Wikipedia

Talk:Saint Peter/Archive 2

< Talk:Saint Peter
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Hafspajen in topic First Bishop of Rome
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

ofcourse in good FAITH

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I have doubt that christ ever lived on earth.Is there any historical evidence for that. If not how can his disciples existence could be beyond doubt?::--binu (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion on the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the original comment does make a point that could be used to improve the article. Although there is historical evidence that Jesus existed (and you are right, this is not the place to discuss that), there is none for Peter outside the NT and Christian "tradition". The article does not make that clear.Smeat75 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Your broad exegetical reading of the comment aside, if you have reliable source discussing this -- re Peter -- feel free to include it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Pl. see the article history ,it will tell why I wrote the comment. My edit in which I tried correct POV, has been reverted by some one who give the edit summary " don't think it was particularly POV - I don't think anyone doubts his existence." Actually my comment above was a reply to that. If there is no historical evidence for existence then the first sentence of the article should be changed that is what I suggested -- binu (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, such a pity the Romans didn't keep their driving licence records .... What you need is a WP:RS suggesting that Peter may not have existed (such as do exist for Jesus). Happy hunting! Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Other than "background" historical figures such as Herod, Pontius Pilate, Gallio, etc. the only NT personages that there is independent historical evidence for are Jesus himself, John the Baptist and James the Just. All the other apostles including Sts Peter and Paul are known solely through the NT and early Christian tradition. It would be quite accurate for the article to state "According to the New Testament and Christian tradition, St Peter was an early Christian leader and one of the twelve apostles" as that is where that information comes from, nowhere else and if anybody wanted to dispute that statement, which does not mean "and therefore there was never any such person", they would have to find a reliable source stating that there was independent historical evidence (which there isn't). I'm not going to battle to put that in the article right now, however.Smeat75 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

@Smeat & others I made that change, revert if you disagree::-binu (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I slightly tweaked the addition you put in to avoid repetition. I agree with it.Smeat75 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Peter's nationality

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe St Peter should appear under the following Wiki category page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_popes

So the following text should be added to the St Peter page: Category:Jewish popes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minneapolisite (talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Peter "wrote" two general epistles, Mark is "ascribed" to him - outdated ideas

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was truly amazed to see these sentences in the lede - "Peter wrote two general epistles. The Gospel of Mark is also ascribed to him (as Mark was his disciple and interpreter)." These statements are approximately two hundred years behind current New Testament scholarship. The article itself, in the section "Writings", explains that these "traditional" attributions are highly dubious to say the least. I am changing the first sentence to "Two general epistles are ascribed to Peter." The second I am altering to "The Gospel of Mark was traditionally thought to show the influence of Peter's preaching and eyewitness memories." Smeat75 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is not everyone accepts the theories of higher criticism. Many Christians accept the letters and gospel as genuine. I'm changing it to "According to Christian tradition, Peter wrote two general epistles and the Gospel of Mark is also ascribed to him (as Mark was his disciple and interpreter)." 128.187.97.22 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Saying the Gospel of Mark is "ascribed" to Peter makes it sound like he wrote it, which no one believes. No one who has studied the question believes 2 Peter is really by him. The previous statement is accurate and NPOV, the other one is not.Smeat75 (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Saint Peter was categorized as Syrian, I found this very inaccurate and made a category for Israeli popes based on the fact the he was from "The land of Israel" and was Jewish. This was speed deleted before we had a chance to discuss it, but what is his nationality?--Orakologen (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that the Jewish popes category has been removed because it needs "a reliable source". The primary source is of course the Bible, but also Jewish tradition. Even if the historical accuracy of the Bible is debatable, the info that most a the disciples were Jews is not controversial (since its fairly logical). Has there been a decision somewhere on wiki that the NT is not an acceptable source in this context?--Orakologen (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As I noted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 14#Category:Jewish_popes:
a) The bible does not include the word Pope, so it cannot be a source for claiming that Peter was a "Jewish Pope", other than by WP:SYNthesis, which is not allowed. b) The Bible is a primary source, but Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources.
If you have a reliable secondary source, please identify it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If all you need is a source that says the NT says he is Jewish. Then Erich Dinkler: Petrus in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage 1961, vol. 5, p. 247 , mentions that as well as probably hundreds of Encyclopaedias and books on religion. If you are not allowed to conclude that a guy with a Jewish name, whose dad had a Jewish name, who followed Jewish eating habits and who was born in a part of Ancient Israel was Jewish then all this OR and SYN BS has gone to far. German wiki has no problem categorizing him as a Jew, why cant we?--Orakologen (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What another project does is of no importance here. Let's suppose we had a source saying that he was Jewish and a pope (which is what BHG asked for). This would allow us to say he was Jewish and a pope. However, we would not create a category for "Jewish Popes" for the same reason we would not create a category for "Popes named Peter". One article does not a category make. Should we put wooden spoon in the category "Spoons made of wood"? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, we do have Category:Polish popes, Category:English popes, Category:Dutch popes, and now Category:Argentine popes—all of which have only one article in them and will for the foreseeable future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Peter was Syrian or Roman. This category seems to contrast with Category:Catholic popes (or, perhaps, Category:Bears who shit in the woods). Further, calling Peter a "pope" has him as a successor to himself. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The article was in Category:Syrian popes for some time. I'm not clear on why it was removed. (But I think the "Jewish" in "Jewish popes" is probably meant to refer to an ethnicity, as opposed to a religion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Surely we already have precedent for not categorizing ancient people as "Israeli", which would be ridiculous. Categorizing using "Syria" for the ancient Roman province, far larger than the modern country, is little less so. "Jewish popes" would not be a useful category, not least because several subsequent early Popes/Bishops of Rome could reasonably be so described from all we know about Early Christianity, as converts born Jewish, but we don't know which ones. I don't see that categorizing a pope who was Jewish as a Jewish pope is synthesis at all. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you say it's best to leave this article out of the Category:Popes by nationality tree altogether? I think that's what I would do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Me too. The note to the category Category:Popes by nationality covers him sensibly. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I support leaving Peter out of Category:Popes by nationality, where as Johnbod points out there is a headnote which describes as being from "Galilee (Palestine/The land of Israel)". The "nationality" of people from that area at that time seems to me to be too complex to be reduced to one simple adjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think we have gone about much of our ancient nationality categorization in a very wrong headed way. We have let too much nationality categorization be hijacked by modern nationalists who want to boost their national prestiage by claiming people who had no connection with the nation. I think we should create Category:Roman Empire popes and get rid of unjustified categories like Category:African popes. Nationality is a measure of the political entity people were connected with, not a measure of ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:African popes seems fine to me - there are 3 + the Copts. "Latin American" or "New World Popes" would also be fine if there were more than one. All are clearly defining, though of course "African" could do with an explanatory note. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

1. There are at least one later (anti)pope who was born Jewish, so Peter is not a "loner" and as said earlier there are several other categories with one pope. 2. He is generally recognized as the first pope. 3. Its not difficult to describe the etnicity of people in "the area" at the time. The common people in Galilee was Jewish. 4. All that said John Pack Lambert has a point. Plain Roman Empire might be the way to go. Basically I was annoyed with the unsatifactory "Syria" definition. Still I am genuinely surprised about the amount of controversy over this topic. That most of the apostles were from the Jewish people should be uncontroversial. I wonder if categorizing Jesus as a Jew would also cause an uproar with demands of reliable secondary sources for such an outrageous claim?--Orakologen (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus is in "Roman-era Jews" and "1st century rabbis", so no, it doesn't cause "an uproar". Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not name the article Simon Peter?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In my experience Simon Peter seems to be a very popular way to refer to him, and it does avoid confusion. On another note, despite claims otherwise, we do have an article name Mahatma Ghandi so the claim that there are rules to override common name seems unsupported. I also wonder if Peter the Apostle might be a workable name for the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 4

Latest comment: 11 years ago33 comments20 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


Saint Peter → Peter (apostle) – Most published sources do not refer to him as "Saint" Peter. Many people who respect him as a religious leader do not generally use the honorific "saint". He is most often refered to as Peter, but since Peter I of Russia and many others are also refularly refered to as Peter, having some form of disambiguation is needed. None of the other original 12 aposltes have Saint in their article titles. While apostle is also a title, it is a title he clearly was given while alive, and has the added benefit of being a title generally only associated with him, while there are other Peters who are recognized by some as Saints. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to WP:AT In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:AT This page explains in detail the considerations on which choices of article title are based. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.

  • Oppose. WP:NCDAB says to avoid parentheticals, so the proposed form is not an improvement. I don't see why the article can't be moved to Peter. Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with the above, that this is the primary topic for Peter, but in order to have a productive discussion let's limit the discussion to the proposed alternatives. Saint Peter is not very common in reliable sources on this person, as was shown in the last RM. Apostle is a good disambiguator, because there was only one apostle by this name. "Apostle Peter" is not a very common designation. --JFH (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It's less than a month since the last RM closed; this should be ignored. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
But that was flawed in that it had a needlessly long proposed target and made the present name thus seem to have the advantage of being noticably shorter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
As per Johnpacklambert, Saint Peter → Peter (disciple of Jesus) concluded with a demonstration of NPOV concerns with "Saint" as failing both WP:COMMONNAME, WP:HONORIFIC, WP:NPOV. A follow on discussion on → Peter (apostle) or → Peter was expected. This is still a title at odds with one of the Five Pillars as the redlink "Prophet Muhammed demonstrates. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Prohpet Mohammad , Prohpet Muhammed , etc , should redirect to that article, as viable search terms. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"The Apostle" doesn't have to be "part of his name" to be effective natural disambiguation, just something he's commonly called in English. He's never called "Peter (Apostle)" so that should be avoided if possible.--Cúchullain t/c 17:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
To my understanding - see this and the former discussion - he is commonly called just Peter, but that needs disambiguation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The wording at WP:NATURALDIS is: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." In other words, since the most common name, "Peter", is ambiguous, we should go with another common alternative as natural disambiguation. We should avoid a parenthetical unless there's no natural alternative. In this case "Peter the Apostle" is quite common in English, with 854,000 Google Books hits.--Cúchullain t/c 00:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not familiar with those books, but would be surprised if they said "Peter the Apostle" every time, nor would this article. - I don't support "Peter the Apostle", respecting the many who would never use it that way, in the same way that I respect those who don't say "Saint Peter", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It's just a disambiguator, it doesn't need to be used "every time" in the sources (or this article). It just needs to be common enough to naturally distinguish the article from others called "Peter". At any rate, there are few if any books that call him "Peter (apostle)" at all, let alone every time.--Cúchullain t/c 12:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
He was not known as Saint Peter during his lifetime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: My opinion is Peter (apostle) would be a much more universally recognized term as he is not looked upon as a saint for all Christians / denominations let alone the rest of the world. The change would not take anything away from the position that he occupies in the faith. Ckruschke (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References to the Petrine letters being written by a secretary

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The section "New Testament" in "Writings" includes the statement: "the author of the first epistle explicitly claims to be using a secretary". This unsourced statement is downright false. The passage referred to says "By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly" (1 Peter 5:12). It does not say "By my secretary" or "by Silvanus my secretary" which it would need to do to make the claim that the author explicitly claims to be using a secretary. Some commentators read into it that Silvanus was a secretary, but as Bart Ehrman says in his book "Forged", p76, that is wrong - "He is indicating not the name of his secretary, but the person who was carrying the letter to the recipients." The whole section does not cite any sources and states a number of highly disputable opinions as facts. It continues " The textual features of these two epistles are such that a majority of scholars doubt that they were written by the same hand. This means at the most that Peter could not have authored both" - no, that is not "the most" it could mean, it could be (and almost certainly is) the case that Peter did not author either one - "or at the least that he used a different secretary for each letter." We now move from unsourced conjecture that "By Silvanus" in 1 Peter refers to the use of a secretary to unsourced conjecture that 2 Peter also used a secretary, with nothing beyond the speculation of the author of this part of the article to back up that. This is WP:OR and I am removing all of that. If someone wants to make the case that these letters used secretaries, they need to find and cite sources.

The section continues: "A number of scholars have argued that the textual discrepancies with what would be expected of the biblical Peter are due to it having been written with the help of a secretary or as an amanuensis. Indeed in the first epistle the use of a secretary is clearly described: "By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand".[1 Pet. 5:12] Thus, in regards to at least the first epistle, the claims that Peter would have written Greek poorly seem irrelevant." Once again, "By Silvanus" does not clearly describe the use of a secretary and the claims that Peter would have written Greek poorly are not irrelevant.

I am removing these passages for right now, but in fact the whole section "New Testament" in "Writings" does not cite a single source and unless someone adds some citations to that section in the next few days, I will re-write the whole thing.Smeat75 (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that user Bede735 reverted my changes shortly after I had made them and did add one reference from a source more than a hundred years old to the possible use of secretaries by the author of the Petrine letters. However there is still no source for the false statements "the author of the first epistle explicitly claims to be using a secretary" and "in the first epistle the use of a secretary is clearly described". I am removing these unsourced, false statements and ask that they not be restored without citations (for instance, so-and-so in such and such a reliable source says that "By Silvanus" is a clear , explicit claim to be using a secretary.)
Also I have deleted the unsourced sentence :"This means at the most that Peter could not have authored both (letters), or at the least that he used a different secretary for each letter." It needs a citation as to whose opinion this is, as it is certainly not that held by most scholars today. Wikipedia is not a place to repeat Sunday School lessons from a hundred years ago. I have added a quote from a recent book by Bart Ehrman noting that modern scholars, as opposed to pre World War One scholars, do not believe that the words "By Silvanus" refer to the use of a secretary, but to the person who was going to deliver the letter to the recipients. Please do not remove this quote from a WP:RS without a discussion here on the talk page first.Smeat75 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cephas and Peter separate people?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some years ago, Bart Ehrman wrote an article here in which he discussed the old idea that Saints Cephas and Peter were separate people. (I think he may also indicate that a Saint Simon was a separate person as well, but I haven't read the article recently and may be wrong there.) This idea has received little if any support, or even attention, in recent years, and Ehrman argues that, basically, that we are right to do so, but that the possibility of them being different people should not be completely dismissed. Few if any of the reference books I've seen discuss the matter though. How should we deal with it here? John Carter (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The most common form

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Before a move request is proposed for the fifth time, I'd like to present some data for the most familiar form of this person's name, courtesy of Google. (Self-disclosure: I don't like the current form "Saint Peter", but I can live with it. I'd rather see this article titled simply "Peter", & put all of the disambiguation stuff under Peter (disambiguation).) The actual string I entered into Google is shown in Italics.

First, doing a Google search on "Peter" returns 1.05 x 109 hits. Due to some weirdness on Google's part, searching on "Peter -wikipedia", which ought to remove all hits to Wikipedia, actually returns a larger number, about 3 billion. Go figure.

For the most common variants, "Saint Peter" -wikipedia" returns 3,500,000 hits. "Pope Peter" -wikipedia returns 396,000 hits; the first hit is to a Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria. "Peter the Apostle" -wikipedia returns 6,610,000 hits. "Peter the Disciple" -wikipedia returns 364,000 hits. And "Simon Peter" -wikipedia returns 2,360,000 hits. So at first glance, the most common form appears to be the current title, Saint Peter.

However, we all know there are a lot of people, places & things with the words "Saint Peter" in them. Lets drill down on the three most common variants.

  • For "Saint Peter", the first hit is a town in Minnesota, with hits on a place in Hudson county & other churches on the first page. Lets refine our search. "Saint Peter" -wikipedia -minnesota yields 29,100,000 hits. "Saint Peter" -wikipedia -minnesota -hudson yields 28,100,000. "Saint Peter" -wikipedia -minnesota -hudson -parish yields 25,600,000.
  • For "Peter the Apostle", on the first page a lot of schools & churches appear. "Peter the Apostle" -wikipedia -parish returns 5,330,000. "Peter the Apostle" -wikipedia -parish -school returns 2,430,000.
  • For "Simon Peter" the first hit is a sports store in New Jersey, & there is an academic by that name on the first page of results. "Simon Peter" -sport returns 2,270,000 hits. "Simon Peter" -sport -university returns 1,730,000 hits.

In brief, based on this Google search the most common form used for this person is "Saint Peter". That does not mean that other arguments would show another form is best, but that arguments based on popular use must support "Saint Peter". -- llywrch (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No particular disagreements from me regarding the use of the existing title, more or less as the least objectionable and/or objectionable of the existing options. Yes, I do suppose that there are possibly a few groups of notable Christians who might have different opinions about Peter, or who dislike the use of the word "saint" regarding him, but they seem to be in a pronounced minority. I can see some questions regarding some of the content of the article, though, based on the material in the section above. I do think that the variant names of Cephas and maybe Simon are probably notable enough in their own right, based on material in reference books, but am unsure how much weight, if any, to give those matters here, and what if anything to say. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
My point in offering the material above was not to plead for any one version. I only mentioned that I favored a different one to explain that I had no motive here other than to head off another useless move request. There have been four proposals already, & not once did anyone look at the Google results. (Doing that might have prevented two or three of the iterations of this proposal.) And while I think another title would be better for this article, my feelings about that matter could be best described as jaded annoyance; if had the interest or desire to pursue it I'd use those instead on some other things about this article that annoy me more. For example, while the Liber Ponitificalis states that Peter was bishop of Antioch, Eusebius states that the first bishop of that city was Euodius. I don't know which of these two sources has the truth. -- llywrch (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I think Cephas is listed as the first bishop of Iconium as well, although I don't know, as per Ehrman and others, whether that is supposed to refer to Peter or not, or if it is, when he was bishop of Iconium. So far as I can see, few if any of the most recent reference sources mention the question in articles or content related directly to Peter, but I'm not sure whether what seems to be a historically significant, even if no longer current, question about the matter deserves inclusion here, maybe in a spinout article, in articles on Cephas and others, or whatever. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter, Father of Mark

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In 1 Peter 5:13 it discusses his son, Mark. Which part of the article can this be added to? [1] Twillisjr (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the commentaries either maintain that it was not the same Mark or that Son was meant as a term of endearment rather than relation (comp. with 1 Timothy 1:2). The Pulpit commentary, Gill's exposition, and the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary support this. Even without this, it is original research to say that that Mark is indeed the Disciple Mark (and questionable research, as that raises some issues of chronology, either Peter was especially old by Paul's time or the Disciple Mark was a noteworthily young disciple whose childhood was left unmentioned for some reason). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 5

Latest comment: 11 years ago42 comments19 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There certainly isn't consensus for moving. There is some sentiment that it's problematic that this name includes an honorific, but no better name has been proposed. Also, I feel it might be reasonable to take the approach (as expressed by Necrothesp) that "Saint" is just meant as a disambiguator, and it just so happens to be an honorific. So, basically, in the absence of any better, more preferred disambiguator, this is what we have, one that is recognizable to those looking for this subject, even if they themselves don't consider Peter a saint. -- tariqabjotu 03:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

– Every English-language Bible gives this name as simply "Peter." Here is a collection of 16 major translations if you want to see for yourself. If you think this version of the name is unCatholic, check out Douay-Rheims. Why should "saint" be any different than "general", "president", "CEO," or "king," all of which drop off in Wiki-style? --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 02:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Antonio Hazard (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, is not the number of notable things commonly called "Peter", but the likelihood that a reader would be looking for this Peter when they search for "Peter", on its own. I can't imagine any other Peter being the expected result from that search. Also, this Peter satisfies the second criterion because he is substantially more notable than any other Peter.
I'm more concerned about the "Saint" part, and I wish the opposes would specify whether they prefer something other than Saint Peter even if they don't like Peter. For me, I would prefer Peter the Apostle as a second choice to Peter due to the precedent set by other Apostles who need disambiguation. --JFH (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't imagine anyone reasonably searching for this specific person expecting to get it immediately by searching for "Peter". For such a simple search, I think they should be expecting to find a disambiguation page, or Peter (given name), or they are attempting a title search, intitle:Peter. Anyone seriously looking for this Peter specifically should be expected to combine "Peter" with "apostle" or "saint" or "disciple" or "Jesus" or "pope".
I prefer Simon Peter because I believe that is how he is introduced, and because (translated) his name was Simon, with Peter being a nickname that caught on. I accept that "Saint" reflects a religious POV, and is unnecessary in the face of several acceptable options. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll change my second choice to Simon Peter based on this ngram. --JFH (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I also offer the following RSes, copied from requested move 3, in favor of Peter: This, this, this, and this. I also commend the analysis In ictu did during that discussion which showed that "Saint Peter" is not the most common designation for this person. --JFH (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Dicklyon (did you come here after spotting the SPI by any chance?) Agree. I'd be interested to hear your take on the WP:NPOV issue however. 07:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Peter the Apostle, Simon Peter, etc.

In order to prevent another RM immediately afterwards, perhaps can we have a clear complete list of support/oppose on the other main options too? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Review the above

On "Saint Peter" I count Support/Oppose/Neutral = 6/7/2

Supports

  1. Johnbod:Oppose any move. Support, Saint Peter
  2. 76.65.128.222: Support Saint Peter
  3. NeilN: Oppose the move above. Support, Saint Peter
  4. John Carter: Support Saint Peter
  5. José Luiz: Support Saint Peter
  6. Necrothesp: Support Saint Peter is the best option.

Opposes

  1. In ictu oculi: Oppose Saint Peter.
  2. JFH: Oppose Saint Peter.
  3. Xercesblue1991: Oppose Saint Peter
  4. 168.12.253.66: Oppose: Saint Peter
  5. Ckruschke: Oppose: Saint Peter.
  6. BarrelProof: Oppose Saint Peter.
  7. T-man 2396: Oppose Saint Peter

Explicit neutrals

  1. Antonio Hazard: Neutral Saint Peter
  2. SmokeyJoe: Neutral Saint Peter.

No comment'

  1. Anthony Appleyard: Oppose the above move (no comment on Saint Peter)
  2. Labattblueboy:


  • There is not strong support demonstrated to change from "Saint Peter" to one of Peter the Apostle, Peter (apostle), or Simon Peter, etc. Further discussion and a fresh RM would be needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Relisting Note: This is not an indication that I will change my mind. (Also, there's no guarantee I'll be the one to close this the second time around.) -- tariqabjotu 02:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Other encyclopedias don't even have articles about given names, so I think this subject is clearly the encyclopedic meaning of "Peter." But I would conclude from the survey above that Peter the Apostle is the version of name that meets with the broadest acceptance. It's also consistent with Matthew the Apostle, Paul the Apostle, WP:HONORIFIC, etc. The current title doesn't really fit article, which is skeptical of the idea that the subject was actually ever bishop of Rome, let alone founder of the Catholic Church. Antonio Hazard (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC) BLOCKED
      • I've no idea why this was reopened. Whether Peter "was actually ever bishop of Rome, let alone founder of the Catholic Church" is entirely besides the point - he is undeniably and famously a saint, and "Saint Peter" is the most convenient and recognisable disambiguator. Do you think everyone knows he was "Simon Peter"? Or even "Peter the Apostle"? Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Johnbod - agree not only not relevant but now blocked as a sockpuppet. But while we're here what is the ratio of "the apostle Peter" to "Saint Peter" referring to the man, excluding church names and paintings, in English sources? You haven't yet provided any search evidence that "Saint Peter" is used by secular and Protestant sources to refer to the historical individual. Although the !vote is 50/50, not a single !vote for "Saint Peter" has addressed the WP:NPOV issue, which is the main issue here. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This review isn't exactly accurate. For example, I stated I opposed the move to Peter but supported options other than Saint Peter if a move had to be made. --NeilN talk to me 04:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry NeilN, I meant that no one had addressed the WP:NPOV guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a serious NPOV problem. A sectarian title for a sectarian subject. I suggest Simon Peter is least sectarian, worth considering if sectarianism is considered a problem by others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe, that is a surprising comment; on what basis do you consider Peter a wikt:sectarian subject? See also en.wp Sectarianism, which refers to divisions among a larger religious faith. If you're suggesting that "apostle" (which is used in secular sources) is equally sectarian to "saint" then you are mistaken. "apostle" is used by all sources - secular, Protestant, Catholic, wheras "saint" is only used in devotional Catholic literature. I would urge you to check printed books again for whether "Saint" is more non-WP:NPOV than "apostle." In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not my expertise. I was not aware that talking of saints was more devotional than talking of apostles, and am willing to take your word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe, no problem, reasonable confusion I guess. See veneration of saints: the same issue of sectarianism re WP:NPOV occasionally surfaces in Islam articles too since "Saint" in muslim usage is also sectarian (limited to Shias not Sunnis). It would make sense if this was a specific WP:FORK like Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholicism), and maybe there is enough specific material for Johnbod or someone to create Saint Peter in Catholicism, but the base article should be non-sectarian, and ideally inclusive of secular viewpoint (although given that there's no evidence this individual even existed outside the New Testament there's a limit to how secular it can ever be). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not an NPOV issue at all. As I told people right at the start of this 5th round, the previous discussions had made it perfectly clear that "Peter" would not be acceptable to the community, and "Saint Peter" is the least unpopular alternative disambiguator, largely because is the most acceptable in COMMONNAME terms. It would certainly be the most common in the secular media, though given all the other Peters, I don't know how you would go about proving that by search results. Obviously one would not expect it in Biblical scholarship from any part of the spectrum, but as far as the secular world is concerned, Peter is mainly famous for manning the Pearly Gates, being the chief apostle and maybe first pope in some way, and having LOTS of things named after him, pretty well always using the prefix "Saint". I don't know how Protestant you have to be to rear up in horror at the term "Saint Peter" - obviously Anglicans and Lutherans shouldn't have a problem with it, and "Saint Peter's Methodist Church" produces plenty of results from Kent to Texas. "Saint Peter's Baptist Church" produces no fewer than 88,000 results. "Saint Peter's Presbyterian Church" 55,000 hits, and "Saint Peter's Evangelical Church" 173,000. I'm beginning to think this "sectarian" argument is a put-up job. Do the authorities of places using "Saint Peter" in their name, from Russia to Florida, feel they ought to change their name? Since no consensus is in sight, and the whole RM launched by a sockpuppet, I suggest it is closed again, and the subject not reopened until 2014. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As I've said several times, COMMONNAME is determined by usage by reliable sources on the topic at hand, not the most recognizable name, and not reliable sources on related topics like things named after the topic. The topic is a person, and he is covered pretty well in biblical, historical, and theological scholarship, and hardly ever as Saint Peter. There is a tiny unsourced section on popular culture in the article, and nothing on buildings, because those are peripheral topics. It's hard to believe that people don't see the incongruity when we don't use "King" or "Pope" but we do use "Saint". --JFH (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We should use "King" or "Pope" if it dramatically aids recognizability. eg Pope John V. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We do use "Pope", almost always; see Category:Italian popes, also Category:Japanese emperors, Queen Victoria etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hebrew in footnote 7

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone who can read and write Hebrew should check the {{Hebrew}} template at the end of footnote 7. According to BracketBot there are mismatched brackets in that footnote, and while they don't look mismatched to me, I don't think the word order and punctuation are what they're supposed to be. Huon (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

'Saint' Peter

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

With all respect, why 'Saint' Peter? As if the apostel is only the apostel to the Catholics.. In Protestantism there are no saints, and Protestantism is the second biggest Christian Faith on earth. It is more than reasonable to rename the article: Peter (Apostle) or something.

--178.85.96.2 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we have been over this four times, and we have never reached a consensus to move the page. Feel free to start round 5. Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, in protestantism, there are still saints. All true believers are saints, so even to protestants, Peter is a saint (unless you are the member of a bizarre sect that thinks Peter went to hell). It's just that the Catholic Church says that it can't know who still here on earth is a true saint and whose a false believer, and so chooses to refer only to those it believes are in heaven as saints.
Also, if I recall correctly, once upon this time, the article was called Peter (apostle)Farsight001 (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't go close to that far. Although the Lutheran, Episcopal, and other denominations may continue to venerate Peter and others as "Saints" while another group (with some overlap) refers to its church-goers/adherents/members as saints, neither are excluisive/inclusive traits of either Protestantism or even of "all true believers" - because after all, whose definition of what "true believer" means are we going to follow? Although I agree with Elizium that this issue has been discussed ad nauseum with no conclusion, my opinion has always been that having the "official" Peter page referring to him as "Saint". However, I freely admit this is due to my own non-NPOV. Ckruschke (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Its true that some protestants belief everyone is a saint through believing, but the common reformed church, Im Dutch so that explains my position, says that no one is a saint as only God can choose who is a saint and who is not, we dont know who goes to heaven or hell. But Im not saying we shouldnt have his name be Saint Peter, but a mid-way solution would be prefferable seeing that Protestantism is the second biggest Christian group on the planet (And with that I count all protestants together). But seeing the indecisiveness and previous discussions relates to this matter, its fine to keep it like this than.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.226.48 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Afaik, all Protestant denominations, including Calvinists, accept the concept of "saint", which after all only means someone who has gone to heaven. The idea of saints was a big topic in many strains of early Protestant thinking. The differences are whether they believe it's possible to "spot" saints among the dead (or pre0saints among the living), and in whether or how to venerate them. Even the Catholic Church at bottom only regards it's canonized saints as a "best guess". Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod - not really sure who you are addressing - but as I said earlier, many denominations and especially non-denominational congregations disagree with all your points on saints - even on what the definition of the term "saint" is. Not really sure where you are getting your info, but its not correct.
However, the main point of this thread was the page title and this issue was discussed and closed below so the thread should probably be closed out. Ckruschke (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Having read the arguments for and against keeping the title as is, I SUPPORT keeping it as Saint Peter just like the article Mother Teresa is called as such and not Teresa. Worldedixor (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Bishop of Rome" in introduction

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The intro currently states, as a matter of objective fact, that Peter was the "first bishop of Rome". A recent IP editor's attempts to qualify this were reverted even though the IP's edits raise some valid questions. Firstly, it is at least arguable from some theological perspectives whether any of the apostles were also actually "bishops" and especially bishops of any given place. Secondly, as the article itself mentions, there is some scholarly debate as to whether Peter had any actual historical connections to Rome. For the sake of accuracy, therefore, the statement in the intro requires some qualification. I am going to add this by saying that Peter is "also considered, according to tradition, to have been the first bishop of Rome" I trust that this satisfies all viewpoints. Anglicanus (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:Anglicanus that the attribution was a bit fuzzy. The 1st sentence was already a bit long before the addition. The 2nd sentence already says "first Pope", so it seems better to combine the traditional things together in the 2nd sentence and keep the 1st sentence concise with biblical attribution. (I'm not locked into the wording. :)
Cheers! —Telpardec (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In pop culture

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sources required - really? Isn't this kind of like a citation for "the sky is blue"? It seems to me that this article is much poorer for not having a mention of St. Peter's most recognizable and oft-imitated station at the Pearly Gates. I did a few Google searches but perhaps the correct terms are eluding me - I find a lot of blogs and joke compendiums. I know of no good reason to challenge or remove this section and I would like the hear the justification for its removal, which seems to be Wikilawyering at its best. Elizium23 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the diff. He has now removed it twice for being unrefed. We should be covering this. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move 6

Latest comment: 10 years ago31 comments9 people in discussion

This major en.wp article remains at a title contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, MOS:HONORIFICS and MOS:SAINTS. It has also recently had a RM disrupted by sockpuppetry. What is the next step? A further RM risks again degenerating into agreement to move but failure to agree to move to what. Also there is a strong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors opposed to the MOS:SAINTS guideline !voting in RMs here. Would it be better to hold a RfC to simply say WP:NPOV, WP:RS, MOS:HONORIFICS and MOS:SAINTS must apply to this article and it must be moved to something. The RFC format would bring in more editors and does not have to decide on the move to what. Then a 1-week RM could be held afterwards to decide the what. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"It has also recently had a RM disrupted by sockpuppetry" and "Also there is a strong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors opposed to the MOS:SAINTS guideline !voting in RMs here". What? Could you please be more specific before raising such kind of issues from the start? Disqualifying people who voted against your opinion sounds much like gerrymandering to me... José Luiz talk 00:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
José Luiz - I think he's referring to Requested Move 5 above and comments from User "Antonio Hazard" that have been scratched out of discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I note the omission of WP:COMMONNAME which is as equally as important as the MOS guidelines cited above if not more. I am also unclear as to why Saint Patrick is acceptable but Saint Peter is not. --NeilN talk to me 17:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, WP:COMMONNAME is explicitly discounted by WP:HONORIFIC, and in any event "Saint Peter" isn't remotely Common name fro the the historical individual in books discussing the historical individual as opposed to churches. See WP:MOSBIO. But this isn't the place to re-hash a move, it has already been demonstrated that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors here conflicts with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, MOS:HONORIFICS and MOS:SAINTS, hence the suggestion of an RFC to bring in non editor/watchers of this page. Even in a RFC, José Luiz, the local editors on the page can still make the case for an exception to en.wp guidelines, since the RFC happens on the page. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
PS - Neil the difference between Saint Patrick and Saint Peter could be expressed in 2 ways, (1) in en.wp WP:RS terms that Peter the disciple appears in sources discussing the New Testament which does not have saints, consequently WP:RS discuss the historical individual, wheras Patrick is a semi-legendary individual with many cultural traditions accrued and WP:RS reflect this. (2) in non-en.wp WP:RS but crudely true terms the Catholic Church "owns" Patrick, but doesn't "own" Peter who is non-denominational. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure those are good reasons for changing the name of the article but in any case they are incorrect, there are letters of Saint Patrick which are "generally accepted to have been written by St. Patrick", such is not the case with St Peter and in fact Peter is only known from Christian sources,also there are a lot of Celtic Christians who would take vehement exception to your statement that the Catholic Church "owns" Patrick.Smeat75 (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Please be careful when wording the RFC because I (and probably others) don't agree that the consensus conflicts with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --NeilN talk to me 00:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Previous RM discussions have bought in plenty of editors, more than most RFCs do, but Iio just doesn't like what they said, and won't believe what he keeps being told about policy. This is pure forum-shopping. We have had three RMs this year already, all with the same result - WP:FLOG is very applicable. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Ha ha! You are joking, I take it? Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
No, since some editors have opposed it in previous RMs, and it is a guideline which if followed would solve the titling problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
What editors have opposed, and will go on doing, is your interpretation of it, and WP:HONORIFIC, which of course does not mention saints at all. A more useful RFC, as has been suggested above, would be to clarify the scope and meaning of MOS:HONORIFICS and MOS:SAINTS, and their relation to WP:COMMONNAME, and what happens when disambiguation is necessary. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The relationship to WP:COMMONNAME is already explicitly spelled out by "common" in both guidelines:

MOS:HONORIFIC: styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, such as His Holiness and Her Majesty. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy).

There are some exceptions:
Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for "Father Coughlin" (currently at Charles Coughlin) and Mother Teresa.

MOS:SAINTS: Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable through its inclusion. For example, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick. (See also List of saints.) Make redirects from forms with "St.", "St", and "Saint".

  • WP:HONORIFIC "so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it = a much higher line than just common name.
  • MOS:SAINTS "most common English name, minus the "Saint", means WP:COMMONNAME minus the saint.
Again, the problem isn't lack of clarity in the guidelines, the problem is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the article, hence an RfC is worth trying to bring in a wider field of users. In such an RfC it would be helpful for those who have !voted on previous Peter RMs to identify themselves. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
All 6 RM discussions here have generated comments from far more editors than have ever contributed to or commented on MOS:SAINTS at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), and the last comments on the talk page there (in February) suggested modifying it in the light of RM 4 here, very sensibly. Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) has, right at the top, "This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." There are perhaps now only two major article titles beginning with "Saint" - Joseph and Peter, both where some disam has been agreed to be necessary, plus a few others such as Saint Lucy and Saint George, in which Iio et al take no interest because they are not New Testament figures. These exceptions are entirely within the spirit and letter of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), and that page should be changed to say so (it used to have examples). MOS:HONORIFIC should add a sentence referring "saint" issues to MOS:SAINTS. Then perhaps we would stop having RMS here every two months. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The edit history of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), and their respective Talk pages shows considerably more editor diversity than the 4 or 5 editors who have opposed MOS:SAINTS and WP:HONORIFICS being applied at the RMs on Peter.
"in which Iio et al take no interest because they are not New Testament figures" may well be exactly the case. For semi-legendary cases such as Saint Christopher, Saint George and Saint Patrick MOS:SAINTS is not ignored, it is actually applied - those names are actually unrecognisable as MOS:SAINTS says. Obviously New Testament figures are not unrecognisable as MOS:SAINTS says as illustrated by Anglican commentaries not using "Saint Peter" and "Saint Joseph", so the article corpus is generally consistent with the guideline and a RFC question asking for review of this article according to the guideline would be a neutral RFC question. If in doubt we can throw the terms of the RfC question wording open to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard.... In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Prefer Simon Peter over Peter the Apostle:
  1. JFH;
  2. SmokeyJoe;
  3. 168.12.253.66;
  4. T-man 2396;
Prefer Peter the Apostle over Simon Peter:
  1. Johnbod;
  2. In ictu oculi;
  3. 76.65.128.222 (not necessarily);
  4. NeilN; John Carter;
  5. BarrelProof;
  6. José Luiz (inferred);
  7. Xercesblue1991;
  8. Michipedian
  9. Ckruschke
Given these numbers of explicit preferences in the recent discussion, I don't think there is need for an RfC, enough opinions are already garnered. An RM, proposing a rename from Saint Peter to Peter the Apostle seems most appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That was effectively what was tried in March in RM 4 [[1]]. "Peter the Apostle" is an exceptionally rare way of referring to him. We have already had three RMs in 9 months, with largely different casts as not everyone will keep turning up to them. Enough is enough. WP:FLOG Johnbod (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod, "you're going to !vote until you get it right" is not a constructive attitude.Smeat75 (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I see I wrote:Oppose. There are no particularly compelling arguments. Given that, the title should be as per the earliest version, which seems to be Saint Peter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC). I think we clearly agree that there is no good reason to call an RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe, in your opinion is Peter the Apostle "only recognisable" through the inclusion of "Saint"? (I'm assuming the answer is "no", but not wanting to put words in your mouth) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
No. All of "Saint Peter", "Peter the Apostle" and "Simon Peter" are well recognizable. Similarly recognizable, I guess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably doesn't matter, but I corrected my vote to "The Apostle". Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruchke
As a point of reference, I am a well-educated person and native speaker of English who was raised in a religious environment, and I did not recognize "Simon Peter" at all. I find "Peter the Apostle" perfectly recognizable – even more recognizable than "Saint Peter", since my (vague) recollection is that the Bible generally refers to him more as an apostle than as a saint. My impression is that sainthood is generally only referred to when discussing a status of recognition bestowed after death (and is also not a universally recognized status at all, of course). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Well said - my POV exactly. Ckruschke (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Of course the Bible never refers to him as a saint at all, but as amply demonstrated above he is "Saint Peter" in popular usage from newspaper cartoons to the names of parish churches, schools and cities used by all major Christian denominations. But all this has been gone over ad infinitum already. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I suppose you're right that much of it has been discussed before, but I didn't notice much discussion of whether "Simon Peter" was recognizable. Looking back at the archives, I do now see that it was brought up before, but its discussion seems to have been somewhat limited. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
BarrelProof, I don't think that the best reference is of generic "well-educated" or "native speaker", indeed we should cater for weakly-educated non native speakers, I think a better reference is someone passingly familiar with the subject. Now, Simon Peter occurs in the first lines of introductions, in primary and secondary sources, whereas Peter the Apostle is not the introduction in primary sources. Saint Peter even less so. While I prefer Simon Peter over Peter the Apostle, the preference is very slight and a majority prefers the reverse. On Peter the Apostle versus Peter (Apostle), the first is natural and the second is parenthetical, and policy prefers natural over parenthetical, so it is odd that Peter (Apostle) was twice tested, but never Peter the Apostle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that the article shouldn't just be written for native speakers or the well educated (or those already significantly familiar with Christianity). I only mentioned my personal characteristics to illustrate that if "Simon Peter" was not familiar to someone with my background, that seems to indicate that it might be completely unfamiliar to many people in the wider article readership. The article readership should definitely include people who haven't read the Bible or other Christian literature. Surely, I must have heard "Simon Peter" before, and after some discussion it now seems vaguely familiar, but that memory has really faded. It is also possible, of course, that I just have a strange gap in my knowledge – we all have our quirks. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Great point about relevance of non-Christians. If there is to be an RfC, I would think the projects to notify about it wouldn't be the Christianity projects, but those of other religious groups, like Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and others, to get their input. I have seen a few reference books call the subject "Peter the apostle", but those tend to be specifically Christian reference sources, and readers of them would presumably understand the term "apostle" better in this context. I personally think, admittedly, without having consulted non-Christians, that they might well recognize "Saint Peter" more quickly, given the obvious linkage to "Saint Peter's Basilica", which I think many might know to be related to this particular Saint Peter, but I could be wrong. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Other 4 articles with similar issue

Saint Peter is not the only New Testament bio with a title contrary to MOS:SAINTS and WP:NPOV. It is one of 5 with Saint Timothy, Saint Titus, Saint Stephen and Saint Joseph. There's currently a bundled RM in on the first 3 and a temporarily a close on a similar RM on Talk:Saint Joseph (which may go to Move review or be reopened or stay closed). The same problems are apparent with dispute of the relevance interpretation of guidelines in all 5 articles and all 3 RMs.

(1) "common" - although MOS:SAINTS and WP:HONORIFIC and WP:NPOV all specifically state against following normal "common" name the assertion is made in all 5 cases that "Saint ___" is the "common name", but in each case this is not supported by sources. Take for example "Saint Joseph"
joseph -saint + mary + jesus + nazareth 90,400 since 1980
"saint joseph + mary + jesus + nazareth 2,530 since 1980
90,400 references without "Saint" to 2,530 with indicates that Joseph cannot only be identified by inclusion of saint, and Google Books clearly do not support "Saint Joseph" as common name. And yet 4 or 5 editors who have not cited Google Book searches all state that it is the common name.
Similar with the other 4 articles.
This does not immediately support that a RfC is the only way forward for this article, Saint Peter, since there was in fact majority support for a move away from the "Saint" title, which accords with the MOS guideline which is supposed to be followed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy): In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 6.1

Latest comment: 10 years ago53 comments20 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Saint Peter → Peter the Apostle – Previous RMs (for different options) have shown a weak majority for removing "Saint" per MOS:SAINTS and WP:NPOV and even per WP:COMMONNAME (after buildings named "St Peters Church" are taken out of Google Book results "Saint Peter" is not even among top 5 for common name for the fisherman himself), but those supporting a move have failed to agree move to what. Peter the Apostle has not been proposed before, and was suggested in Peter (apostle) which was narrowly rejected. The WP:HONORIFIC "Saint Peter" is clearly identified in reliable sources as a name limited to one branch of Christianity and consequently contrary to one of the WP:Five Pillars. Other Category:New Testament people accord with this. Where others have been moved from "Saint" - Matthew the Apostle, Mark the Apostle, Luke the Apostle, John the Apostle, Paul the Apostle - the articles have then become stable without RMs to restore "Saint". In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree that the current name is most commonly recognized, but disagree that the horse is dead. I saw the tail move. Some people, such as the nom, see a POV issue with "Saint". I am not much persuaded by that. Sources from other religions denouncing the term "saint" might be informative here. The others apostles mentioned are also known as "Saints". I think this is a case where consistency should be favored, and that they all should be "... the apostle" or "Saint ...". I am assuming that people (or sources) don't assert that this Simon Peter is significantly more "saint" than the other apostle saints. This is the only one to achieve significant folklore status, as the doorkeeper at the pearly gates of heaven? However, this seems to be a very minor, non-central historical aspect, a metaphorical merging with a figure in Germanic mythology who was the porter of heaven? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
As requested (1) Saint#Protestantism (2) Fisher, Chapman, Wallace. Other Saint Peter (disambiguation). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Never mind links to WP articles; SmokeyJoe you were already supplied above with these google results that demonstrate that "saint" is not at all offensive to Protestant denominations well into the Evangelical spectrum, and used by them; this whole argument is bogus. Try equivalent searches for "Peter the Apostle"! Here they are: "Saint Peter's Methodist Church" produces plenty of results from Kent to Texas. "Saint Peter's Baptist Church" produces no fewer than 88,000 results. "Saint Peter's Presbyterian Church" 55,000 hits, and "Saint Peter's Evangelical Church" 173,000. "Saint" is used in the title here because disambiguation is needed, and as the 5 previous noms show, no common and easily workable or recognisable alternative exists. No one is saying that scholarly works on the New Testament (from any denomination) use "Saint Peter" but they have a clear context, and can just use Peter, which we can't. And there is plenty more to WP:COMMONNAME than specialist academic books. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
In ictu oculi's links confuse me. They do not provide evidence of protestants denouncing the term "saint", but provide evidence that protestants sought to generalize the term, in a way that I think is sort of well understood in the modern world, that a saint is an historical significant member of the(a) religious community, and is especially applied to founding members of the society. Certainly, protestants recognize and understand the term "saint". Mormons use it quite liberally, generalized, like the protestants. Sainthood in Catholicism involves procedures, tests and a popes approval, but in the end it is not very exclusive, the number of catholic saints is very large. I know practicing muslims who have no apparent problem with the word "saint". I'm afraid that I can't agree that there is an inherent problem with "Saint...", it seems acceptably ecumenical, and I think perception of the problem here should be labelled the non-NPOV. I am pushed one way on this unimportant question solely on the basis of consistency with the titling of the other apostles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi SmokeyJoe, I provided links as you requested (legitimate request) but deliberately didn't comment as several pages need to be read. All Protestants use (a) "saints" plural as "saints is used in the New Testament". Some Protestants use (b) "Saint" as a title for apostles (Bach's St. Matthew Passion), but not post-Bible individuals "Saint Martin Luther" (sic). Most Protestants today (as opposed to Bach's day), do not use "Saint" in referring to apostles. This can be seen in the works of the two most notable modern Episcopalian writers, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams ([2]) and Bishop of Durham N. T. Wright ([3]). Peter is simply "the apostle Peter" or "Simon Peter" (neutral titles common to the Bible/Catholic/Protestant/secular writers/atheists) never "Saint Peter". In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
So protestant religious writers never use "Saint Peter", but it is not as if others' use of "Saint Peter", especially in secular writing, is a problem to protestants? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Secular writers don't use "Saint Peter" except to describe history of art or buildings or Catholic belief so the question is difficult to answer. The nearest thing I have seen to a secular writer on Peter was a BBC Religion DVD - where "Saint" was not used. If hypothetically the BBC had called him "Saint Peter" I imagine that when originally broadcast in the UK the switchboard would have been jammed with viewers complaining about WP:NPOV. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
You're wrong. --NeilN talk to me 02:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm extremely sceptical that Rowan Williams could not be caught in the act, if one had the patience, but of course a google search mainly brings up all the millions of uses of "Saint Peter" for churches he visited etc not just quotes by him. But here's one gratuitous use of "saint" that shows the word has no terrors for him (trying to find him describing himself or his church as "Protestant" would be more of a challenge actually). No idea about Wright. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The present name is fine, and this is clearly WP:DEADHORSE. I won't go into all the inaccuracuries in the nom - all this ground has been covered before. That this is only produced as the 6th alternative title to be suggested demonstrates pretty well that it fails WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: "Peter the Apostle" perfectly recognizable – even more recognizable than "Saint Peter", since the Bible generally refers to him more as an apostle than as a saint. Sainthood is generally only a status of honor bestowed after death (and is also not a universally recognized status at all, of course). Let's also keep in mind that the article is not intended to only be read by Christians. Non-Christians would certainly not consider this person a saint, but would probably not find "apostle" objectionable. Note that this suggestion also uses WP:NATURAL disambiguation, which is preferred (e.g., over Peter (apostle)), and that it provides consistency with the titles of articles on several other apostles. This horse is not dead – in fact, I think it may be about to stand up. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Some wierd logic here. The Gospels hardly use either "saint" or "apostle" at all - apostle/s only has about 10 uses regarding the 12, mostly in Luke [4]. Normally everyone is a "disciple", which why that was tried in the 3rd debate. Acts & the letters are different for sure. I won't go into the rest, but my comment above is also relevant. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Your comment above seems to neglect non-Christians. Protestants are still Christians, but most people in the world are not, and Wikipedia is intended for them as well. Clearly, most people in the world do not consider Peter a saint (regardless of which Christians do or don't). OK, maybe the Gospels don't use "apostle" very much either. But the point is that "saint" isn't used much there, so this indicates no reason to prefer "saint" over "apostle", and "saint" seems more like a POV honorific than "apostle". You've said that "no common and easily workable or recognisable alternative exists" – but the current request's suggestion, "Peter the Apostle", seems common and easily workable and recognisable to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
But this move is more likely to produce a lack of clarity for non-Christians. The term "saint" (shared with Buddhism, some Hindus and some Muslims btw) is far more likely to be recognised and understood by non-Christians than "apostle", AFAIK a solely Christian term. I don't see how or why non-Cs should object to what terms Christians use for Christian figures. The majority of ghits for "Peter the Apostle" are actually for "Saint Peter the Apostle". Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I agree with the move, this is clearly beyond something that will gain concensus with at least an equal number voting to leave "as is" as there has ever been who support this or any of the previous five suggested name changes. I thus agree with Elizium23 & Johnbod that its time to drop the WP:STICK and move on. Ckruschke (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
User:Marek69 can you please provide an example of a modern Protestant commentary on the New Testament using the term "Saint Peter"? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This is completely gaming the outcome. Nowhere in WP:RS are we limited to only using "modern Protestant commentary on the New Testament". --NeilN talk to me 01:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
NeilN, currently the article is limited to only using some "modern Catholic commentary on the New Testament". The purpose of the request to User:Marek69 is to establish that the article is currently using a sectarian non-WP:NPOV title. And in fact WP:HONORIFIC, MOS:SAINTS, WP:NPOV and even per WP:COMMONNAME are in line with the section of WP:RS which reads WP:BIASED:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Currently this article is naming the topic following 10-20% of modern sources which use "Saint Peter" concerning the historical figure. These sources are entirely either Catholic or a small number Orthodox. 80-90% of sources, Protestant, secular, and scholarly Catholic writers such as the Jesuit priest Joseph Fitzmyer do not use "Saint Peter." Hence WP:RS does have something to say here. Your ngram of church names below is not addressing the issue in WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I just had to jump in here. Please see the following:
I haven't commented on any of the previous RMs, to my knowledge, but it's simple fact that reliable sources of all persuasions do use "Saint Peter." Dohn joe (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
An interesting modern exception, I asked for a commentary on the New Testament, but yes some Lutherans as Bach do use the name. Its not what I asked Marek69 for though. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you're getting it. WP:COMMONNAME tells us, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." I haven't read a Catholic commentary in my life. But I still know who Saint Peter is thanks to newspapers, magazines and all the churches and basilicas referring to "Saint Peter". And my ngram is not of church names as you well know. There's no "church" used in the compared terms. --NeilN talk to me 01:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but your ngram is predominantly of church names. Please click across to see the source data and look at the actual data entries the ngram is feeding from. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I was trying to keep my comments here brief, so I'm sorry that I do not answer your questions directly.
However, my interpretation of common name in this situation would be something like this:
(& please humour me...)
Imagine for a moment someone telling a joke in a pub:
e.g. "A guy is walking down the street, suddenly drops dead. Lo and behold he finds himself at the pearly gates, and [blank or blankety blank] asks him......"
Is it?
a. Peter the apostle
b. Saint Peter
c. Someone else.
I give this as an example of what I believe is NPOV common use of the subject.
answers & more of this -- Marek.69 talk 02:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I apologise unreservedly to anyone who is offended or believes that I have written the previous comment maliciously or offensively, or to take the mickey out of any individual or faith. I did not. I believe even joke culture is an valid example of common use. I have written a longer explanation on my talk page.
Regards -- Marek.69 talk
Not to worry. I don't think any reasonable person would take offense. It's a common enough joke trope (I believe SmokeyJoe already referred to it above), and certainly not meant to be mean spirited. Dohn joe (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hot Stop, what is the problem with the ngram? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Nothing. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Then you haven't read the discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice to see you be condescending and wrong instead of just wrong. I've read the discussion, and pretty much everyone disagrees with you. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Please search "ngram" on the discussion to see where it is discussed and what the problem is. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Please search for my comment from Dec. 7 (the one you replied to but seemingly didn't read or comprehend) where I already answered this question. Also, please try to be on the winning side of a move request for once (or find something more productive to do). I lost count of how many times you've initiated a move request (or chimed in on one) in the past month or so and had your position soundly rejected. This recent crusade of yours to strip the word "Saint" from article titles is ridiculous. Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support Both names here are common and appropriate WP:NATURAL disambiguators. I sympathize with the argument that "saint" is a loaded term. I would prefer Peter and think it's absurd that he doesn't have the primary topic, but all else being equal I don't see a problem with this title. It's slightly less concise but just as recognizable, precise, and natural and consistent, if not moreso, because many people would not naturally refer to him as "Saint Peter". I approve of the current location of the page but I feel the proposed title is still a little better. Red Slash 05:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Red Slash, who expresses my opinions exactly. Except that I would keep Peter as a dab. walk victor falk talk 06:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. He is never called a saint in the Bible. Only "Aaron the saint of the LORD" (Psalms 106:16) is called such, and it is plainly an uncapitalized descriptive term, not a title before his name.
  2. Peter refers to himself as an apostle in both epistles attributed to him.
  3. Others in the Bible, including Jesus, call him an apostle.
  4. Paul is expressly called Paul the Apostle 12 times in the titles of Bible books, so it is not novel to use the term "the Apostle" after Peter's name.
Let's bury "Saint Deadhorse" and walk a mile with Peter the Apostle. —Telpardec 11:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
So what if he's not called that in the Bible? As you say, nobody is. "Saint" is a subsequent usage by many different churches. That doesn't make it not the WP:COMMONNAME today. Wikipedia operates in the 21st century, not the 1st century. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope Tel realizes his rationale leaves out 2,000 years worth of reliable sources. Hot Stop 16:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:POVTITLE says:

When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

The key qualifier here is again "as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" - but as as been repeatedly shown in defined Google Book results here and in the previous RMs "Saint Peter" is the WP:COMMONNAME only for churches called St. Peter, not the WP:COMMONNAME for the actual man Peter (which is a mixed bag of Simon Peter/Peter the apostle/the apostle Peter/the disciple Peter, with "Saint Peter" only used for 15-25% of references to the New Testament figure as a "historical" person). We already have 591 building articles titled "St Peter..." and 188 articles on buildings named "Saint Peter..." cf St. Peter's Church. By the same logic Matthew the Apostle should be moved to Saint Matthew because ngrams show lots of buildings called "St Matthew's Church". I hope that the closing admin will address the issue of whether this article is about a fisherman or a building and the use of building-including ngrams as a basis for a bio title in the close. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it hasn't been repeatedly shown here. Where's your source for 15-25% of references (no opinions please). And despite your earlier assertion, the BBC uses Saint Peter (cite provided above) and the prior Pope uses Saint Peter (cite provided above). --NeilN talk to me 01:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support though some arguments in favor haven't made perfect sense, and acknowledging that it's too late (and there was no tie to break anyway) to add a vote for 'Simon Peter' (which IMO would be the most sensible choice), i find (a) the point of consistency with all of the other reportedly stable page names for canonized apostles, plus (b) the self-references within the only evidence attributed directly to the guy (other than the supposed human remains which seem unlikely to ever be subjected to the same scrutiny as, say the shroud of turin), wholly convincing. TheNuszAbides (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is this still an open topic?!?!?! Its been obvious for 2 1/2 wks that there is no concensus supporting the suggested change... Ckruschke (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"First Bishop"

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The description "first bishop" needs a source; piping it to "Apostolic succession" is insufficient.

Further, I am unaware of any tradition of Saint Peter as the "first bishop" ordained. It is certainly not listed in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article cited: [Saint Peter]. --Zfish118 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Apostolic succession is the wrong terminology for Petrine or Papal succession. Apostolic succession is a different, specific doctrine of one bishop ordaining another in an unbroken line from the apostles. All bishops have it. Furthermore, Peter is not really the "first bishop", since all the apostles were ordained at the same time during the Last Supper. He is first among equals, yes, but to say he is "first bishop" seems to be according a chronological attribute to him that is not asserted and not necessarily true. I have corrected the errors in the article. I also replaced the hardcoded reference to Pope Francis with {{Incumbent pope}}. Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Reading through the article text, it seems that "first bishop of Rome" is the accurate label to be used in the lede. Elizium23 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
He was the first bishop...of Rome (Pope=Bishop of Rome).--151.67.222.118 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This is somewhat of an "old church" (Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican/etc) discussion. IMO, non-denominational Christian churches don't see Peter as a bishop of anything since they do not have this leadership structure. I would suggest the term's removal, but I understand that I'm probably in the minority so I'm just making this a comment for the record and not really a suggestion. Ckruschke (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Historical?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article utterly fails at answering whether Peter is considered to have actually existed by mainstream history. The introductory paragraph is riddled with "according to the New Testament", "The New Testament indicates", "According to Christian tradition" and so on. It doesn't get any better as the paragraphs in the section titled "Accounts outside the New Testament" begin with phrases such as "In a strong tradition of the Early Church", "Later accounts expand", "In the epilogue of the Gospel of John", "The mention in the New Testament", "Catholic tradition holds" and so on and on and on and on. Scrolling down further, I can see that the section titled "Writings" begins with "Traditionally, two canonical epistles and several apocryphal works have been attributed to Peter." In other words, there doesn't seem to be any evidence for his existence at all mentioned on this page.

The way I see it, either this guy is not historical, in which case he should be clearly and obviously labelled as such, or he is, in which case according evidence should be mentioned and linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.211.219.148 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Or, if we're not going with false dichotomies, there's not really enough evidence or good arguments either way to say whether or not he existed. I mean, we're talking about a guy living in the backwaters of the Roman empire who was a follower of a then-minor sect within an unpopular minority religion. It's not like we can go check his social security records. Even if one assumes that the New Testament was made up at its latest possible dates to promote some sort of "mythical" Jesus, Peter's still important enough that there was probably some Peter in oral narratives the NT drew upon (if Peter wasn't one of the folks involved in crafting the original myth).
History isn't science, you can't just demand firm answers one way or another. It's a matter of weighing various narratives within what we can ascertain of their original context. Granted, science has to be taken into account, but it's not even scientifically proven that Alexander the Great existed, and he was way more popular in his time than Peter was.
So, short answer? It's not "either/or," it's a bunch of "maybes" and shoulder shrugs, which isn't unusual for history. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The article on math fails utterly to establish that 2+2 does indeed equal 4 as well. This is because these facts are so patently obvious, they do not need a source. I might also point out that every time the article says "according to scripture" or something similar, it is, in fact, referring to a primary source that confirms his existence. The bible is such a popular religious book that people forget it is also ancient source material.Farsight001 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 7

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Saint Peter → Simon Peter – Neutralizing. Zwanzig 20 (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, the name of the article has been discussed no less than six times over the past few years, with the general result one of "no consensus", last in December 2013. No new arguments have been presented here. There is no point whatsoever in re-opening the discussion merely to repeat the same old lines one more time. Huon (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a 6 month moratorium between repeated RM proposals. Especially where the nomination is not very detailed. I think in previous discussions, the case was not made that the current title has a problem with neutrality. A minority think so, but they failed to convince others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Huon. Support a 6 month moratorium. --NeilN talk to me 14:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Who the heck is Simon Peter?? I say this tongue-in-cheek, as I am familiar with the Christian stories, despite my own adherence to Buddhism. My point is that the proposed name is significantly less recognizable, and not at all common. I agree with a 6-month (or one year?) moratorium on these nominations. Xoloz (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and those above. Support a 6 month moratorium. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No good reason to make this change. Kudos to Zwanzig for making these nominations on Easter Sunday. Doesn't seem pointy at all. Calidum 17:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - but don't think this mis-request should be counted in the 6 month moratorium. Eventually, perhaps in 6, 12, 18 months , perhaps 24, this article will move to Peter the Apostle and stay there, because that title is supported by WP:CONSISTENCY, by WP:RS uses and, most importantly WP:NPOV. The current title is a big showing of the finger to WP:TITLE, mis-based on searches on church building names not on the actual "historical" individual. And once the article is moved then it will be stable, as the others are now stable, but a move to Simon Peter has garnered no support above. The best supported move target would be the one consistent with sources and other articles. This RM is time wasting (as are the 2 others in at the same time). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agree with In Ictu's points completely. Ckruschke (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding recent edit warring for a Protestant POV

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I myself am a Baptist, but I understand that Protestant hagiophobia is a minority position in Christianity throughout the history of the world. As such, to remove elements for being too "Catholic" would be undue weight. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this article is Saint Peter. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The De-Romanization of This Page

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

To all those who have found themselves opposed to my recent edits: These edits are not designed to target Catholicism or the various Orthodox religions; they are designed to give this page less of a Romanized (Catholicized) bias. They are designed to fairly represent all members of the Christian faith who believe in Simon Peter's service to the Lord. This isn't about anti- or pro-Catholicism at all, but a fair, decent representation of historical figures (something which Wikipedia is all about.) You see, the article has discrepancies and contradicts itself: At some points in the article, Peter is referred to as having been venerated by certain Catholic and Orthodox religions. Elsewhere, however, specifically in the most noticeable sections of the article, such as the box reserved for basic points of information. This edit is designed to make Wikipedia, and indeed, topics involving Christianity a more inclusive, unbiased region. I ask you all to please stop fighting these edits solely in the name of your own specific denominations, and to consider the views of all users of Wikipedia as equal. Also, to Ian Thomson, this is not a "Protestant" revision, but a revision taking place in order to ensure fair, unbiased, factually-displayed presentation of information. --Noldoxis 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The majority of sources describe Peter in his role as a saint and as the first pope. Wikipedia sticks with sources. Since we don't exactly have video footage of him, all we can do is stick with historical documents written about him throughout history (more specifically, academic summaries of them, since we don't do original research).
Per WP:COMMONNAME, we stick with whatever name the majority of sources commonly refer to a subject as. A Google scholar search for saint peter pulls up over 1,040,000 results. A search for "simon peter" -saint pulls up 14,300. This means the article should remain "Saint Peter."
Per WP:BOLDTITLE, the first sentence should work the name of the article in there as soon as possible. This means the article should start off with the words "Saint Peter."
Per WP:GEVAL, we do not give the minority protestant position that's only a few hundred years old and rather Anglo-Germanic equal weight and validity as over 1900 years worth of Catholic and Orthodox descriptions from all of Europe and significant portions of north and east Africa and west Asia.
And the tradition of Peter as the first pope is accepted outside of Catholicism by the Coptic, Ethiopian, Greek, Slavic, and Syrian Orthodox churches; as well as Episcopalianism and some other protestant groups who just happen to reject further succession. The idea of describing Peter as specifically the Roman Catholic Pope (as if it's only a Roman belief) and not just The Pope of The Church is a WP:FRINGE view at best, WP:UNDUE weight no matter what.
Your first edit included the summary "to avoid a more Catholocized page," you titled this thread "The De-Romanization of This Page," and you think it's possible to factually document "Simon Peter's service to the Lord" -- it could not be more obvious that you're editing with a heavy protestant fundamentalist bias, don't pretend you're anywhere close to fooling anyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Thomson, indeed there are many sources of this type, and thus, should be treated as sources, not as absolute fact, just as we treat biblical sources. Thank you, --Noldoxis 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you read a thing I wrote? Yes, there are sources on the subject, Wikipedia sticks with those sources, and almost ten times the number of academic sources discuss Peter as a saint than as just "Simon Peter." That's because, when all is said and done, the majority of those academic sources realize they're dealing with materials written by people, not photographic evidence. That's why scholars treat materials about Peter as religious narratives (instead of history), and the majority of those narratives concern Saint Peter, a third of the time as the first Pope (about 357,000 results, almost four times just "Simon Peter"). To "De-Romanize" the page as you tried would be excluding 90% of academic sources in favor of an extremely sectarian protestant view. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson I now accept and agree with your argument. I will no longer attempt to edit this page in this manner.--Noldoxis 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

On earlier debate

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

//"First Bishop"

The description "first bishop" needs a source; piping it to "Apostolic succession" is insufficient.

Further, I am unaware of any tradition of Saint Peter as the "first bishop" ordained. It is certainly not listed in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article cited: [Saint Peter]. --Zfish118 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Apostolic succession is the wrong terminology for Petrine or Papal succession. Apostolic succession is a different, specific doctrine of one bishop ordaining another in an unbroken line from the apostles. All bishops have it. Furthermore, Peter is not really the "first bishop", since all the apostles were ordained at the same time during the Last Supper. He is first among equals, yes, but to say he is "first bishop" seems to be according a chronological attribute to him that is not asserted and not necessarily true. I have corrected the errors in the article. I also replaced the hardcoded reference to Pope Francis with Francis. Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Reading through the article text, it seems that "first bishop of Rome" is the accurate label to be used in the lede. Elizium23 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
He was the first bishop...of Rome (Pope=Bishop of Rome).--151.67.222.118 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This is somewhat of an "old church" (Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican/etc) discussion. IMO, non-denominational Christian churches don't see Peter as a bishop of anything since they do not have this leadership structure. I would suggest the term's removal, but I understand that I'm probably in the minority so I'm just making this a comment for the record and not really a suggestion. Ckruschke (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Ckruschke//

All right, where do I start? The source for Peter being the very first Bishop is the Gospel narrative itself. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus tells Simon, Son of John that he is now Peter, thereby ordaining him the first Bishop.

It is true that all Bishops have Apostolic Succession. All Bishops have Apostolic Succession because all Bishops are traceable, via the other Apostles, to Peter. Despite what Elizium23 said (and this is where (s)he went wrong, everything before that being true), however, Peter was ordained by Jesus before the Last Supper, as noted in Matthew 16:18.

Last but not least, since the Bishop of Rome is Pope by definition (and that's only because Peter founded the Diocese), saying first Bishop of Rome and first Pope is redundant. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A citation is needed to back up your assertion that the "Rock narrative" was Peter's ordination, and not at the Last Supper. Elizium23 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Citation: Matthew 16:19.
"I give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."
That's the very next verse! In what possible interpretation of this passage is Jesus not investing Peter with authority? That's all Ordination is, even today. It is an investment of Sacramental authority. Even though the Bible does not use the word "Ordination" ("Χειροτονία" in Greek, apparently), it does give the very definition of what would make this the very first Ordination within the New Covenant, in that Jesus gives Peter the authority to consecrate.
Not the point: I never even used the exact phrase "Rock narrative."
Point: The Last Supper was not the first investment of Sacramental authority. Jesus having picked out Peter and given him the Keys was. The Last Supper added to that authority, specifically with the establishment of the Eucharist, but Peter became the first Bishop before that. All Bishops do have Apostolic Succession as you pointed out, but only because they are traceable to Peter via the other Apostles. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The Mysterious El Willstro - With all due respect, and I honestly mean that, the above "proof" that you state are simply your interpretations of the script. Jesus did not "ordain" Peter as a Bishop in general any more than he was the first Bishop of Rome or that some type of sacremental authority was invested in Peter over the other apostles at or before the Last Supper. From what denominational or pastoral source have you been taught/told this because I've never heard it in either my on again/off again church upbringing or my non-denominational adult church going. Clearly I'm not saying only I can be right as obviously this is just my POV and OR, but as far as I'm concerned your above discussion is also your POV and OR as your only "source" is your interpretation of the Biblical text.
Not being difficult or belittling your take, but you state the above with such conviction as essentially basic fact and I've never heard this so I'm a little confused. As I said back in February, this is in my POV an old Church viewpoint that is based on nothing else but tradition. Ckruschke (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
This would take a little more time and legwork, but for a Church document other than the Bible, I could track down the prescribed formula for what a Bishop says during an Ordination Mass, right before he ordains a man as a Priest or Bishop. This particular Bible passage, Matthew 16:18-19, is always read during the Ordination Mass, either by the Bishop himself or by someone delegated by him. It is read at every Ordination, with the implication that it describes the very first Ordination.
Also, it's not that Peter's authority over the Sacraments was greater/"over" (more efficacious) than that of the other 11 Apostles. (After all, a Host is still consecrated whether it was consecrated by the Pope himself or by some unknown Priest in some remote church on a wooded hilltop.) Rather, Peter's Ordination was the source of that of the other Apostles, and through them that of all Bishops even today and then forever in the future. For an analogy, imagine that a single 1st Candle is lit by a match, and then all other candles are lit either by that candle initially or by each other later. They all have the same flame, but they all derived it from the initial candle. Well that initial candle would be Peter, if the flame stands for the Sacramental powers of a Bishop. Jesus is the match that started the flame, Peter the founding candle, and the other Apostles the first 11 subsequent candles lit by the initial candle. (Peter also consecrated as Bishops 4 men who had not known Jesus personally. These would be Paul, Mark, Linus, and Hyrogoras.) So, I think you might have misunderstood what I actually said there.
Anyway, let's track down that prescribed formula, around which Bishops' sermons at the Ordination Mass are built. The story of Peter's Ordination by Jesus is part of every Ordination Mass for a reason. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Bible passages and ordination formulae aren't "reliable sources" in the meaning used by Wikipedia. You need a good academic work, some sort of history of the early church or something like that. Do you know how to access Google Books? Do a search there and see what turns up. PiCo (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Looked it up myself. Seems Peter wasn't bishop of Rome after all - here's Raymond Brown, a Catholic historian, calling it an "anachronistic idea". I found another source that says there were no bishops at all in 70 AD. PiCo (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Most historians won't use "bishop" (let alone Pope) until later, but will accept that Peter was a leader of some sort, and probably regarded as the main one. Some formula such as "a leader of the earliest Christians, and traditionally recognised as the first Bishop of Rome" is best. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Johnbod above. He was called apostol by the others, while he lived. Bishop is not a function that existed then. But don't forget that in the early Chistian Church people were pretty equal. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. John 13:16, for example. Also Luk. 6:40. and Joh. 15:20. And may more examples. Hafspajen (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC).
PiCo, is that the same Raymond Brown who taught at a Protestant Seminary and called into question the Virgin Incarnation of Jesus? If so, how does that make him a reliable source (in any sense) concerning the Church's Doctrines, let alone the Church's Doctrines regarding Peter? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Johnbod and Hafspajen, a Bishop is not a specific "function" in the sense of an administrative office, and until that misunderstanding is clarified this conversation is only going to run in circles. On the contrary, Bishopry/Episcopate is a level of Ordination, namely the one who has the power to bestow validly an Ordination on someone else. If Peter had the ability to Ordain, that made him a Bishop regardless of what specific administrative positions did or did not exist at the time. (And if Jesus singled him out and gave him the Keys, the Authority to Ordain, as the Gospel states, that makes him the very first Bishop.)
Bishops nowadays are indeed associated, for the most part, with administration of a Diocese. However, the Choir Bishops of the Early Church were still Bishops even though they functioned as Pastors of individual Parishes/Congregations. Most Choir Bishops outside the 5 major centers of Early Christianity (Rome, Byzantium later renamed Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch) were initially not part of any Diocese to speak of, and this fact of the very early Early Church is the relatively unstructured or "equal" Church you are talking about, but nevertheless even the most remote of Choir Bishops had the Authority to Ordain which had been given to them along with their own Ordination. Thus satisfying the actual definition of "Bishop." The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

First Bishop of Rome

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I removed a sentence in the "Catholic" subsection here that incorrectly identified that it is a Catholic teaching that Saint Peter was the first "Bishop of Rome"; it is taught however, that the Bishops of Rome are successors to the Saint Peter's role as chief of the Apostle's ministry. The Bishop of Rome, however, is a distinct set of responsibilities that may have been first given to one of Peter's successors, not necessarily to Peter himself. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Catholic Church that touches upon this. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is correctly identified as a Catholic teaching, which is documented in the Catholic Encyclopedia entry which is a cited source in the text already there. I will point out that the Catholic Encyclopedia uses Patristic documents to explicate the teaching. These are all part of Sacred Tradition. Elizium23 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am making a very subtle point here, and spurious accusations of vandalism are not appreciated and serve only distract and harass. The Encyclopedia asserts that it is matter of historical record that Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain). It does not rely on the teaching authority of the church to make this claim, thus is not a belief, although the claim is by no means contradicted by any Catholic belief. I do not object to an alternative phrasing to that effect. The matter of whether the Church specifically teaches that Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome is in fact subject to a relevant discussion at Talk:Catholic Church; if a reliable source making this specific and narrow claim is found, then the original may be restored if appropriate.
This is indeed a teaching of the Church, as I have said, the citations made are all contained within Sacred Tradition. Patristic writings document the teachings of the Church and the fact that Peter is first Bishop of Rome is no less a teaching because it is a historical fact. Many Church teachings are historical facts. Such as the Resurrection, the Assumption, the institution of the priesthood, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
[6] "In like manner Prosper, Cassiodorus, Isidorus Hispalensis, and Bede expressly state in their Chronicles or historical works that S. Peter held the Roman See for twenty-five years. Amongst the Fathers and writers of the first centuries not one teaches the contrary. ... And since their whole object was to prove what was true and genuine apostolic doctrine from due order of legitimate succession, it would have been beside their purpose to set forth how many years each of the Pontiffs successively held the Roman See." Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, it is strongly HISTORICALLY historically supported, and not contradicted. It is generally accepted as historical fact, but not [necessarily] mandated taught as a belief. The Catechism, for instance, uses only the language of "successor to Peter", without explicitly naming Peter a bishop or even Pope ("CCC, 882". Vatican.va.. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems implicit to me. "in communion with the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter and head of the college". You succeed to an office, and the office in question is Bishop of Rome. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Until recently, I assumed this was the Church's teaching on the matter, too. The discussion I referenced opened my eyes to the possibility that the church's teaching is much narrower; this makes sense, because there is conflicting evidence as to whether there was a single "Diocese of Rome" early on, or several independent missionary churches. The church might accept as plausible, for instance, that Saint Peter acted as a missionary in Rome, and appointed his successor as Chief Apostle while in Rome, and Saint Peter's heir was eventually chosen when the churches were formally consolidated into a diocese. The issue is not whether Peter was a bishop in Rome, but reflects the historical uncertainty as to when he or his successors became Bishop of Rome. The church would appear to defer to history in the matter. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference here. One, what the Catholic Church's teaching and the other is the History of Church that claims there were no specific leades in the early church. Actually Saint Paul was probably more of a a leader for the early church, but that doesn't change the fact what the Catholic Church's teaching is. They still claim that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and if mentioned like this it is all fine. They have the right to claim, belive and teach what they want. Hafspajen (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The Catholic Church has the right to claim whatever it wants; however, no one has produced a church declaration that states that the Church claims this. The Catholic Encyclopedia is an American publication independent of the church, although explicitly pro-church, and one that attempts to defend a general Catholic point of view. I encourage both of you to contribute to the discussion of this matter at talk:Catholic Church#POV debate. This is only a single sentence here, but numerous articles are effected. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If you say - correct :The Catholic Church claims ... this and that - than it is just a claim. Than it is WP:NPOVHafspajen (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, holy smoke, noticed that discussion. I don't know if I have the energy to got involved. Zfish118 - you need some kind of second oppinion on that by uninvolved parties. My suggestion is: Take it to the WP: Dispute resolution. Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong Association with Gabriel

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

By induction from the Scriptures and the common unauthorized narratives, Gabriel has a strong association with St. Peter, and visa versa. I can't cite anything, unfortunately, but consider that it is common belief (you may have heard) that Gabriel guards the pearly gates, the Gates of Heaven, and Peter, in juxtaposition, holds the Keys of Heaven, given to him by Jesus, and in the common narrative prospective inductees always meet St. Peter at the Gates of Heaven. idk, maybe they're both there... maybe they share the work in shifts, or maybe they're the same person and an artist formerly of the band Genesis. Regardless, unless its some sacred secret, someone with references maybe ought to write a section with some indunction and conjecture concerning the existence of a strong association with St. Peter. --- me again... here is something interesting: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archangel_Gabriel_and_St._Peter,_Royal_Doors.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.45.219 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ 1 Peter 5:13
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Peter/Archive_2&oldid=1137170219"