Talk:Saint Peter/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Scientific

Should there not be a section with some modern historic views about Saint Peter? What have scientists to say about the remains that were found? An explanation how his papacy started in Rome before the death of Christ (AD 33?), according to the data here presented under the Rubens painting, would also be appreciated. I suppose that has to do with a different calendar or counting of the years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit and reversion in Infobox

Hello Rafaelosornio and any other interested editors,

I updated the Infobox to remove these items:

type = Pope honorific-prefix = Pope Saint title = {{Ubl | Bishop of Rome | Patriarch of Antioch

because they are either not factual (the Papacy did not exist at the time of Peter) or they represent a sectarian Christian point of view, not a neutral one, and are properly addressed as such elsewhere in the article.

I have reverted the reversion. If you revert again, please supply your reasoning so that we can have a discussion about it.

Thank you, Fureto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fureto (talk • contribs) 21:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

According to Origen (184–253) and Eusebius, Peter "after having first founded the church at Antioch, went away to Rome preaching the Gospel, and he also, after [presiding over] the church in Antioch, presided over that of Rome until his death".

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Church_Fathers

Apparently you do not know history, Peter was bishop of Rome and died in Rome on the orders of Nero. The word "pope" was coined years later to refer to the bishop of Rome. Therefore, the first pope (bishop of Rome) was Peter.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Origen was a theologian, not a historian, and the unreliability of Eusebius is notorious.

Even if, arguendo, we accept the truth of the quotation above, "presiding" does not equate to the role of a bishop, much less of a patriarch. The consensus of both modern professional historians and church historians is that evidence does not exist to say that these roles existed in the first century A.D. as we understand them now. See Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome, Vol. 1, p. 305: "But, in general, as far as we can tell episcopal authority developed only in the course of the second century A.D."; see also Philip Carrington, The Early Christian Church: "As a matter of fact we do not know what form of the episcopate was in use in the west when Ignatius wrote."

There thus does not exist valid justification to attribute the titles "Bishop" or "Patriarch" to Peter. Regarding the title "Pope", Beard, North and Price are extremely clear (speaking of the era of early Christianity): "It is crucial not to use the anachronistic term "pope" for the bishop of Rome, which implies acceptance of the primacy of Rome. Papa emerges in the fourth century as a term particularly associated with the bishop of Rome, with the implication of fatherly and traditional authority: Pietri (1976) II.1609-11" (footnote 181 on p. 305 cited above).

As far as "Saint" as an objective descriptor of Peter, it should be uncontroversial that this is not a neutral description. Protestants do not consider him a saint, much less non-Christians.

In future, please discuss facts and refrain from speculations such as whether I know history.Fureto (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

--

Rafaelosornio, you have not responded to the above, except through reversion edit comments that do not advance my understanding of your position: "Then delete all the bishops of Rome as bishop of Rome because history doesn't care", "Then according to you Peter was not "Patriarch of Antioch". He was not "Bishop of Rome" He is not a "saint"."

This conversation is feeling extremely one-sided. Fureto (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Does the Catholic Church recognise Peter as the first pope & thus first bishop of Rome? GoodDay (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church does recognize Peter as the first bishop of Rome, and thus as the first pope. Is the Roman Catholic Church a neutral, uninterested party?Fureto (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(outdent) I need to stress here that Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view-informed common practice regarding such matters is quite simple: include all the honorifics bestowed upon a saint by any notable Church; see for example the infobox of Saint Publius. We do not need to prove whether there is any historical accuracy backing up an honorific, we only need to prove that the honorific is notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The same goes for the honorific saint itself. If a notable Church has bestowed it upon a religious leader, we just include it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Omnipaedista, thank you very much for this information; I'm grateful for the constructive dialogue, and very appreciative to be informed of the Wikipedia common practice.

That practice does strike me as overvaluing notability at the expense of accuracy when it comes to top-line summaries. The case of describing a given person as a "saint" without context is probably more borderline; the average underinformed reader may likely think that "Saint" is not an objective descriptor or one accepted by the majority. The case of "Pope", however, strikes me as deeply problematic. If one describes Peter, and Linus, and Anacletus, etc. as "Popes" without qualification, this is reporting the Roman Catholic perspective, not a neutral one, and one which has been a live controversy for well over 1000 years.

This goes past Infobox summaries to the actual naming of the articles: Saint_Peter, Pope_Linus, Pope_Anacletus, and so on. I see that there have been multiple past discussions on moving Saint_Peter to a more neutrally-named article name; I will catch up on that editing history since it's obviously directly relevant. Fureto (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Related RFC on papal infoboxes

BTW, I've a RFC at WP:Catholicism's talkpage concerning the content of the infoboxes of popes. Please give input there. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for letting me know! I see that although you're coming at it from a question of redundancy and consistency, it is directly on point with the concerns I'm raising. I will review relevant articles and post feedback there. Fureto (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Page protected

Get consensus for changes here. Other admins should feel free to adjust or un-protect the page, and to use other remedies. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought it might be helpful to have a consolidated history of the recent edits and related discussion and action that led up to this page protection.

14:20, 28 November 2021‎ Fureto talk contribs‎ 148,422 bytes −120‎ Removed type = Pope, honorific-prefix = Pope Saint, and title = {{Ubl | Bishop of Rome | Patriarch of Antioch from Infobox Christian leader; none of these are neutral descriptions undo Tag: Reverted

15:27, 28 November 2021‎ Rafaelosornio talk contribs‎ 148,542 bytes +120‎ Undid revision 1057587651 by Fureto (talk) undothank Tags: Undo Reverted

21:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Fureto Talk:Saint_Peter#Edit_and_reversion_in_Infobox:

Hello Rafaelosornio and any other interested editors,

I updated the Infobox to remove these items:

type = Pope honorific-prefix = Pope Saint title = {{Ubl | Bishop of Rome | Patriarch of Antioch

because they are either not factual (the Papacy did not exist at the time of Peter) or they represent a sectarian Christian point of view, not a neutral one, and are properly addressed as such elsewhere in the article.

I have reverted the reversion. If you revert again, please supply your reasoning so that we can have a discussion about it.

Thank you, Fureto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fureto (talk • contribs)

21:45, 29 November 2021‎ Fureto talk contribs‎ 148,437 bytes −120‎ Undid revision 1057596251 by Rafaelosornio (talk) -- as previously stated, these items do not represent a neutral POV undo Tags: Undo Reverted

22:57, 29 November 2021‎ Rafaelosornio talk contribs‎ 148,542 bytes +105‎ The history says Peter was Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of Antioch, even if you if you don't agree. undothank Tags: Undo Reverted

23:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Rafaelosornio Talk:Saint_Peter#Edit_and_reversion_in_Infobox:

According to Origen (184–253)[1] and Eusebius,[2] Peter "after having first founded the church at Antioch, went away to Rome preaching the Gospel, and he also, after [presiding over] the church in Antioch, presided over that of Rome until his death".[3]

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Church_Fathers

Apparently you do not know history, Peter was bishop of Rome and died in Rome on the orders of Nero. The word "pope" was coined years later to refer to the bishop of Rome. Therefore, the first pope (bishop of Rome) was Peter.--Rafaelosornio (talk)

13:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Fureto Talk:Saint_Peter#Edit_and_reversion_in_Infobox:

Thank you for your explanation. Origen was a theologian, not a historian, and the unreliability of Eusebius is notorious.

Even if, arguendo, we accept the truth of the quotation above, "presiding" does not equate to the role of a bishop, much less of a patriarch. The consensus of both modern professional historians and church historians is that evidence does not exist to say that these roles existed in the first century A.D. as we understand them now. See Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome, Vol. 1, p. 305: "But, in general, as far as we can tell episcopal authority developed only in the course of the second century A.D."; see also Philip Carrington, The Early Christian Church: "As a matter of fact we do not know what form of the episcopate was in use in the west when Ignatius wrote."

There thus does not exist valid justification to attribute the titles "Bishop" or "Patriarch" to Peter. Regarding the title "Pope", Beard, North and Price are extremely clear (speaking of the era of early Christianity): "It is crucial not to use the anachronistic term "pope" for the bishop of Rome, which implies acceptance of the primacy of Rome. Papa emerges in the fourth century as a term particularly associated with the bishop of Rome, with the implication of fatherly and traditional authority: Pietri (1976) II.1609-11" (footnote 181 on p. 305 cited above).

As far as "Saint" as an objective descriptor of Peter, it should be uncontroversial that this is not a neutral description. Protestants do not consider him a saint, much less non-Christians.

In future, please discuss facts and refrain from speculations such as whether I know history.Fureto (talk)

13:02, 1 December 2021‎ Fureto talk contribs‎ 148,489 bytes −105‎ Undid revision 1057830561 by Rafaelosornio (talk) With respect, the history does not support these attributions as objective descriptors, separate from specific sectarian teaching. undo Tags: Undo Reverted

14:21, 1 December 2021‎ Rafaelosornio talk contribs‎ 148,594 bytes +105‎ Then delete all the bishops of Rome as bishop of Rome because history doesn't care. undothank Tags: Undo Reverted

16:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC) DRN Filed by Fureto Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Saint_Peter_discussion, closed by Nightenbelle (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

00:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC) WP:3P Filed by Fureto Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements

01:51, 2 December 2021‎ Fureto talk contribs‎ 148,437 bytes −105‎ Undid revision 1058108262 by Rafaelosornio (talk) I would appreciate the courtesy of a substantive reply to my argument on the talk section, not a dismissive edit summary. undo Tags: Undo Reverted

02:17, 2 December 2021‎ Rafaelosornio talk contribs‎ 148,542 bytes +105‎ Then according to you Peter was not "Patriarch of Antioch". He was not "Bishop of Rome" He is not a "saint". undothank Tags: Undo Reverted

08:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC) GoodDay Talk:Saint_Peter#Edit_and_reversion_in_Infobox:

Does the Catholic Church recognise Peter as the first pope & thus first bishop of Rome? GoodDay (talk)

11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Fureto Talk:Saint_Peter#Edit_and_reversion_in_Infobox:

The Roman Catholic Church does recognize Peter as the first bishop of Rome, and thus as the first pope. Is the Roman Catholic Church a neutral, uninterested party?Fureto (talk)

12:02, 2 December 2021‎ Fureto talk contribs‎ 148,437 bytes −105‎ Undid revision 1058202531 by Rafaelosornio (talk) Please take this to the Talk page, or stop reverting my edit. undo Tags: Undo Reverted

13:28, 2 December 2021‎ Omnipaedista talk contribs‎ 148,542 bytes +105‎ I've reverted the recent edits to the standing revision of the article since they are against the process described in WP:BRD: "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted." undothank Tag: UndoFureto (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying "they represent a sectarian Christian point of view, not a neutral one". I reiterate that the Catholic Church neither History nor what the Church Fathers said does not represent a Christian sect.

This article has been vandalized many times by Protestant people who believe they know everything and they say that the article should completely omit that Peter was bishop of Rome, a saint and patriarch of Antioch, without first consulting history or the Fathers of the Church.Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 December 2021

The publisher name "Roman & Littlefield" in the references should be "Rowman & Littlefield". Thanks for your attention. KConWiki (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC) KConWiki (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Hut 8.5 18:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Saint Peter, age 64, crucified upside-down on October 13, 64 AD

I added the correct death date. 2601:583:681:8430:D96:1D8:4D0:7461 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That was the 10th Anniversary of Nero becoming Emperor in 54 AD: dies imperii - three months after the Fire of Rome. 2603:3020:B0A:F400:A5CD:D17C:8F77:D6A3 (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be the majority view that at least he was in Rome (has traveled to Rome), but our article shows that even that much is disputed among mainstream scholars. So, forget about setting an execution date for Peter. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

'Simon Peter's is found 19x in the New Testament

I added this to the intro. 2603:3020:B0A:F400:A5CD:D17C:8F77:D6A3 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved.   Kadzi   (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Saint Peter → Peter the Apostle – For consistency with highly related Christian religious figure articles, including: Andrew the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, John the Apostle, Jude the Apostle, Matthew the Apostle, Paul the Apostle, Philip the Apostle and Thomas the Apostle. As it stands, Peter is the only one of the original twelve apostles not to be called an apostle. See: Category:Twelve_Apostles. ~ Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Addendum There is also the MOS:SAINTS guideline on WP:NCWC and I encourage all those voting to take the time to familiarize themselves with this if they are not already familiar, as well as to look at Category:Christian saints from the New Testament and see how consistently this guideline is applied. WP:COMMONNAME is not the overriding policy function for biographies of religious figures. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Second addendum This common name chatter appears to be somewhat largely imagined. The common name for Peter is just Peter; it is not unambiguously 'Saint Peter' - you can simply count this off in the sources in the reference section of the piece: there is far more use Peter alone than in any other naming combination. 'Saint' in this instance, despite being generally discouraged by MOS:SAINT, is being used by way of the allowance in the guideline for the use of Saint when it is necessary for disambiguation, since the page for 'Peter' alone is being used for disambiguation given the great range of Peters throughout history.

The proposition here is that 'Peter the Apostle' is as equally a valid means of disambiguation that (without going against MOS:SAINT) is supported as a general title for Peter by his clear if not pre-eminent position among the Apostles. Peter is arguably the most significant Apostles, becoming 'the Rock' of the Church. So the use of 'Saint' is not only unnecessary per MOS:SAINT and WP:NPOV, as other means of disambiguation are available, but arguably also diminutive, as Peter was not some run-of-the-mill saint. Peter's principle attribute was preaching as an apostle, not being a saint, which more often than not just involves some dubious martyrdom story.

The entire lead is about his apostolic preaching, and the first source in the article refers to him as 'Prince of the Apostles'. Also in the article: Peter is always listed first among the Twelve Apostles in the gospels and in the Book of Acts. ... Peter is often depicted in the gospels as spokesman of all the Apostles. ... Catholics refer to him as chief of the Apostles, as do the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. ... The Eastern Orthodox Church regards Apostle Peter, together with Apostle Paul, as "Preeminent Apostles". ... The Fathers of the Syriac Orthodox Church tried to give a theological interpretation to the primacy of Apostle Peter. ... The New Apostolic Church, which believes in the re-established Apostle ministry, sees Peter as the first Chief Apostle. ... In the Bahá’í Faith "the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended."

So we currently have this fantastically bizarre situation where the MAIN apostle among the twelve apostles is not being called an apostle, while the 11 other, more minor apostles all are - and bear in mind, once again, that all of these other 11 could also, theoretically, be called saints. The inconsistency of this is mind-boggling, and I find it hard to reconcile with either MOS:SAINT or WP:CONSISTENT. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• This has already been discussed in the past, but it's been a long time since: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saint_Peter/Archive_2#Requested_move_4 Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Take a look at this ngram: [1]. "Saint Peter" absolutely dominates "Peter the Apostle" without even taking into account all the uses that abbreviate "Saint". One might choose to interpret that by suggesting that that would be the general case for saints, but it is not so. Contrast "Saint Francis" vs. "Francis of Assisi" [2], where the two names are basically neck-and-neck with each other, or "Saint Catherine" vs. "Catherine of Siena" [3], where "of Siena" is actually a bit more common.

Pageviews are also instructive. Over the past 90 days [4], Saint Peter has been viewed 310,939 times, but Peter the Apostle was only viewed 5,750 times. That means, of the over 310 thousand readers of the article, only 1.8 percent of them got there by looking for "Peter the Apostle".

This is because "Saint Peter" is far more recognizable. The move requests make the mistake of looking at this from a solely religious aspect. However, this leaves out the image of Peter in the popular imagination - that of the person waiting at the gates of Heaven, as he is portrayed in many works of media and jokes. As just a couple of typical examples from well-known secular pop culture sources, here is a transcript of a Saturday Night Live sketch, and Peter is also depicted in the Simpsons episode Treehouse of Horror XI. In both, Peter is explicitly referred to as Saint Peter. It is entirely possible that someone whose knowledge of Peter is from his depiction in popular culture wouldn't know who "Peter the Apostle" is. This aspect of the perception of Peter makes him unlike other apostles and unlike other saints, so examples such as Andrew the Apostle are a significantly different situation. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Saint Peter will obviously remain as a redirect to this page, as with all saints, so navigation would not be affected by applying consistency to the naming of the apostles. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. See the big template at the top of the talk page, listing 11 RMs, with the most recent in May 2019. I'm not saying it's too soon – but surely before opening a new discussion, one ought to bring some new reasons, evidence, or counterarguments to the opposers of last time, and not just bring back the exact same argument. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I did check them, and only one proposed Peter the Apostle, and it was the most close run of them all. In several of the other discussions, Peter the Apostle or variations such as Peter (Apostle) or Peter, Apostle were also suggested. Re-running one closely called naming discussion six years later does not seem undue. Having 11 'Twelve' Apostles and one Saint is ... oddly inconsistent. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose fails WP:COMMONNAME, as gone into at vast length in all the lengthy list of previous discussions. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  See the addendum. Religious biography page naming has never solely followed WP:COMMONNAME, as there are various guidelines and NPOV or consistency issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Simply not useful to readers, and wholly unnecessary—nobody is offended by the use of the word "saint" in this context, and it's no more biased than "the Apostle" would be. Neutrality in article titling is a legitimate concern, but not every article title influenced by the beliefs of some group—whether or not religious—requires retitling. In this article and many others, "saint" provides natural disambiguation for articles that would otherwise have unpredictable or unrecognizable titles. Crusading against the word "saint" for no other reason than because it reflects the beliefs of Christians, or some subgroup thereof, does a disservice to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Simply applying an existing guideline like MOS:SAINTS is hardly crusading, and there is a pretty great case for having all 12 of the Twelve Apostles, a very distinct group of followers of Jesus within the Christian story, labelled as Apostles and not as Saints. I see this as fairly religiously neutral. If anything, apostle is a slightly rarer and greater accolade in Christianity than being a mere saint. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per common name, discussion, and past 11 RMs. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'd support a move to Peter. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Very strong support again this evidently isn't common name, and the current title is flagrantly partisan and has no support at all in serious WP:RS. It's an absolute eyesore, find one serious impartial GBook source that calls Peter "Saint Peter". In ictu oculi (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment In fact all serious, unbiased and reliable sources call Peter "St. Peter" or Saint Peter". Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As you said, apostle is rarer. It's not Peter the Apostle at the Pearly Gates. Manannan67 (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME Peter the Apostle evidently is not a common name. Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Pinging previous discussion participants for broader consensus: @SelfieCity: @T8612: @StAnselm: @Epinoia: @SmokeyJoe: @Colin M: @Amakuru: @No Great Shaker: @King of Hearts: @David Eppstein: @TonyBallioni: @Willthacheerleader18: @Endymion.12: @ApexUnderground: @Rockstone35: @Javert2113: @PPEMES: @JeBonSer: @Gerda Arendt: @Serial Number 54129: @PC78: @142.160.89.97: @Joshua Jonathan: @Dimadick: @Slithytoad: @Nillurcheier: @Necrothesp: @NapoleonX: @Elizium23: @Ryk72: @70.51.44.60: @Zzyzx11: @Wikimandia: @Good Olfactory: @BoBoMisiu: @Egsan Bacon: @IgnorantArmies: @Jfhutson: @BlindMic: @Pincrete: @Zwanzig 20: @Huon: @NeilN: @Xoloz: @Calidum: @Ckruschke: @BarrelProof: @Marek69: @Dohn joe: @Hot Stop: @Red Slash: @Jbribeiro1: @Saddhiyama: @Telpardec: @Neljack: @TheNuszAbides: @168.12.253.66: @76.65.128.222: @Labattblueboy: @John Carter: @T-man 2396: @Dicklyon: @Anthony Appleyard: @XercesBlue1991: @Michipedian: @Tariqabjotu: @ENeville: @Johnpacklambert: @65.92.180.137: @Kauffner: @Cuchullain: @Abc347834: @Bede735: @PatGallacher: @Andrewa: @Wikipedian77: @Dweller: @Apteva: @Srleffler: @Theramin: @Tomcat7: @Proteus: @The C of E: @Anthony Appleyard: @Ret.Prof: @Pmanderson: @Knepflerle: @Majoreditor: @ApprenticeFan: @CrazyInSane: @Flamarande: @Afaprof01: @Oberlin: @Soidi: @Carlaude: @Farsight001: @N5iln:

(a mammoth task it turned out (a real MOAP), but hopefully a complete list (human error permitting)!). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

An informational point: All 11 RM's failed to move the name. This is a perennial nom. Please note the wording: "Before re-nominating, review the move requests listed below" which saves lots of time. 12:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Did that. Perhaps the repeated nomination, with numerous editors independently coming to many of the same conclusions RE: MOS:SAINT and WP:NPOV, might be a sign that there the current article title has some perennial issues. Incidentally, I noticed that you briefly supported Peter the Apostle in one discussion before later striking your support. What changed your mind? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Veterans of the previous noms know there are "some perennial issues", but also that the community has repeatedly failed to agree on a better title. As it will this time. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: TBH, I'm a little surprise that this isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Peter, given that, as I understand it, the name was born out of the Apostle, so everyone called Peter is a namesake, and even further, on the disambiguation page, a good number of the items are things like the epistles, gospels or acts of Peter, and so too, essentially defer back to the man. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current is dominant in reliable sources, Peter is not just another apostle (and indeed, where was he sent?), nothing has changed over the past 11 RM discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: The answer to your question is in the article: Paul affirms that Peter had the special charge of being apostle to the Jews, just as he, Paul, was apostle to the Gentiles. Please note the various attributions of his 'apostle-hood' by the different churches in the second addendum. It shouldn't be "he wasn't just another apostle"; it should be "he wasn't just another saint" - Christian saints are legion (more than 10,000 in the Catholic church), hence the MOS:SAINT guideline on eliminating the title's undue usage; apostles are, by comparison, a fairly elite bunch - 12 primary apostles, a total of 70/72 apostles in all. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

All of “Saint”, “Apostle”, and “Peter” and titles or epithets that Wikipedia tries to avoid, and does avoid, unless the justification comes from strong use in sources. “Saint Peter” wins on usage in quality sources.

Google ngram [5] is a start at looking at trends in sources, although I consider the current set of references to be more important.

Should Paul the Apostle be moved to Saint Paul? I think the argument for that is stronger? Why not? Could it be because “St Peter” is much better known outside Christianity than apostles generally? Possibly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I was given to understand, from my reading of MOS:SAINT, that epithets other than 'Saint' were to be given preference, but perhaps that is only my reading. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That reading seems erroneous, seeing as the policy clearly indicates that in some cases, 'Saint' is how the topics are best known and should be titled. The policy mentions two or three examples of pages with this title, including "Saint Peter" as an example of an appropriate use. I don't see how it could possibly be clearer than for this title to be used as an appropriate example in the same policy that's being cited for the opposite proposition. Just because the policy suggests that there could be disagreements over whether someone should be considered a saint, or that someone somewhere might consider it non-neutral, doesn't mean that all examples everywhere are controversial and unacceptably biased—if they were, there would be no examples provided, instead of multiple examples. P Aculeius (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Liberal scholarship

We do not say "liberal academia", but "mainstream academia". It is true that the mainstream academia are theologically liberal, but that obfuscates the main point, which should be dully rendered according to WP:MAINSTREAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Entrenched local consensus

The above RM failed again to follow en.wp Title guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"Rooster"

why is rooster one of Saint Peter's attributes? Rich (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

In the story of the Denial of Peter, Peter thrice denies having known Jesus, his mentor. He then hears a rooster crow, and recalls Jesus' prediction of his denials. He regrets his denial of Jesus, and weeps in sorrow. Dimadick (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"illiterate" reference

The article says "other parts of the Acts of the Apostles seem to describe Peter as an illiterate fisherman", but fails to mention which other parts (i.e. specific chapter and verse). 2607:FEA8:1BA6:1500:879:2387:6BA2:F89E (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)