Talk:Saint Peter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject European Microstates / Vatican City (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Christianity / Core / Saints / Catholicism / Eastern / Oriental / Syriac / Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Latter Day Saints (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Syriac Christianity work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

Peter's nationality[edit]

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

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

Requested Move 6[edit]

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;
  4. T-man 2396;
Prefer Peter the Apostle over Simon Peter:
  1. Johnbod;
  2. In ictu oculi;
  3. (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[edit]

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)

In pop culture[edit]

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 6.1[edit]

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 PeterPeter 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)
  • Oppose mostly on the grounds of WP:STICK. I'm getting tired of seeing hot air wasted on the talk pages of all these articles in an attempt to push through unpopular renames. Elizium23 (talk) 16:53, 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)
  • Oppose Drop the darn stick. And also this. --NeilN talk to me 01:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Even Popes use Saint Peter in groundbreaking declarations [5]. --NeilN talk to me 02:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Would this, for example, suggest that all the "... the Apostle"s should be moved to "Saint ..."? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I could say I'm opposing per WP:STICK here, but let's stick to WP:COMMONNAME. The Ngram provided by NeilN pretty much shows Saint Peter is the more common term. (And you could make a pretty convincing for moving several of the other apostles to Saint X. Saint Andrew, Saint Paul, Saint Mark, Saint Luke, and Saint Matthew all appear much more common.) Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:51, 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)
  • Oppose any move. Strong oppose a move to "Peter". Per COMMONNAME and STICK. José Luiz talk 14:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This whole subject of moving articles on saints has been done to death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:16, 11 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)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and the Ngram linked above. BlindMic (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Much better known as "Saint Peter". The MOS is subject to exceptions when appropriate. As for NPOV, see WP:POVTITLE. Neljack (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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"[edit]

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).-- (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