This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles 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.
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.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted so long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
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 18.104.22.168 (talk)
Discussion: is this article Class = B level?
Greetings, wondering if an expert editor would consider this article for upgrading to Class B (or even FA)? Even though I've completed a number of WP Catholicism article assessments, mostly class=stub,start and C level, it would be helpful for fresh sets of eyes to review this one. Thanks! Cheers, JoeHebda (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Article currently has two 'Relics' sections which unsurprisingly seem to partly contradict each other
Following previous bad experiences, I don't want to try to edit another religious article, but might I point out that this article currently has two 'Relics' sections (one called Burial and Relics) which unsurprisingly seem to partly contradict each other, so perhaps somebody else might please try to clean it up. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed some recent scribblings, and then examined the two sections you mention. I didn't detect any contradiction, but I did merge them so there is no duplication now. Thank you for pointing it out. Elizium23 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Elizium23. Just for the record, one partial contradiction was that the Relics section (which you have now sensibly transferred) contained an unsourced statement (which you have now removed - thanks again) stating that the Church recognized the bones as those of St. Peter, whereas the Burial and Relics section merely says that Paul VI had said they were very likely to be his bones, and the Guardian article that is cited as a source for the bit about Pope Francis also says that the Church has never officially recognized them as Peter's bones (and that Vatican Jesuits and many archaeologists strongly reject the claim). That article also points out that they were eventually found in a shoe-box in a cupboard belonging to a building worker after supposedly being given to him when the 'Peter Here' monument and casket were first dug up (the article doesn't explicitly say that such a provenance might be a cause for some mild scepticism, though I don't recall Howard Carter deciding to give Tutankhamun's bones to a local worker to hide in his cupboard, even if this is perhaps not an exact analogy). Thanks again. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, the link for the Paul VI stuff now seems to be dead.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Saint Peter → St. Peter – You don't call a doctor like Mehmet Oz, Doctor Oz, you call him Dr. Oz. You should call title a Saint with the short form title, St. NapoleonX (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:TITLEFORMAT and consistency with all other articles on saints. Additionally, nominator's rationale makes no sense. Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: please first read the five archived move requests linked higher up this page. Some names made more sense than the abbreviation of Saint to St. which still implies "Saint", a concept that not all our readers would support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, we don't have honorific "DR." in article titles, we should not have honourific "St.". I think we also should not have honourific "Saint", see former discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Elizium. We never use this form. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
OpposeWP:COMMONALITY -- the British have become lax in their application of grammatical dots, so the requested name will become a target of editwarring -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per MOS:RETAIN and WP:COMMONALITY. I assume by the reference to Mehmet Oz that the nominator is based in the United States and thus primarily uses American English. However, per WP:ENGVAR, the English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other. Different English-speaking countries may either use "Saint", "St." and "St" (without the grammatical dot) in common use, so under those guidelines (and since "Saint" is not particularly tied specifically to the United States), there is no compelling evidence to change the article name solely to conform to American English usage. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - the current title is bad enough, a violation of WP:NPOV, and Peter (disciple) or Peter (apostle) would be more in line with a non-Christian encyclopedia, but "St." is an abbreviation used in place and building names. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Saint should be spelled out; it's not a job title like Dr. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:47, 30 November 2015 (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.