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.
Isn't he also recognized in the Anglican Church?
The article states "He is recognized as a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Eastern Orthodox celebrate his feast day on November 16, whereas September 21 is observed in Latin churches." He is also recognized in the Anglica Church, same feast day I believe.
Patron Saint of accountants, bankers, bookkeepers, stock brokers and tax collectors
This seems made up and does not any references. --Bĭjiert (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It comes from SPQN.com, the first reference. I have removed the section, however, as it doesn't add any meaningful info that isn't already in the infobox. carl bunderson(talk)(contributions) 21:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Time to review 2010 RM result? (see Archive 1 above)
With all respect to proposer and 2 of 3 supporters, I'm not sure that Matthew the Evangelist → Saint Matthew was an advisable move. "Saint Matthew" is clearly not WP:NPOV regarding a historical figure (as much as most "historical figures" in the first century) and Wikipedia isn't, or shouldn't be, a Christian blog. This individual lived centuries before the concept of sainthood and "Saint Matthew" sounds wikt:anachronistic, in addition to a little bit too non-objective for an encyclopedia. Also the RM for 1 of 4 articles after non-move result of the proposed block move of four Evangelist articles, to have just 1 out of synch goes against WP:AT:
Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.
Could we please retitle this article "Matthew the Apostle"? Not everyone recognizes this man as a saint. "Saint Matthew" is biased to certain Christian traditions, and "Matthew the Apostle" is acceptable to all. (This is similar to the difference between Mohandas Gandhi and Mahatama Gandhi, as well as between Jesus and Jesus Christ. Under both aforementioned circumstances, the name without the religious title is chosen for the Wikipedia title.) —Wikipedian77 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
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: Moved as suggested. Sandstein 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Strong support, per nom and WP:NCCL#Saints as cited by JFH, also WP:HONORIFIC, WP:NPOV, and definition of "reliable" sources for WP:IRS and WP:AT. Scholarly sources do not use "Saint" for the historical individual, the New Testament only describes these men as "apostles" not "saint". In ictu oculi (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The proposed title is better than the current one. But where this article should be is Matthew. That lemma is currently a disambiguation page. If you look at the entries, there is no other "Matthew" topic that is even in the running as a potential primary. Kauffner (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Support per the above arguments. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose any move, but Matthew the Evangelist would be the most appropriate and common alternative. Names are not "subjective", they are names. What would you move Sitting Bull to? WP:NCCL#Saints is being badly misinterpreted here - I suggest people look at it more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly - the logic here would give Patrick (Irish saint) (or something more accurate). Isn't that totally obvious? The ability of some people to misread guidlines never ceases to amaze me. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod, ad hominem is not helpful to this situation. Virtually everyone who refers to Saint Patrick refers to him as Saint Patrick. Not everyone who refers to this man refers to him as Saint Matthew. More specifically, throughout the entire New Testament, this man is referred to as Matthew—NOT Saint Matthew. To call this man Saint Matthew is biased to the Christian traditions which use the title "Saint" in reference to Biblical figures. Latter Day Saints, many traditional Protestants, evangelicals, and Jehovah's Witnesses all object to this and it is therefore not as objective as it could be. (For similar reasons, Wikipedia does not title Jesus' article Jesus Christ nor Mohandas Gandhi's article Mahatma Gandhi. See: WP:HONORIFIC.) —Wikipedian77 (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Support, although this is not to be understood as a blanket agreement to all cases. There are a few ones (Saint Peter in particular) that I feel that the "saint" honorific is appropriate. José Luiztalk 02:30, 14 February 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.
The last Statment "According to the New Testament, he was one of the witnesses of the Resurrectionand the Ascension".
Under Matthew Chapter 28 verses 1-7 (KJV) Only Mary of Magda and (so stated ) the other Mary went to the tomb to see Jesus. Matthew did not witness the Resurrection, at best this story of Jesus missing from the tomb and the two women being told that he was not here. The missing Jesus was told to Matthew, he did not personally witness the Resurrection.