side. Walrasiad (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment  GB Ngram is even more convincing with variations added.[1] The WP:CRITERION of recognizability recommends a title “that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize,” which is not the same as “the general public.” This is allowed by MOS:POPES, according to its note on “some early popes.” On the other hand, the early popes of Rome listed in Category:1st-century popes and subsequent categories almost all conform to the same pattern as the current title and meet the criterion of consistency. —Michael Z. 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A neutral name and avoids sectarian issues with Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Orientalism. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Walrasiad. Isn't Wikipedia written for "the general public"; and will this also affect Anacletus, Evaristus, and others? Manannan67 (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

• Support per Srnec and WP:COMMONNAME, as well as my comments back in 2011 (above). Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. If this fails it will have to go to MOVEREVIEW as the Google Book evidence is overwhelming. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: 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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just had to miss this RM. Great, now we've two papal bios out of sync with all the others, concerning page names. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Biased sources

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)

Requested move 5 December 2023

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)

---

Clement of Rome → Pope Clement I – Reverting undiscussed move to standard format for popes. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• The previous move was not undiscussed, see Talk:Clement of Rome#Requested move 28 April 2022. BegbertBiggs (talk) 8:51 pm, 29 November 2023, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC+8)·📃🔥🔥🔥✒️·
• Cautious support It would be simpler just to treat all popes in the List of popes as "Pope So-and-so" (except Saint Peter who is clearly sui generis). I realise that some might object that many early popes are shadowy and perhaps even unhistorical, whereas Clement is undoubtedly the author of one significant letter. However we could get into all sorts of arguments about whether some other early popes might be treated this way, and at what point we can regard the official history of the RC church as substantially accurate, e.g. Pope Pontian, Pope Siricius? PatGallacher (talk) 6:46 am, Yesterday (UTC+8)·📃🔥🔥🔥✒️·
• Incautious oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME^(→) appears to be very strongly in favour of the current name. [1]  — Amakuru (talk) 6:50 pm, Yesterday (UTC+8)

Note: Converting from RM/TR to full discussion given that there have been additional support/oppose comments there. Notifying @Amakuru, PatGallacher, BegbertBiggs, and Colonies Chris: through pinging. – robertsky (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• A repost of my longer reasoning frm the previous RM: 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. So, oppose. Srnec (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Srnec & the last time, which the nom doesn't seem to have read. The issue here is not whether "Clement of Rome" existed, but whether he is the same as the pope, and what being "pope" meant at this date. It was outrageous for Colonies Chris to try and sneak this through as technical. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support To keep things consistent (WP:TITLECON) with how Wikipedia labeled other figures in similar situations, it's worth noting that bishops of Rome like Linus, Anacletus, and Evaristus are also called 'Pope' in their respective articles, except for Peter. We can be sure, based on historical sources like Against Heresies(Irenaeus) and Church History (Eusebius), that Clement was in fact the bishop of Rome (Pope). So, to make things uniform in the titles of these articles, it makes sense to move the article to a more consistent title like 'Pope Clement I.' It is also worth noticing that Damasus of Rome is also named 'Pope Damasus I' in the article about him. EXANXC (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Consistency is a very low priority in these matters, ranking well below WP:COMMONNAME. A number of recent royalty RMs have been reminders of this. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Just an observation, the title of the article is "Clement of Rome", while the article begins "Pope Clement I" in black letters, is there an inconsistency there? Rafaelosornio (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support I agree with moving the article to "Pope Clement I." The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to him as "Pope St. Clement I," showing this is a recognized title. Also, renaming could clear up any possible mix-ups between Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria, which would be helpful for introductory readers trying to understand these historical figures. Randoperson1 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose He is more often known as Clement of Rome. That is what is used in the title, before any titles. His official title is used first in the lead - "Pope Clement the First, known as Clement of Rome..." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Not any more... Johnbod (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose He is more often known as Clement of Rome. No evidence that he was ever a pope in any case, original research. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 3 March 2024

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)

---

Clement of Rome → Pope Clement I – 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)

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

Note: WikiProject Catholicism has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. We just discussed this in December. I stand by my arguments and evidence from 2022. Srnec (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  What about the evidence given here? EXANXC (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  My evidence is better. See ngram from the successful RM. Compare 448 GScholar hits for 'Pope Clement I' with 12,000+ GScholar hits for 'Clement of Rome'. See books like Kleist's The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch, Lightfoot's S. Clement of Rome and The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome, Hagner's The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome and Benedict XVI's Church Fathers from Clement of Rome to Augustine. Indeed, Benedict never once uses either 'pope' or the numeral in discussing Clement of Rome (although he does refer to him once as 'Pope Clement I' in his discussion of Ignatius of Antioch). You say excluding Peter, but I just say we should exclude Clement as well. Srnec (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to highlight that Google Ngrams indicate that "Clement of Rome" is prevalent among academics, whereas Google Search results and Trends suggest that the term "Pope Clement I" is more commonly used by the general public compared to "Clement of Rome." EXANXC (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  By "more commonly used by the general public" I imagine you mean "more common on Catholic websites intended for the general public" - the actual "general public" are blissfully unaware of his existence at all. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, it's also proof that Pope Clement I is in more common usage than Clement of Rome because Clement is more important to Catholics than others. Also, there are more Catholics among Christians, which also proves that Pope Clement I is the common name. EXANXC (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a poor argument. Wikipedia is not written for Catholics. Walrasiad (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose per last time - only 3 months ago, & Srnec's new evidence above. In any case, much too soon to re-open. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose "Clement of Rome" is a common name and it is preferable to using the title "Pope" as it avoids sectarian issues with Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. There are also many theologians and church historians who dispute the existence of the episcopacy whatsoever at this time period, so using references to an episcopal system such as "pope" may appear biased. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  The website of the Orthodox Church in America calls him "Hieromartyr Clement, Pope of Rome". EXANXC (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Whatever the merits, bad practice to re-open a discussion as soon as this. Give it maybe a year? PatGallacher (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Notifying @Mtminchi08, Gentgeen, Savidan, JimMillerJr, CarlosPn, W Tanoto, and Vicedomino: through pinging. EXANXC (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly SUPPORT. Thank you for inviting me to participating in the "Third Annual Much Ado About Nothing" discussion. (1) The statistics cited from Google are skewed and unreliable. Many are from scholars (theology) who are using "Clement of Rome" to distinguish him from Clement of Alexandria. (2) The claim that users might become confused with "Clement I" is not backed by evidence. It is special pleading, existing in the minds of those who oppose the change, not in reality. Redirect handles the imagined problem or confusion more than adequately. (3) Clement's place of origin is unknown. It is not even known whether he was a Roman citizen or not. "Of Rome" is merely the place where he worked. Should all popes be designated "Of Rome"? Should popes without a number (e.g. Telesphorus, Symmachus, Eleutherius) be named with their place of origin, e.g. Telesphorus of Greece, Eleutherius of Nicopolis (Epiri)? Obviously, reductio ad absurdum. (4) Kelly & Walsh, Oxford Dictionary of Popes 2nd ed., lists him as "Clement I." The Annuario Pontificio (I cite the 1922 edition aS being the closest at hand) lists him as : "S. Clemente I".

Vicedomino (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.