Talk:Saint Peter/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

The article is presented largely from the Roman Catholic perspective. It claims that the protestant view of St. Peter disagrees about the interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which is the foundation for claiming the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome a.k.a. the pope, over all of Christianity, naming the pope "the Vicar of Christ on Earth."

Specifically:

"Protestants Protestants typically disagree with Roman Catholics centers on the meaning of Jesus telling Peter: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church..." in Matthew 16:18."

While protestant denominations which reject Apostolic Succession (which declares that the 12 Apostles named in the Bible were the first 12 Bishops, and appointed their successors, a chain of successors comes to the present in all duly consecrated Bishops) may hold a view similar to the one stated, it should be clarified that the view of the worldwide Anglican Communion, as well as that of all of the Orthodox and Apostolic denominations do hold that Peter was the head of the Apostles, but they differ as to whether Peter established the Papacy at all, and if so, was it in Rome? Peter himself was the Bishop of Antioch, not the Bishop of Rome, he was martyred in Rome (c.f., if the Queen of England died on a visit to the US, that would not make her the Queen of the US). The early Christian Church -- which depends squarely on Apostolic succession and which Anglican, Orthodox and Apostolic faiths all claim to maintain, without the Pope or Cardinals -- did not have a supreme Bishop, although they did discuss the possible need for one (e.g., the First Council of Nicea). They had Archbishops who had authority over other Bishops, and they were originally in Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. There was much discussion among early Bishops (2nd - 8th Centuries) as to possibly appointing one Archbishop to have unifying control over all the Bishops of the church, but there was NEVER the required Cannonical vote. The principle contenders were the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople, as those were the seats of the East and West Roman Empire, respectively, and the Bishop of Jerusalem laid claim as that was where Christ died and was resurrected, and the Bishop of Antioch had a claim as well, as that was St. Peter's actual Diocese (Holy See). Rome simply asserted it's supremacy, starting with a forged document called "The Donation of Constantine" wherein the Roman Emporer, Constantine, was said to have given the entire Empire to the Bishop of Rome, thus establishing his supremacy. When that document was acknowledged as a forgery, Rome asserted its supremacy based on the "Petrine Doctrine" -- that Peter was martyred in Rome, giving it supremacy. Other Bishops and Archbishops simply asserted that it had to be agreed upon in a Synod (conference of Bishops) -- as had been done in Nicea to establish which books would be included in the New Testament, and all the canonical laws which still govern these churches -- and the vote would have to be unanimous to ensure the Holy Spirit was making the decision. For several centuries the question lingered, but was never voted upon, but Rome assumed it's supremacy nevertheless. This ultimately led to the "Great Schism" between East and West, where the Archbishop (Patriarch) of Constantinople we excommunicated by the Archbishop (Pope) of Rome, and then vice-versa -- of course no bishop may excommunicate another bishop. The same dispute led to the Antidisestablishment movement, which was the chief reason the Anglican Church, aka (at the time) the Church of England separated from Rome -- Henry VII's divorce may have been an impetus, but the sentiment was long there among clergy and nobility as well. Henry VIII was granted a divorce by a Papal Legate, but when the Holy Roman Emperor threatened the Pope, the Pope replied "the knives of the Holy Roman Emperor are closer than the knives of England" and withdrew consent for the divorce, which catalyzed the schism along with ensuring the success of the reformation under Luther and Calvin. At the time of their separation, the Anglican Church had valid Bishops, who have the authority to create more Bishops, thus current Bishops are all valid under Apostolic Succession. The same is true for all Orthodox and Apostolic faiths. Later the Episcopal Church of Scotland separated from Rome, taking their valid Bishops, and after that the Church of Utrecht separated from Rome, with their valid Bishops, creating the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht. Most of these churches acknowledge the validity of Apostolic Succession of the other Churches, and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox and Utrecht Bishops, and they are moving towards recognizing Anglican and Apostolic Bishops.

Long story short, the target article has well-represented the case for considering Peter to be the first Pope, and that thereby the present Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Bishop of Christianity, or the Pope, but it has not at all acknowledged a 2000 year old debate that the Bishop of Rome is NOT the duly elected Supreme Pontiff; even if Peter could be considered the first Pope, making the See of Rome the Primal See would have had to be agreed upon by all Bishops in an election, and it never was. The Bishop of Rome in the third century did not have the authority to determine on his own which books would constitute the New Testament or what would be canonical law, nor did he have the authority to declare himself the head of the church. Complicating matters is that the Council of Nicea (where the New Testament and canonical law were voted into existence unanimously by all Bishops of the age), was called together by Constantine, who had begun as a Pagan Emperor of Rome, but had taken his Greek mother's faith, Christianity, moved to Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople, established Constantinople as the new capitol of the Eastern Roman Empire (leaving Rome with half it's prior empire, the Western Empire) and at the same time established Christianity as the faith of both Empires, and later appointing separate successors, Eastern Emperor (Rome) and Western Emperor (Constantinople), (titles which Constantine originally held both for himself). So while Constantine was the Roman Emperor during his lifetime, it was his intent that Constantinople become the center of Christianity, he did not expect it to take root in Western Europe as it did; but Christianity was already deeply established in Greece, indeed the New Testament was written in Greek. Thus Constantine sough to settle the question of which Bishop would be the Head of all Bishops, but he failed to have the question settled, though he succeed in establishing the New Testament and canonical law to govern the church. There is NO universally agreed upon answer to the question, and indeed there is implicit acknowledgment of this in the fact that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Bishops who do not answer to the Pope.

129.89.118.217 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This is highly confusing. What exactly are you requesting be changed? Cannolis (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing Source!

There is a quote with an abbreviated citation, lacking a full one in the "References" section. Could someone help me identify it?

Wilken, p. 281, quote: "Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome" --Zfish118 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

AD — BC

The first paragraph contains the text: "Saint Peter (Latin: Petrus, Greek: Πέτρος Petros, Syriac/Aramaic: ܫܸܡܥܘܿܢ ܟܹ݁ܐܦ݂ܵܐ, Shemayon Keppa, Hebrew: שמעון בר יונה‎ Shim'on Bar Yona ; died c. 64 AD[1]), also known as Simon Peter".

The year of his death is written as 'c. 64 AD'. The correct form is 'c. AD 64'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.149.118 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Antioch

The line "Claims of direct blood lineage from Simon Peter among the old population of Antioch existed in the 1st century" is confusing. Does the source in question really indicate a first century claim of descent? Seems perhaps a typo as that would be awfully early for anyone to make a big deal out of being descended from him. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

See also section, Portal updates

Greetings, Today, I removed the portals for Saints, Pope and Catholicism because these are already included in the article's Navbox templates (in the below = parameter). This is per MOS/Layout, See_also_section which states that As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.. In addition, I added portals for Biography, Christianity, and History since these relate to the article being a Bio. and of a historical figure important at the beginnings of Christianity. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 29 November 2015

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved and speedy closed per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Calidum T|C 21:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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)
• Oppose per MOS:SAINTS. NB: Would support Peter the Apostle. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONALITY -- the British have become lax in their application of grammatical dots, so the requested name will become a target of editwarring -- 70.51.44.60 (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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 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.

Requested move 23 February 2016

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.

The result of the move request was: no consensus (non-admin closure). sst✈ 01:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Saint Peter → Peter the Apostle – The current title is NOT neutral at all as it contains WP:HONORIFIC "Saint", a religious commendation. The move to "Peter the Apostle", the actual WP:COMMONNAME without religious bias...will meet neutrality and will become consistent with the other similar apostolic articles such as Philip the Apostle, Paul the Apostle, Andrew the Apostle etc. according to the policy of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose What, again? After only 3 months? Close it down. I take it you have read the previous debates, just above and listed in the header? Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the previous debates are little more than examples of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS flying against policy and sources. This will keep on getting relisted while it sticks out like a sore thumb. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There are perfectly good reasons why this is an exception, as set out in previous attempts, which I suppose will have to be rehashed again. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Of all the 12 disciples, why Peter, nothing exceptional. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that this would probably be more neutral and could satisfy a greater number of editors. As noted, it would have the added bonus of making the apostle articles more consistent, since most have removed "Saint" from the title. (This particular rename option has not been proposed since the Dec 2013 discussion which ended in "no consensus", so I don't believe it is too early to try it again, especially since this option was supported by some who commented in the intervening discussions where this rename was not proposed.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support current title at odds with WP:NPOV and reliable sources. Search results such up a load of artwork and church buildings, but when referring to the fisherman, just Peter the Apostle is not just WP:COMMONNAME in secular and Protestant sources, it is actually the common name even in RC sources too. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support to have Peter the Apostle, in line with John the Baptist, and would vote for treating others similarly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV, MOS:SAINTS - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Google Ngram of "Saint Peter" vs "Peter the Apostle" vs "Saint Peter the Apostle" shows "Saint Peter" is about a order of magnitude greater so, I guess, it is the common name per WP:POVNAME. But there is more than one "Saint Peter", see List of saints named Peter. "Peter the Apostle" seems more precise to me, but it will, in my opinion, take at least one additional click for a user to find what they are likely looking for. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There will be a redirect for this most famous of the Saints called Peter, - no extra click needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A redirect would not point to a disambiguation for multiple "Saint Peter"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably better just to have a hatnote that says "'Saint Peter' redirects here. For other Saint Peters ..." etc., since this article is clearly the dominant Saint Peter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Let's make no mistake about it! This proposal goes against WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME, to support the sectarian preferences of some Protestant, and other anti-religious, editors. It is very easy to show that the current name (various spellings of "Saint" apart) is far more common in general usage, including newspaper cartoons, place names and so on. "Peter the Apostle" is only common in theological writing, and a very high proportion of our readers will not know who is meant, or not be sure. Previous debates have exposed the untruth of the assertion that "Saint Peter" is unacceptable/uncomfortable to Protestants, as there are numbers of churches from a wide range of Protestant denmominations with churches named just this way. The other saints cited are different cases, as they either can called "..the Evangelist" or "John the Baptist" or are not nearly as well known, and "...the Apostle" is a useful disambiguator. None of these have ever been controversial. Why on earth Gerda thinks that mentioning John the Baptist helps her case, I can't imagine. What else could that article possibly be called, if only because of John the Evangelist? As it happens, unlike eg Johns, all the other saints called Peter are downright obscure (ask yourself - can you think of one without checking?). Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's be careful about painting with such a broad brush. For instance, I am neither Protestant nor anti-religious, and I support the rename—nor is my preference as a result of wanting to cater towards or support the preferences of such editors. I legitimately believe that the proposed name better works within WP:NPOV; I can definitely also see the flip side based on WP:POVNAME, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well ok. I am not normally a supporter of including "Saint" in titles, except in rare cases like this and Saint Patrick, where it is clearly the best choice. Possibly these are the only two left, beside all the myriads of places, churches etc. I find it hard to ascribe the best motives to the endless agitation to change this one. Maybe I'm wrong. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: how many of the 12 disciples are listed as "Saint X" on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No other ones. Ask yourself why Peter is the only one (Clue: see above and below). Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Because previous RMs have cited ngrams and search results picking up buildings and artworks, not reliable sources related to the biblical character. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: pointing to individual "reliable sources" is moving the goal post. An ngram is about the frequency of usage in millions of books and not just isolated examples. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

BoBoMisiu you understand the difference between a 1st Century fisherman and a building yes? :) That's all I'm saying, that we should look at the sources which are actually talking about the subject of the article not about other things named after him. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And you should look at the totality of sources, not just those for professional theologians, or readers of devotional/religious material from one group of denominations. Peter is one of relatively few Christian figures with a wide degree of awareness among a wider general non-religious/non-Christian public, but he is known to them as "Saint Peter". We should not be making it harder for them to find material on him by using a name many will not recognise. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I was curious about this claim, so I chose a source relatively at random—the U.S. edition of cnn.com—and did some searches. There were many hits for a variety of possible names—"Saint Peter", "St. Peter", and "Peter the Apostle"—but almost all of them referred to a church, a school, a town, a parish, or a religious institution named after Peter. However, of the few that referred to the person—they invariably used "St. Peter the Apostle" when referred to in a Catholic context (mostly about new popes do not take the name "Peter" in respect of the the first pope, St. Peter the Apostle). However, when referred to in a non-Catholic context, the usage was invariably "Peter the Apostle", "Peter, the apostle", "Peter and the other apostles"—with no "St." There were no usages that referred to the person that were just "Saint Peter" or "St. Peter". Wouldn't it be the case that a source that is attempting to be neutral would not insert the "Saint" unless it was discussing Peter in a Catholic context? This seems to be how CNN has approached it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: Saint Peter is not just a Catholic Saint – nevertheless a generic search term like "Peter" is ambiguous and would need a disabiguation landing page. Yes, cnn.com would have contemporary news type articles about a variety of organizations, buildings, etc. (more locally notable) but books tend to have less locally notable. A WP user will likely be looking for an elementary school, etc. dictionary.reference.com/browse/peter shows a slight difference in American vs British usage with an American exclusion of Saint. Does using cnn.com represent a worldwide view? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course not, but it wasn't intended to be. It was an anecdotal experiment on an interesting claim of a user, and based on that single source, the user's claim may be brought into some question. As I stated, the source was chosen more or less at random. (Also, I'm not advocating for the page to be at the undisambiguated Peter. Both "Saint Peter" and "Peter the Apostle" are disambiguated names. I don't think that issue is even in question here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, 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, Saint Peter has been viewed 281,126 times, but Peter the Apostle was only viewed 4,518 times. That means, of the over 281 thousand readers of the article, only 1.6 percent of them got there by looking for "Peter the Apostle".

This is because "Saint Peter" is far more recognizable. The supporters are making 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 referring to Andrew the Apostle is not much of a guide, as the situation is significantly different.

The chief argument, pretty much the sole argument, is that the name is "not neutral", but that is why we have WP:POVNAME. The first example given there is Boston Massacre. No doubt there were many British people at the time (and now) who would strongly reject the suggestion that the event was a "massacre", but the article is called that because that is its common name. The article on the son of Philip II of Macedon is not "Alexander III of Macedon" (a redirect), which would be consistent with the other kings of Macedon, but Alexander the Great, a name as common in reference to him as it is obviously not neutral. (I imagine the people of Tyre didn't think he was all that great.) Was Alfred really great? Was Constantine? Was Peter or Catherine? Was Suleiman magnificent? Was Louis pious? Was Edward a martyr? Was Æthelred unready or Charles simple or Ivan terrible? None of those names are neutral, but they are common. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we able to determine the proportion of views which came from wikilinks? These would necessarily move on a rename. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Egsan Bacon: @Ryk72: it seems to purely be following wikipedia's own tail. Yes in art articles about paintings we've linked Saint Peter, for buildings St. Peter, but for the biblical character we are actually already using "Apostle Peter" in article body. Likewise the Christianity Catholicism and Jesus templates generate enormous lists of what links here, mainly from articles which don't even mention Peter. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Universally well known as Saint Peter, and in some cases, as in Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates, is only known as Saint Peter and not as the Apostle. NB. All of "Saint" and "Apostle" and even "Peter" are epithets. If the wish is to be scholarly, every reader who knows anything of substance about the subject knows that his name is Simon Peter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't the more correct non-epithet name "Simon Bar-Jonah"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes. But he isn't wel known as that. This one is known as Saint Peter, despite the other 11 not so usually being tied to the "Saint". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nearly universally known as St. Peter. Nothing has changed the previous requests on this matter. Calidum ¤ 04:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support, I believe Good Olfactory's argument makes a lot of sense (only consider sources insofar they really refer to the biblical person) and I've seen nobody taking the effort to seriously counter it. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that was his argument (I certainly hope not, in the terms you put it). All these issues have been endlessly discussed in the many previous proposals, to which people can refer. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, it's one part of my argument—how do sources refer to the person when discussing him outside of the context of any one denomination? And we're certainly not prohibited from debating issues anew just because it's been done before. If it's an approach that can be countered, I'd be keen to hear it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia policy does it say "use the name found in sources outside of the context of any one denomination" and which denomination should be specified that we exclude? Elizium23 (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Uh, nowhere using that specific language—that was my own characterisation, as you probably know. But it could be derived from WP:NPOV, I suppose, as well as other guidelines. The exclusion would be any single denomination-specific usage, not just one in particular. (I wouldn't give much stock to how sources refer to Peter when referring to him as the first pope of the Catholic Church, for instance. Nor would I give much stock to Mormon-oriented sources that refer to him as the first "President of the Church".) In more generalised terms, what name do sources use when referring to Peter in general, not in the context of how one denomination interprets him and his role in the group? The sources I'm finding always use "Saint Peter" or "Saint Peter the Apostle" when referring to him in a Catholic context, and typically use "Peter the Apostle" or "Peter, the apostle" in other contexts. Anyways, I'm trying to exercise some nuance here, and literalist questions like this don't get us very far, I don't think. Policies and guidelines don't say much about any specific situations; they set out general principles and guidelines that have to be applied to the facts in question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:STICK Elizium23 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support move to Peter the Apostle or even just Peter. We use Jesus, not Jesus Christ, we use Muhammad, not Prophet Muhammad, we use Vishnu, not Lord Vishnu, etc., etc., etc. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support, see my comments in previous RMs. In reliable sources on the subject of this article (a person), it is much more common to call him Peter the Apostle. Even if that were not the case "Saint" is about the most clear example of an honorific there is.--JFH (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jfhutson: where do find that "it is much more common to call him Peter the Apostle"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: my memory was incorrect on that. During RM 5 I supported Simon Peter based on this ngram. But I think Peter the Apostle is preferable to Saint Peter because Saint Peter is not the COMMONNAME (see In Ictu's argument in RM 3), it is a bad disambiguator (given the large number of Saints Peter), "Saint" is clearly an honorific (it is not even an office, style, or credential; it is bestowed purely to honor the person). So my first choice is Simon Peter, followed by Peter the Apostle, followed by Peter. --JFH (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Without rehashing all the valid counter-arguments on the other points, I will only point out, yet again, that all the other "Saint Peter"s are remarkably obscure, and he is effortlessly primary among them. So it is a very good disambiguator. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:NPOVNAME, MOS:SAINTS, and WP:STICK. Peter isn't an option, and the most natural, common, and easily recognizable way to disambiguate this person in the English language is to use Saint Peter. There is clear precedent here with Saint Patrick, Saint Christopher, Saint Monica, Saint Timothy, and on and on. Drop the stick. BlindMic (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Relist - oh I thought this had already been closed, or rather was expecting it to be closed according to the status quo as, it has been in the past by someone counting votes rather than considering policy. Can someone relist please. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Conclusion To end this, I believe we must reach an agreement between both parties. To satisfy all parties the name "Saint Peter the Apostle" is the final proposal. The name I have not invented it, that's how it is in all neutral encyclopedias(non-Catholic or Protestant). For an example see Encyclopedia Britannica: http://global.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I hope everyone notices that several biographies of prominent historical figures with similar conventional names have fewer problems – for example, Talk:Genghis Khan has no discussion about moving to "Genghis" or question about his khan-ness; he just is. In the same way, this article should not use an alpaca ("Saint Peter the Apostle") as a substitute for using a horse ("Saint Peter"). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, regarding comments above, I would point out that 'Saint' is used in Anglican and (I think) in many European Protestant traditions, including in the naming of churches, therefore this isn't a straight RC/Protestant thing. If 'St. Peter's' is a common name for a church, it's because it is named after the generally used name for the person(!). I'm a non-practising Anglican and have to confess that I couldn't remember exactly who the apostles were (same as disciple?). I don't understand the NPOV argument, since 'Apostle' is almost as much an honorific as 'St.'. It is not necessary to concur with Peter's 'saintliness' to acknowledge that this is how he is best known historically, anymore than it is to agree that Alexander really WAS that Great! Pincrete (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saint Peter. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://arkiv.lbk.cc/faq/site.pl@1518cutopic_topicid19cuitem_itemid6106.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The elephant in the infobox

How is it that St. Peter's info is all Catholic except for the "Church" entry being "Early Christian Church" instead of "Catholic Church"? We've got his successor listed as Linus, and he's listed as THE POPE. How can we so clearly label him Catholic and yet not label him Catholic? Crusadestudent (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

"Early Christian Church" instead of "Catholic Church" because he is acknowledged as a saint by non-Catholics but one infobox, {{Infobox Christian leader}}, is used which displays parameters about office and sainthood. So, if church displays various early churches separately in a list, then the list would include those who acknowledge Peter as a saint but not as a pope. The concept of popacy was politically manipulated for centuries and resulted in different institutionalized narratives of history within Christian but non-Catholic denominations. For example, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church wrote, in the 2007 Ravenna Document, about πρῶτος (transliterated from ancient Greek as protos) that:

"During the first millennium, the universal communion of the Churches [...] was maintained [...] between [...] bishops. These [included] relations, [...] between [...] bishops and their respective protoi, and [...] among the protoi themselves in the canonical order (taxis) witnessed by the ancient Church, [...] History records the consultations, letters and appeals to major sees, especially to that of Rome, which vividly express the solidarity that koinonia creates" (n. 40).

"this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that 'presides in love' according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch [...], occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium" (n. 41).

Post schism narratives conflict with the 21st century scholarly interpretation of history. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If the cited source says 'some scholars', 'most scholars', etc., then that is how we should write it

@Goodone121: I understand your concern about WP:WEASEL, but the problem with your recent tagging activity is that with a major hub article like this one, on a subject on which literally thousands of noteworthy experts have weighed in, is that the only way to remove the 'who' and 'by whom' tags by directly answering these questions would be to either (a) painstakingly list hundreds of peripherally relevant names or (b) cherry-pick a few such names. The latter option introduce the further problems of lending undue weight to those named individuals and would needlessly give the false impression that these are idiosyncratic views held only by the individuals named.

The normal purpose of the templates you have been adding is to challenged unsourced material, where the likely answer to 'by whom' is 'by some random Wikipedia editor'. The material you have been tagging, on the other hand, all appears to be properly sourced, and the reasons the cited sources don't name individual scholars are the same reason we probably shouldn't (I listed a few here).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of "most biblical scholars" in place of "virtually all biblical scholars" in the lead

Moved from section above, as my comment there was directed at another user over a month ago in relation to a bunch of edits they had made, and was not specifically about the wording of the lead or of the cited source there. In fact, it didn't apply to the lead at all, as the lead generally shouldn't be listing off scholars even if the article body does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

But looking at the transcript it says "Most of us scholars don't believe Peter actually wrote 1 Peter." It doesn't say "virtually all" at all. In any case, a lecture - even from a Yale scholar - isn't the best source because it isn't peer reviewed. Why isn't this sourced to a book? StAnselm (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Because once I cite a reliable source (and a lecture by a Yale professor is that), the burden is then on whoever wants to remove the text to find a better source (and I'm not saying they don't exist) that contradicts what I wrote (I do doubt that these sources exist, mind you). I don't mind your recent edit to the text, though. The succeeding WP:COMMENT needs to stay indefinitely, as the text, even as you edited it, is still a magnet for agenda-pushing IPs to come along and change "most" to "some". This has happened like half a dozen times since I put it there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Eodcarl

Is continuing to add information against consensus. I've hit the 3 revert limit. He has long since flown past it and continues to refuse to discuss his changes here as is procedure. Just as an fyi, there are several issues on other pages involving him and a thread on the Admin's notice board about it. So I'm mostly posting here to 1) Let people know that the issue is being or going to be resolved soon. 2) The revert limit is reached for the day, so watch out. The rules are a bit fuzzy in this particular case, but the 3rr rule can actually be violated by the combined edits of more than one user. 3) A last ditch effort to convince Eodcarl to discuss the issue.Farsight001 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference to authorship of Petrine epistles in the lead

I added this some years back, and since then my wording has been altered countless times by various IPs, most of them geolocating to the American south. I did this because simply saying that two epistles are attributed to him without pointing to the scholarly consensus that he didn't write them is a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. I think the source I cited was technically inadequate for the claim regarding 2 Peter, since Martin just says "I believe 2 Peter was written by someone else", but of 1 Peter he said "Most of us scholars don't believe Peter actually wrote 1 Peter". The fact that the majority of scholars reject the Petrine authorship is easily verifiable and virtually all sources discussing the issue will support this claim. No source has yet been presented that says "there is debate among scholars" or "some scholars reject Petrine authorship". No doubt there are books and articles written by conservative evangelical scholars who accept Petrine authorship that word it like this, but relying on those sources for what critical scholars teaching in major research universities say is again a violation of NPOV and DUE. I am opening this thread to establish what reliable sources by reputable scholars say about what the scholarly consensus (if any) is on these issues. Citing anything other than the scholarly consensus anywhere in this article is probably WP:UNDUE, since we already have an article on Authorship of the Petrine epistles to detail whatever debate might have historically taken, or might still be taking, place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources for the scholarly view of authorship of 1 Peter

• Martin (cited above): Most of us scholars don't believe Peter actually wrote 1 Peter
  • Bart D. Ehrman (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, New York: Oxford University Press. 1997. p.373 -- a textbook used in Martin's class): The book claims, of course, to be written by Peter, [...] Many scholars, however, doubt that Peter wrote this letter. [...] It is possible of course, that Peter went back to school after Jesus' resurrection, learned Greek, became an accomplished writer, mastered the Greek Old Testament, and moved to Rome before writing this letter, but to most scholars, this seems unlikely.
• M. Eugene Boring (The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, New York: Oxford University Press. 2010. p. 2126 -- another textbook used in Martin's class): Some scholars still treat Simon Peter as the letter’s author, with Silvanus as secretary (5.12); others consider Silvanus as the actual author, who wrote at Peter’s instruction. However, [there is good evidence that it dates from later] Thus most scholars interpret the document as a letter from the last decade of the first century ce, written in Peter’s name to support the claim that its teaching represented the apostolic faith.
  • Boring (again): Of the ten commentaries, only Grudem, who espouses biblical inerrancy, insists that the letter was written directly by Simon Peter himself (p. 24). Michaels, whose evangelical view of Scripture is more nuanced, allowing for error and pseudonymity, interprets the letter as having been written in the 80s and inclines toward the view that Peter lived until this late date and is in some sense responsible for its content, though he did not necessarily compose it personally. All the others argue for pseudonymity, though some (Goppelt, Davids, Bartlett) think that Silvanus may have had a hand in its actual composition. The reference to Silvanus in 5:12, however, is now almost universally taken as referring to the one responsible for delivering the letter, not to the secretary who assisted in its composition. The two most ardent defenders of traditional Petrine authorship, Grudem and Michaels, both clearly reject the secretary hypothesis. The prevailing view is either that Simon Peter wrote it himself or that it was written in his name by a teacher in the Roman church some years after Peter’s death, with most critical scholars clearly opting for pseudonymity.
• Duane Warden ([4]): The opening words of the letter identify the author as clearly as we might hope. [...] On the basis of this testimony and the common witness of the second century church, few have doubted that the same Peter whom we encounter in the Gospels and in Acts is the author of the letter that bears his name. As expected, there have been doubters, but the evidence supporting the assertion that Simon Peter is the author is overwhelming.
• Frank F. Judd ([5]): During the past couple of centuries, however, some scholars have argued against Petrine authorship of 1 Peter. Yet there are still scholars who hold to the traditional authorship of this epistle.
• This source (not giving its own opinion, just citing two earlier sources): [The letter claims to be by Peter.] However, “despite [the] strongly attested claim of authorship, a significant number— perhaps even a majority—of contemporary scholars deny that Peter was the author of the letter”(Raymond Brown, 1997). [...] Judging by Mark Allen Powell’s introductory text on the NT (2009), Petrine authorship is not as out of favor as it was.
• Michael J. Kruger (here) wrote that "the author of 1 Peter, whom we have every reason to believe to have been the Apostle St. Peter himself" is in agreement with the "current consensus".

Sources for the scholarly view of authorship of 2 Peter

• Ehrman (1997 : 373): In addition, as we will see, scholars are virtually unanimous in thinking that the book of 2 Peter within the New Testament is pseudonymous as well
• Ehrman (1997 : 394): For a variety of reasons, there is less debate about the authorship of 2 Peter than any other pseudepigraphon in the New Testament. The vast majority of critical scholars agree that whoever wrote the book, it was not Jesus' disciple Simon Peter.
• (Patrick A. Tiller's introduction to 2 Peter in the NOASB, p. 2132, simply says that the work is a pseudepigraphon written by someone else, but doesn't mention the proportion of scholars who accept this view, and of course says nothing of a "debate".)
• J. N. D. Kelly (quoted here): scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous.
  • The doctoral student writing the above-linked essay also wrote that "was not written by [Peter]. [...] We conclude, therefore, that the second Epistle is not authentic." is in agreement with the "current consensus".

Source for Peter being married

<ref name="MetzgerCoogan2001">{{cite book|author1=Bruce M. Metzger|author2=Michael D. Coogan|title=The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ls-SDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA287|date=7 June 2001|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-976057-2|page=287}}</ref> Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. There is one passage in an early gospel which talks about Jesus healing Peter's mother-in-law, and possibly one more obscure passage in a Pauline epistle that appears to refer to Peter as being married. Citing modern scholarly texts that say Peter was married seems kind of pointless, since I doubt any of them seriously doubt he was married. A source that specifically names the relevant NT passages should be enough to say all we need to say in this article. The Metzger/Coogan source is insufficient, since "Married, his wife later travelled with him on some of his missionary journeys" is less detail than we currently provide, and probably less than we should provide. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Papacy

The article text as well as the infobox state that Peter was the first "pope". However, one must take into consideration that this office did not yet exist then! Thus, one could only state, at the most, that he was the first Bishop of Rome. I would therefore highly recommend to improve the article and the infobox in an appropriate manner to make sure the correct historical facts are given and the respective terminology applied with respect to the fact that the term pope (lat. papa) is first documented in the end of the 4th century... Opinions?--Hubon (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bishop of Rome and Pope are the same office. The Catholic Church holds that he was the first Pope. I see no reason to change that to Bishop of Rome, as it is already implied (not to mention Bishop of Rome redirects to the article for Pope). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, Willthacheerleader18. Yet, please bear in mind that Bishop of Rome is an office the honorary title pope, first documented under Siricius, has been referring to only after Christianity had become the Roman state religion in 380. Thus, pope can be regarded as a term directly connected to the Roman Church changing into a state-orientated institution claiming universality – a dimension received through the Constantinian shift. And, as I already said, this happened in the 4th century, which is quite a while after Peter's term of office – meaning that there would be in fact quite an anachronistic, not to say ahistorical overtone to it to speak of Peter really as a pope, if you ask me...--Hubon (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There is actually no contemporary evidence that he was even the Bishop of Rome. While the New Testament does refer to leaders of local churches as bishops, the title is nowhere applied to Peter in those texts. Wymspen (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• The current text of the lead states "in the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church the first Bishop of Rome – from the late 4th century on referred to as Pope" which is indisputably verifiable by the reliable sources. Thousands of reliable sources confirm that Roman Catholic Tradition designates him as both the first Bishop of Rome and the first Pope. It doesn't say he himself was, by his contemporaries, called by those titles, merely that he is today called by those titles according to Roman Catholic tradition. There's nothing wrong with that statement, it's perfectly true. We should NOT use scare quotes in the infobox, as is done currently. I will be removing those presently. --Jayron32 16:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with others here that the term "pope" is perfectly acceptable as the article makes it crystal clear that this is the title given to him by the Catholic Church. That is not disputed. Sundayclose (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: @Sundayclose: Thanks for getting involved. By the way, it was me who added the said phrase "from the late 4th century on referred to as Pope" in the article... Now, as I already asked in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Saint Peter & Co., what shall we do with the lemmata and infoboxes in Pope Linus etc. in view of the rightly removed title Pope here (also in the infobox)? Consequently, I would plead for also removing the term Pope in the subsequent articles up to Siricius, under whom the title is first documented as the official [self-]designation for the Bishop of Rome. What do you think?--Hubon (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hubon -- as I said on the Humanities ref. desk., it falls under what I would call "retroactive institutionalization" more than anachronism. In another realm, a football game played in 1967 was called the "AFL-NFL World Championship Game" at the time, but Wikipedia's article on it is titled Super Bowl I (which it was not called in 1967). If Wikipedia refused to recognize the name "Super Bowl I", then we'd be taking a position that today's NFL has no current connection with it or custody over that event to be able to retroactively rename it. Similarly, if we refuse to include St. Peter in various listings of popes, then Wikipedia would be taking a strongly-expressed position that the Roman Catholic church has no meaningful connection or continuity with him -- which sounds like a very definite point of view to me... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with AnonMoos. Leave everything like it is as long as there is a clear distinction between the Catholic Church's position and historical fact, which is the case as far as I can see. Sundayclose (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(after EC) Dear AnonMoos, I see your point. Though, in this very case I would indeed disagree: Wikipedia should be as objective and factual as possible. Of course, the Catholic tradition regarding St. Peter as the first "pope" must be mentioned here. But we should'nt go so far as to treat this biased view on, or – as you put it – "retroactive institutionalization" of Peter's function as a given, e. g. by including Pope in the article names and infoboxes also for the successors, don't you think? To put it in a nutshell: I think this edit of Jayron32's should analogously be applied to Linus, Anacletus and so on – and that ideally for the lemmata, too. Yet, I would not like to just go for it before reaching a consensus on that point.--Hubon (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other if the word Pope is used. My objection was to "Pope" and not Pope (i.e. the use of scare quotes.) It's a perfectly legitimate perspective to refer to him as a Pope, given standard Catholic historiography. It's also best to indicate how he comes to be referred to as pope, which is why it is best dealt with in the article text, the formulation "in the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, Bishop of Rome and Pope" seems fine by me for all early popes who have been retroactively assigned the title after its formal adoption. I also have no problem with, after the explanation, just calling them Pope, but NOT, under any circumstance, calling them "Pope". "Retroactive institutionalization" has the subtext that you have taken a position that his Papacy was illegitimate. I don't hold that either. I take no stance, personally, on the legitimacy of the use of Pope; indeed my personal belief is unimportant here. Reliable sources call him a Pope (and not a "Pope" or "Retroactively legitimate Pope" or anything else) and as such, it's fine. It's a Catholic Church Title, like other titles such as Doctor of the Church or Saint (the latter two of which have ALWAYS been "retroactive") we should defer to Catholic usage as such. We don't call him a "putative Saint" or a retroactive Saint or a "Saint" with scare quotes merely because the title of Saint was granted retroactively. The same with Pope. That being said, we should also have a sentence of context early in the article that explains the nature of the Papacy at that time, which is why I favor the formulation "in the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, Bishop of Rome and Pope", which establishes a distinction from people who we have evidence were invested with those titles in their lifetimes. But we needn't bend over backwards to eradicate all other mentions, or apply scare quotes to them, or anything like that. --Jayron32 16:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32 makes a good point about removing religious titles designated by the Catholic Church. I don't think we need to be removing the title of pope or saint as long as the article is clear about how that title has been given. In fact, I support restoring the title of pope to Saint Peter. This doesn't just apply to Catholic tradition. I don't think we need to change the title of Father Divine either. Sundayclose (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Humph, I would say the titles Pope and Saint differ reasonably since – as you, User:Jayron32, quite rightly already implied – Pope unlike Saint was and is a title given and used during lifetime and, even more, during incumbency. And that exactly makes the difference, I would say. Not to mention the already raised pivotal question whether we should in fact generally take over church titles in usually uncommented compact information formats like article lemmata and infoboxes...--Hubon (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: If you do, however, still insist on the use of Pope, you should indeed probably restore it in the infobox here as the succeeding articles Pope Linus also apply the title Pope Saint. @User:Jayron32: My use of quotes was not at all intended to question the legitimacy in any way; it was only to signal that I was taking over AnonMoos' terminology.--Hubon (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, ultimately, I'm agnostic on the use of Pope here. I lean slightly towards it being OK so long as it has been clarified prior to first use. If natural language can be used to avoid it, so be it as well, but we shouldn't bend over backwards to remove it where it makes things awkward. But what cannot stand is to add scare quotes to the word, or to qualify the usage (if it is used) after the first initial clarification. The use of the title of Pope for these early popes is not wrong. The title Pope is fine, and also not using it is fine, so long as a) we don't degrade the writing when avoiding it (that is, if it is natural to use the word, go ahead and use it) and b) we don't flag the word with scare quotes or qualifiers. --Jayron32 16:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. In fact, I can put up with your final arguments quite well. However, we still need to decide on how to actually proceed for this and the following articles to find a compromise for the most acceptable and consistent solution...--Hubon (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Did the episcopate predate the ordination? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hubon: "Saint was and is a title given and used during lifetime and, even more, during incumbency": Sorry, but I don't follow. Surely you're not saying the title of Saint is given during the person's lifetime? My point is this: Saint is a title given by the Catholic Church (even though non-Catholic traditions use the word). And the title Pope is given by the CC.

"we still need to decide on how to actually proceed for this and the following articles to find a compromise for the most acceptable and consistent solution": Again, I don't quite understand. We are in the midst of a discussion to determine if there is a consensus. There is no necessity for "compromise" unless that is the consensus. Sometimes the consensus is that nothing changes.

Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sundayclose, thanks for joining! Yet, I have to make clear that I wrote above: "Pope unlike Saint was and is a title given and used during lifetime and, even more, during incumbency." So you simply misquoted me there! Apart from that, my mention of consensus was – as I already tried to say for several times now – especially about whether to consistently include the honoric prefix Pope Saint in the respective infoboxes, which I restored here only for the reason of consistency with the succeeding articles, and the term pope for ambiguous lemmata. I hope my concern will become clearer now.--Hubon (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hubon: Ah! My mistake about Saint. I misread. Thanks for the clarification. Nonetheless, my point is that both titles are given by the Catholic Church, so if the rationale to remove Pope is that it is designated by the CC, that suggests that any designation by the CC comes into question, including Saint. But I understand your point about lifetime and incumbency. Regarding consensus, my concern is your comment that we need to "find a compromise." A consensus discussion is not required to find a compromise. Sometimes with consensus, there is compromise, but sometimes the consensus is that nothing changes. So there is no necessity to find a compromise unless that is the consensus. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: ;-) Well, I would say you are philosophical about that point – which is quite refreshing in a way... Whatever you want to call it, I just wanted to put up the previously unquestioned adoption of ecclesiastical terminology here for discussion. Best regards--Hubon (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hubon: Thanks for raising the issue and for your collegiality. Sundayclose (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the "term start" and "term end" references, as they're clearly anachronisms here. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject banners

Having been reverted by Willthacheerleader18, I am wondering why. I removed {{WikiProject Catholicism}} and {{WikiProject Catholicism}} as they are clearly redundant to {{WikiProject Christianity|catholicism=yes|saints=yes}}. Otherwise, why would we not be including {{WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy}}, {{WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy}}, {{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement}}, {{WikiProject Anglicanism}}, and {{WikiProject Lutheranism}}? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting yourself, Willthacheerleader18, but why did we have to go through so many reversions to get there? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Did he even exist?

I can't really seem to find anything online, and I know this isn't really the place to discuss this, but is there even historical evidence to backup the fact that Saint Peter even existed? Is there historical evidence that he was even the first pope?

-- Dpm12 (talk); 31 July 2017, 05:22 PDT. Dpm12 (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Very few would dispute his existence, but the section on "Revisionist views" cites the opinion that "if there was a historical Peter, then all that is known about him is the brief mentions in Galatians". It would be great to expand that section into a more general one on "historicity". StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph

I hope nobody objects to the removal of a paragraph that says no more than that the name "Peter" in various languages is derived from the Latin word Petrus. What is the importance of knowing that this holds not only for Dutch but also for the Flemish variant of what is considered essentially the same language? What is the importance of knowing that this holds for Malayalam? What is the basis for the choice of the languages mentioned rather than, for instance, Czech, Danish, Swedish, Irish, Catalan, and many other languages both within Europe and the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere? On what grounds is it claimed that the Russian name is derived from Latin Petrus rather than from Greek Πέτρος? Athmharbh (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saint Peter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132009311300/http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome to http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit-request

Please remove this sentence: It should be noted, however, that most Biblical scholars (for differing reasons) don't buy the attribution of the Gospel of Mark to its traditional author.

Reason: the cited source "Martin 2009" (a fascinating video lecture) does not discuss the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. 81.131.171.155 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Done — Newslinger talk 01:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2018

Change the wikilink for the phrase "Rock of My Church" in this line from the first paragraph:

According to Catholic teaching, Jesus promised Peter in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew

From "primacy of Simon Peter" to "primacy of Peter."

Reason: the former is a redirect; the latter is the actual target. 108.34.206.74 (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Religious Interpretation section

The line "Although Peter never bore the title of 'Pope', or 'Vicar of Christ', in this sense the Catholic Church considers Peter the first Pope.[139]" is directly contradicted by the citation (139) used to "support" it. 75.112.208.209 (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Petros vs Petra

This article is incorrect in stated that these are the same word: Rock. Although written in Koine Greek, Modern Greek translation renders Πέτρος (rock) as Peter and πέτρα (petra) as Stone. Further according to Strongs Lexicon Πέτρος (as in Peter) translates as: a "piece of" rock (designating something small) while πέτρα (the petra upon which I will build my church) a rock, ledge, cliff, cave, stony ground. A second definition is a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively).

So they are not the same word and the scripture is better translated as: And I say also unto thee, That thou art a small Rock, and upon this LARGE ROCK (the answer that Peter gave that He was the Son of God) I will build my church.

If we ascribe deity to Jesus, it's fair to assume he knew the difference between a pebble (Peter) and the fact that HE (Christ) was the cornerstone that the rest of the bible refers to. But in the end, the point is that Πέτρος and πέτρα are NOT the same word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.138.169 (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Peter was called "Cephas" and Cephas is rock. https://biblehub.com/greek/2786.htm Read about lithos too, Peter was not called a "lithos" but Cephas.

Same old topic. The NT was revealed in Koine Greek, not Aramaic, not Latin. Dictionaries and even Biblehub list both words (SN4074 for Petro and SN4073 for Petra) that give different meanings for each. The word "Peter" in John 1:42 is Petros, not Petra. It's used to elucidate the Aramaic "Cephas" which is not a name in Aramaic.

Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter...The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names." -- Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G.W., Theological dictionary of the New Testament

It's worth noting Peter himself clearly refers Petra to Christ. - MainBody (talk)

Protected until dispute is resolved

Because of an edit war, I have protected this page. The parties to this edit war should be discussing on the talk page and achieving consensus rather than reverting each other back-and-forth. Once the dispute has been resolved here on the talk page, I will unprotect the article. If you cannot work it out among yourselves, see WP:DR for advice on how to bring in outside help. --Jayron32 16:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, what the user Eldhorajan92 says is that Peter was the first bishop of Alexandria or that Peter was the successor of Mark the Evangelist. Mark was the first bishop of Church of Alexandria according to History, the successor of Mark was Anianus of Alexandria. The references that Eldhorajan92 gave all of them say only that Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria Church. He is interpreting a biblical passage but it doesn't say that Peter was the successor of Mark or that Peter founded the Alexandria Church, what he is interpreting is original research.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

IP added 19,194‎ bytes under Saint_Peter#Names_and_etymologies

37.76.65.142 (talk · contribs) has added 19,194‎ bytes under Saint_Peter#Names_and_etymologies. It should be reviewed. I reverted the IP's previous edit that wholesale changed "Jesus" to "Ha Yeshua". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The page had two identical sections, one using "Ha Yeshua" and the other using "Jesus" - I removed the former. Mgs2804 (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You removed other stuff too, which I have corrected. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a while since I last edited an article, and I haven't quite mastered the new visual editor yet. Mgs2804 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Shortened the lead

Apart from re-ordering part of the information of the New Testamentical info on Peter, and renaming one section, I've shortened the lead. The previous lead, in my opinion, was overwhelming with unnecessary details for the uninformed reader. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

As a reminder for future usage:

• Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. (2010), The Remembered Peter: In Ancient Reception and Modern Debate, Mohr Siebeck
• Dunn, James D.G. (2009), Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2019

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. There is some strong support for this move, and perhaps even stronger support to move to some title other than the current or proposed, but it's not sufficient to overcome the much stronger opposition. I suggest a new RM using a multiple choice ranked survey to help determine if there is consensus to move to any other title. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Saint Peter → Peter – From what I can see, this WP:PRIMARYTOPIC name request has not been tried yet. The list on preexisting Peter seems to support the idea of primary topic. In addition, this would be per WP:CONSISTENCY with this short name solution as seen in Primacy of Peter (recently renamed as such on Talk:Primacy of Peter). PPEMES (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose move. Saint Peter is not the primary topic for "Peter"; the name Peter is the primary topic. O.N.R. ^(talk) 17:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Old Naval Rooftops: does that mean that "Saint" must be kept at all costs? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

[See response to inquiry on ONR's user Talk page] In ictu oculi (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Old Naval Rooftops. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 14:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose move. It's amazing how people can keep coming up with alternative doomed proposals here. Per all the many arguments in the earlier discussions linked at the top of the page. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Peter: the saint is not the first one who comes to mind. I'm surprised David is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but generally in history, it is Peter the Apostle who stands out as the main “Peter” rather than any other figure. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Auxilium; tu es petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. ——SerialNumber54129 18:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support of any move: Peter the Apostle, or per @Gerda Arendt: Peter (apostle) - Per consistency with RM result‎ @Amakuru: closed 20 May 2016 moving Talk:Primacy of Simon Peter to Talk:Primacy of Peter. Why not Primacy of Saint Peter? Because WP:RS sources don't use "Saint" with Peter. In the past we've seen massive WP:IDON'TLIKEIT local opposition to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:HONORIFIC and WP:NPOV in previous RMs, but this is an encyclopedia not a high church publication. Even Roman Catholic writers refer to "Peter" as "Peter" in running text. When the GBooks results for churches are excluded almost zero WP:RS sources exist for "Saint Peter". Try the "Peter denied" test this compared to this. Now having clicked these two links please those voting for "Saint" explain why WP:COMMONNAME, WP:HONORIFIC and WP:NPOV should all be ditched for a title that is Anti-WP:COMMONNAME, Anti-WP:HONORIFIC and Anti-WP:NPOV? Why must the normal titling basics of en.Wikipedia be reversed for this article? In ictu oculi (talk 19:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Peter the Apostle to comform to article names for the other apostles, Andrew the Apostle, John the Apostle, Philip the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, Matthew the Apostle, Thomas the Apostle, Jude the Apostle, Paul the Apostle - Epinoia (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Peter the Apostle per above, as Epinoia shows this would adhere to site consistency. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support for Peter the Apostle and King David in the other case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed move. No basis for making the saint the primary topic of "Peter" and like Gerda Arendt I'd question David as well. No opinion on any other move, though I note a move to Peter the Apostle has failed to find concensus in previous discussions. PC78 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, either Peter the Apostle or just Peter. Peter the apostle is best per WP:CONSISTENCY. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC) updated — --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Note WP:CONSISTENCY is not a "major" guideline, and will always be trumped by WP:COMMONNAME, which is why Peter the Apostle has failed before - it just isn't the most common name, while for many/most other apostles it is. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Is “John the Apostle” any more common, though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, but Saint John and John are no good - this has all been covered in sooooooo many previous discussions, which people should read before commenting. Links at head of page. John is not a good situation, given the John the Evangelist situation - two articles for what many still regard as a single figure. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

- but according to MOS:SAINTS, "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint"" - natural disambiguation is provided by "the Apostle" - Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, normally, but by no means always - see last comment just above. You only quote the start: "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint", if such a title is available and the saint is the primary topic for that name" - and then it goes on for quite a while. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

- ps - to maintain neutral point of view, the honorific Saint should not be used in the article title as not everyone regards Peter as a saint - Epinoia (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wow - nobody ever thought of that before!!!! See previous comment. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: - we can do without the condescending sarcasm - remember to assume good faith and treat other editors with respect and civility - Epinoia (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• And here's a ngram from one of the old discussions. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

But you know that's an ngram that includes place names and buildings, which I believe that you yourself posted, if I recall correctly, so why link that rather than a "Peter and Jesus" ngram where "Saint Peter and Jesus" gets zero results? Why not use an ngram excluding place names and buildings when we can do so? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as it fails to meet either criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

So why not move Thomas the Apostle or Bartholomew the Apostle to “Saint Thomas” or “Saint Bartholomew the Apostle”? This isn’t an all Catholic wiki. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. If not th current, then next best is Simon Peter. [6]. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment - the title as proposed is obviously not going to work @PPEMES:. How the history of this article works is someone issues an RM to move from the completely ludicrous (in en.wp terms) "Saint Peter", and those wanting to fix it then disagree about the options, and User:Johnbod, good faith assumed, then gets to keep it at "Saint". It really needs to go to RFC to stop flouting almost every naming convention we have. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"almost", apart of course from WP:COMMONNAME, the most important naming convention of all! All of these have exceptions and wriggle-room, which come into play in difficult cases. This was already an long-running saga before I ever started commenting, in fact reading old discussions is a rather melancholy ubi sunt experience. Fwiw, I think the plain "Peter" would be the best alternative to the current name, which I still prefer. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

But "Saint Peter" is ***NOT*** the WP:COMMONNAME for Peter the apostle, this has been demonstrated clearly - as in the St Peter ngrams below. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per common name and keep as is. Changed my opinion after reading the former RM and saw the 'Saint Peter' n-grams (even if the basilica, square, and other uses are counted in the n-grams this still adds to the universal common name). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: you realize that those n-grams are for buildings not for Peter himself, so why not exclude them? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Peter denied Christ" = zero for "Saint Peter". ngrams for "Peter walked on water", again zero for "Saint Peter". "Peter and Jesus" again zero for "Saint Peter", "Peter was Jesus'", again zero for Saint Peter and now look at this. So Randy, given that we can exclude buildings why not do so? Why not use ngrams to identify what the WP:COMMONNAME is? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Those n-grams are most certainly not "for buildings", but they do include buildings etc., and why shouldn't they? I notice that, having supported "Peter the Apostle" above, you wisely aren't including that in your n-grams. Btw, I don't think you are doing these properly, I'm seeing zero results for both terms in some, & the %s are at homeopathic levels. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously “Peter the Apostle” isn’t commonly used but then neither is “Thomas the Apostle,” “Bartholomew the Apostle,” etc. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, those n-grams most certainly are "for buildings" then. Re. "and why shouldn't they?" because this is an RM for the individual Peter the fisherman. Not for St Peters Cathedral. Why should the names of cathedrals be counted in an article which is not about cathedrals. "Saint Peter and Jesus" gets 867 GBook results vs "Peter and Jesus" gets 128,000 GBook results, yes the current "Saint" title is at homeopathic levels, less than 1%. The whole reason for removing "Saint" is that the 1% is not the WP:COMMONNAME and the 99% without "Saint" is the WP:COMMONNAME. How can you argue that a reading of 1% is WP:COMMONNAME and the 99% is not? I've never seen anything like the resistance to WP:COMMONNAME in any article. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The whole argument of me and many others (in previous discussions) is that Saint Peter is the appropriate WP:COMMONNAME title for the article - everyone knows who is meant. That he is not constantly called "Saint Peter" in running text on biblical or theological topics is neither here nor there. Nor is he called "Peter the Apostle", which you supported above. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

So do you think the term "Peter the Apostle" would confuse people? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure who the "many other (in previous discussions)" are, because in all previous discussions these ngrams of buildings not ngrams of the fisherman kept being cited and WP:COMMONNAME was actually ignored. What that guideline says is Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. With the examples given:

People

• Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)
• Bono (not: Paul Hewson)
• Diocletian (not: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus)

Each of those fits "(as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)", yet here you are opposing GBook results on a scale of 99-1 : per "Saint Peter and Jesus" gets 867 GBook results vs "Peter and Jesus" gets 128,000 GBook results. Are you going to at least concede that "Saint Peter" is not the WP:COMMONNAME in those 128,000 GBook results?? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - fulfils both aspects of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is most likely what people are looking for - this page receives 10 times as many page views as Peter (given name). It is the simplest title, and avoids the slightly Catholic POV of the current title. StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Who searches on internet the name Peter instead of saint Peter? There are many Peters on Wikipedia, when searching for Peter it will be difficult to find. The articles must have the name as this or that person is known. Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Few non-Catholics would go online and do a web search for "Saint Peter." --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Catholic or not: when I do a web search for Peter, the first proposal is Saint eter on Wikipedia, - no reason to move to make that happen. --

There are hundreds of Peters on Wikipedia, who look for "Peter" to refer to saint Peter? No one. Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There are not hundreds of Peters only on Wikipedia. The topic of this discussion regards if there are in fact any more than one at all, considering that all other Peters tend to be disambiguated one way or the other, with family names, etc. PPEMES (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

What other people called "Peter" are remotely as well-known as the original Peter? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The gospels call Peter Peter, or Simon Peter, not Saint Peter. When looking for the apostle Peter, I'd search for exactly that: Peter apostle. Besides, or actually even before: WP:HONORIFIC tells us to avoid religious titles. India-related pages are quite strict in this, though not always (see, for example, Swami Vivekananda). Saint Peter can redirect to "Peter (apostle)", or to Simon Petrus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, in fact, the Bible doesn't use the word "saints" very much, and when it does, it never refers to Peter or Paul by those names. But this is no place for religious discussion; rather, I agree with your points. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A minor character from the New Testament is not more important than Peter the Great and other historical monarchs, who actually had a historical impact. I would support however a rename to "Peter the Apostle", "Simon Peter" or "Cephas" in order to remove the inappropriate honorific "Saint" from the title. Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hardly minor! And I note that the Czar was named after the apostle. StAnselm (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I wouldn't say minor, but I think Peter the Great is a good example of a well-known person called "Peter." --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• To keep clear what the vote counts are: an outright oppose has 10 votes, a general support for move or support for "Peter the Apostle" has 5 votes (including Dimadick's vote), 2 for a move to "Peter", and one in Latin which I don't understand. However, so far those in support of a move to "Peter the Apostle" have been much more in the discussion that those who oppose any more. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

.......the sensible solution here would be a speedy 7 day close, no relist (which will only prolong the agony), and immediately progress an RM to Paul the Apostle consistency, and get the damn article at a title that corresponds to the (see above) 99% of GBook uses without "Saint". In ictu oculi (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Peter the Apostle has already failed five times, and rightly so. Btw, Paul the Apostle is just as crazy and even more against WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Then you've nothing to risk by letting it fail a sixth time. Your solo support for "Saint" can be respected, but since this time the GBook evidence with the churches and squares removed has been presented, why don't you stand back and let that case be heard. It won't be the end of the world if those expressing opposition to your wish and support for consistency with the other apostle articles are allowed to discuss it. Close and new RM now please. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a seven day close and then change our target to "Peter the Apostle" in a new vote; however, if several votes come in supporting "Peter" (like the vote by Slithytoad, we should not close the discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support, per MOS:HONORIFIC. This is a question regarding the use of honorifics, so PRIMARYTOPIC isn't relevant. If it isn't King David or President Lincoln, why would it be Saint Peter? Slithytoad (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If MOS:HONORIFIC is a reason to move, note that "Peter" is also an honorific/epitaph, and that the next best name is the subjects name, Simon Peter. Simon the rock. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

But per WP:COMMONNAME "Peter" needs to be included. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Does "Simon Peter]] not satisfy that requirement. Simon Peter contains "Peter". It is the subjects COMMONNAME, always used in introduction, the nickname used thereafter, and it happens to be the name of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Simon Peter; sorry, I thought you were in support of a page move to "Simon" or something of that nature, which didn't make sense. I'd say that Simon Peter is approximately equally reasonable to "Peter the Apostle." It may well be the better choice, the more I think about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• On the side of support move are the guidelines/policies NPOV, MOS:HONORIFIC, MOS:SAINTS, WP:CONSISTENCY, and WP:COMMONNAME; vs. to some extent WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. On which side are there more guidelines and policies? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That is VAGUEWAVE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that's an essay, though; my point is different here: that, matching head-to-head the policies each side is using as an argument, there are more that match the support of a page move than match the opposition to that move. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose making the saint primary topic; the name is very common and at least as important. No opinion on what the ideal title of the saint article should be, other than not taking over "Peter". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Peter, support Peter the Apostle. T8612 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Peter, support Peter the Apostle. --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Despite the accumulation of supports for "Peter the Apostle", suspect a close and new RM will still be needed because of the mess. Just a word to the "Simon Peter" proposer above, that's going to fly like a lead balloon due to WP:COMMONNAME, it has to be a "Peter"-based solution. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be possible to close tomorrow, after one week? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Famous as he may be, St Peter is not the primary topic for this immensely common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

And even if he were, it would not be a good title for the article. Shorter is not necessarily better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Per Old Naval Rooftops comment. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 14:02, 23 May 2019 (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.

Requested move 24 May 2019

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. While the nominator makes an interesting case and there is certainly more discussion to be had, this appears to be the sixth requested move discussion and the overwhelming consensus is that the WP:COMMONNAME is Saint Peter. The nominator can, of course, file an RFC requesting the community's clarification about whether WP:NPOVTITLE should override WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Edit: "not moved" shall be taken to mean "consensus to not move" per request for clarification on my talk page. SITH (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Saint Peter → ? – WP:NPOV states that we should take a neutral point of view, and unfortunately "Saint Peter" is an example of pro-Catholic bias on Wikipedia. Similarly, MOS:SAINTS states that the word "Saint" shouldn't be included in the name of an individual considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be a saint. Accordingly, (also per suggestions above) a new move request is being made where a few options are necessary: those are "Peter the Apostle," "Simon Peter," "Peter," or "oppose moving the page." To ensure a fair system, the numbers can be assigned as follows: "Peter the Apostle — 1," "Simon Peter — 2," "Peter — 3," and "oppose — 4." Then, when you vote, you can add your highest preference first, followed by second highest, third highest, and then last, like this: 1, 2, 3, 4. My "vote" is 1, 2, 3, 4. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per common and most familiar name. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If you had to pick your order of preference for the three move options, what would it be? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Rather than pick, here is a 1800-2008 n-gram which shows 'Saint Peter' preferred to 'Simon Peter and, last and apparently least, Peter the Apostle. In previous RM's it's been said that names like Saint Peter's Basilica and Saint Peter's Square would affect things like n-grams. So here's the n-gram with 'Saint Peter's' and 'St. Peter's' factored in (click on the blue button). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Peter the Apostle (1) for consistency with other articles: Andrew the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, John the Apostle, Matthew the Apostle, Philip the Apostle, Thomas the Apostle. Peter is the only article on one of the twelve apostles with "saint"; obviously it can't stay like this. Oppose other propositions (2, 3, 4). T8612 (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There are Luke the Evangelist, Mark the Evangelist too. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. By far his commonest and most recognised name. Not just Catholic. Used by many Christian churches. And given he's only notable for being a Christian saint, the proposal makes no sense. This whole debate is painfully pointless and PC, tying ourselves in knots trying to find an alternative name for someone who is commonly known to everyone by the name we already have. It's the sort of thing that just makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. And no, I'm not a Christian. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying we should rename the other "XXX the apostle" articles ? T8612 (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we probably should. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Peter the Apostle (1) per neutrality, uniqueness, and consistency with similar articles (e.g. Paul the Apostle. StAnselm (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is the SIXTH time this has been proposed (including "Peter (apostle)"), and it has always failed, as it will again. As has been abundantly demonstrated in previous discussions, Saint Peter is by far the most common, and is used by many denominations, as well as in effectively secular contexts such as cartoons about the Pearly Gates etc. Precisely because of the lack of a good alternative, it is even used in naming churches etc by Reformed denominations who don't really recognise "saints". User_talk:SelfieCity just reveals his own POV bias by talking of the current name as "an example of pro-Catholic bias on Wikipedia"! We have other "Saint" titles, like Saint Patrick, where it is the best alternative, as here. Not all the apostles are so titled: there's Luke the Evangelist, Mark the Evangelist, and Matthew the Apostle should certainly be changed to be consistent with these (John is a tricky case, with two articles). Consistency is nice, but not the most important principle here. I'd urge people (including the supporters above) to actually read previous debates, listed at the top of the page. There's no need to change this. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

- the article Apostles does not list Luke or Mark as apostles, so their articles are titled Luke the Evangelist and Mark the Evangelist - Matthew and John are listed as apostles, so their articles are titled Matthew the Apostle and John the Apostle - Epinoia (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, and Speedy close as way too soon after the previous close, especially after the hopelessness of the several previous RMs. There would seem to be more of a problem here with MOSSAINT than with this article’s title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Nominator's claim that "MOS:SAINTS states that the word "Saint" shouldn't be included in the name of an individual considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be a saint" is false, or at best, an extreme oversimplification. Relevant quote from MOS:SAINTS:

  Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint", if such a title is available and the saint is the primary topic for that name. If the base name (for example, "Timothy") requires disambiguation due to lack of primary topic for the saint, natural disambiguation has been preferred at Wikipedia. This leads to titles like Saint Timothy and Matthew the Apostle. As the word "Saint" can lead to controversy (depending on who considers whom to be a saint) and possible non-neutrality, other forms of natural disambiguation are typically preferred, all other things being equal.

  Colin M (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, do you want me, in my move request, to replace my "oversimplification" with the whole mouthful you've presented above? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: Maybe you could go from "MOS:SAINTS states that the word "Saint" shouldn't be included in the name of an individual considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be a saint" to something like "MOS:SAINTS recommends avoiding the word "Saint" in titles when other forms of natural disambiguation are available" or "MOS:SAINTS warns that the word "Saint" may be seen as non-neutral in some cases". Colin M (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME is clearly Saint Peter, and the previous RM was arguably a consensus not to move anyway, not nearly enough support to say that some move must be made.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The man is commonly referred to as Saint Peter, often abbreviated to St Peter, and rarely as anything else. While "Peter, the Apostle" is correct, it isn't used. Seems to me that the WP:COMMONNAME guideline is the best and only approach to resolving this issue. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment It seems we have a conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:SAINTS and WP:CONSISTENCY. Question is which rule is the most important? I would not be against keeping Saint Peter, but then we have to rename the other apostles. This is not just about Peter. T8612 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Saint Peter is the name most universally known, if doesn't matter if the word "saint" is in it. I will give an example, the article of Lady Gaga should be called "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta" or as it is universally known "Lady Gaga"? Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

- this is different as Lady Gaga is a stage-name she has adopted for herself, not an honorific imposed by others - see MOS:NICKNAME - Epinoia (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to "Peter the Apostle" (1) to conform to article names for the other apostles, Andrew the Apostle, John the Apostle, Philip the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, Matthew the Apostle, Thomas the Apostle, Jude the Apostle, Paul the Apostle - as per WP:NPOV and MOS:SAINTS to remove religious bias - oppose "Peter" (3) and oppose leaving the article name as it is - Epinoia (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• 1 > 4 > 2 > 3. It's hard to find usage statistics since "Saint Peter" is ambiguous (e.g. St. Peter, Minnesota), so the fact that "Saint Peter" gets more Google hits than "Peter the Apostle" doesn't mean much. Looking at other factors, Peter the Apostle is WP:CONSISTENT with the naming of the other apostles. 3 is definitely out for me, as I don't think he is the primary topic of "Peter". 2 is relatively obscure compared to "Saint Peter" or "Peter the Apostle" and is not necessary when we have good alternatives. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This ranked vote as nominated is fundamentally flawed, and ranked votes in general are not compatible with consensus decision making by discussion. Your revert of the entirely appropriate speedy close was WP:INVOLVED. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• OK, the discussion was reopened? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move per common sense, WP:COMMONNAME, and Randy Kryn's n-gram comparison. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose being fluent in the vocabulary of all major branches of Christianity and also having done a fair amount of discussing the secular study of Christianity, I have not once met a single person who didn't understand who Saint Peter was who would have better understood the others. Yes, this is anecdotal, but in cases like this where you have a figure where the main difference is whether or not one branch of Christianity likes the honourifics that another branch of Christianity gives a person, the question is Of all the options, which one would people of all different backgrounds? essentially COMMONNAME but with a more common sense understanding.
  While there is an NPOV argument to be made, I don't think it outweighs the fact that even those who for religious reasons avoid the title Saint would recognize who you were talking about. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. We've been over this discussion many times. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As noted previously, the proposing users have misrepresented MOS:SAINTS (which is also only a style guide, and not a policy). This is a clear example of WP:COMMONNAME. This can also hardly be characterised as an example of "pro-Catholic bias" per NPOV. Peter is venerated as a "saint" not only in the Roman Catholic Church, but also in all Orthodox and Eastern Churches, in the Anglican communion, and in most mainline (especially Lutheran and Reformed) protestant churches. This reeks of Evangelical POV-pushing. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support move: Peter the Apostle reason, consistency, formality, and the colloquial "Saint Peter" can still be prominent in the lede.-ApexUnderground (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, in fact, Oppose and Speedy Close per SNOW. We just had this discussion. Why are we doing this again? Continually reopening these discussions until you get your way is not appropriate. Also, saying Wikipedia has a "pro-Catholic bias" does nothing but reveal your own biases. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME, as stated by Rockstone35 and Johnbod. (If I may opine for a moment, this discussion was opened far too soon after the closure of the last one. I do hope we're not to be browbeaten into accepting a change.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Since my previous close of this discussion was inappropriately reverted, I've now opened a discussion at WP:ANI. Calidum 18:35, 25 May 2019 (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.

Finish the job: Peter (apostle) per WP:COMMONNAME, becomes Peter the Apostle following en.wp treatment of John and Paul.

Please; we can/should ignore the closing advice of the non-admin closer in above close of 17 May 2019. A mind-bendingly complicated RM is not needed. The abortive RM lightning open close following is also a misstatement: There is only 1 editor defending the current title and sufficient support in the above to follow the WP:COMMONNAME in running text in Gbooks "Peter denied" test etc. and not follow a Google search including buildings and move to "Peter" from "Saint Peter". The only issue then becomes a descriptive disambiguator: Peter (apostle) or Apostle Peter, and we already decided that for Paul the Apostle, Philip the Apostle, John the Apostle, so that is the default. A new RM needs to simply and clearly give that option and run a yes/no RM and then we can put the current POV-grab title to bed finally. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, you could just WP:Drop the stick and move on to something else? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support a formal 6 month moratorium since the close of the last RM. There is nothing wrong with the current title, and there is very little that can be said that has not already been said in the many previous RMs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support "alternatively" a formal 6 month moratorium since the close of the last RM. per SmokeyJoe. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Amakuru; DROP THE STICK. Manannan67 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree to "Drop the stick". Let's move on. JohnThorne (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree "Drop the stick". Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Apostle Peter Released from Prison, Jacopo di Cione, 1370-1371 (Philadelphia Museum of Art).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter & Paul were executed by the Romans on Oct 13, 64 AD - the 10th Anniversary of Nero being Emperor

Peter & Paul were executed by the Romans on Oct 13, 64 AD - the 10th Anniversary of Nero being Emperor. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5861 73.85.203.37 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"NPOV sources"

WP:NPOV as a neutrality policy does not (cannot) apply to sources used by Wikipedia. It is accepted as a given that all sources are biased to some extent, and will naturally not present a neutral point-of-view. We compensate for this in various ways, such as including sources with different biases and viewpoints, and summarizing the prevailing viewpoints (a process known as WP:DUE coverage). It is not helpful to demand primary sources in place of reliable secondary sources, because primary sources are more difficult to use effectively on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed reverting of work of several editors

It is unreasonable to blanket-revert just because "it would be quite a bit of work for not much return to figure out what was worth keeping". It is up to reverting editors to indicate on what grounds they argue that the edits they revert were wrong. If they hold that switching the order of "___ AD" and "AD ___" and changing between "AD" and "A.D." is useful only to unify the style used in this article, they should explain why they think that it better to undo that improvement. Blanket-reverters must give understandable reasons for their blanket-reverting and, if challenged, discuss it on the Talk page. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bealtainemí: What do you mean by "work"? The vast, vast majority of the edits are vandalism and reverts thereof, such that the only substantial change introduced by my "blank revert" was to bring the lead section in accord with the article body and the overwhelming majority of reliable sources with regard to the authorship of the Petrine epistles and the like. This change is a restoration of a version of the lead that has been largely intact for many years, and was changed unilaterally by 2605:E000:1316:8FD6:C932:7694:36F2:49AC in August, and there have been some other changes to the text since then, none improvements, and your recent change to accommodate me has resulted in the obvious typo The Petrine authorship of these two general epistles is generally rejected..[7]., which practically begs POV-pushing IPs and SPAs to come along and remove it with the edit summary "rejected by whom?"

Claiming in a separate sentence that "he appears as the author of First Peter and Second Peter" is problematic in its own way, and the paragraph in question is very poorly written in general. Given that my preferred version of the lead's text has been in place for years, the burden of consensus is on you for trying to change the long-standing WP:STATUSQUO. That being said, how about changing

In the New Testament, Peter is mentioned repeatedly and prominently in all four canonical Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. He is also mentioned either under the name Peter or as Cephas in the First Letter to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians, and he appears as the author of First Peter and Second Peter. The Petrine authorship of these two general epistles is generally rejected..[7]. The Gospel of Mark was traditionally thought to show the influence of Peter's preaching and eyewitness memories.

to

In the New Testament, Peter appears repeatedly and prominently in all four gospels as well as the Acts of the Apostles. The Gospel of Mark was traditionally thought to show the influence of Peter's preaching and eyewitness memories. He is also mentioned, under either the name Peter or Cephas, in Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians and Epistle to the Galatians. The New Testament also includes two general epistles, First Peter and Second Peter, that are traditionally attributed to him, but modern scholarship generally rejects the Petrine authorship of both.

?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The other content you refer to appears to indicate a misunderstanding of my edit: your blank revert restored edits that themselves had introduced inconsistencies in how dates are formatted, while my edit ... is probably inconsistent in other places, but in general it removed inconsistencies rather than restoring them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Hijir88. It seems I must apologize. I must have clicked the wrong button or something. I see now that you were not in fact blanket-reverting, as I thought, but only interested in returning to a text of yours in the introduction of the article. I will not try to explain or defend my mistake. Instead I am returning the introduction to how you edited it at 06:48, 15 October 2020 (this morning), but restoring the edits made not by me but by others outside the introduction, restoring edits such as "url=https://books.google.com/books?" that you removed as indicated in this difference. Then your version of the introduction will be in possession and it will up to be to try to justify any changes I want made. Agreed? Bealtainemí (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean -- I did blank revert to an earlier version of the article from August, but this was done because (i) the lead section has decreased in quality substantially and (ii) the lead section is the only part of the article that has changed substantially. The vast majority of edits to this article in the last two months were reverted immediately, and other edits, like the "url=https://books.google.com/books?" one you point out, seem to be superficial changes to citations, although I will admit I didn't do a comprehensive check of all the changes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You say your objection is only to the lead, not to the rest of the article. The lead has now been returned to what you reverted to. The rest of the article is as it was before your revert. Do you accept that arrangement? Bealtainemí (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead has now been returned to what you reverted to.The lead has now been returned to what you reverted to. What on earth are you talking about? The difference between my version of the lead and the current one is pretty clear.[7] The difference between the lead immediately before my first edit this week and the current version is much smaller.[8] The only change you have admitted is one written by you, and its prose and flow with the rest of the article is poor, similar to the rest of the text that I have a problem with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Attributing

Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WEASEL it is not good enough to have a source when using "weasel words" such as "It has been suggested that..." but you need to attribute that to someone in the prose. Don't expect that a reader will go looking through the refs to find out "who" suggested it. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Place of martyrdom

The Catholic Encyclopedia indicates Peter was martyred in the Neronian Gardens, for which we seem to have no article. I do not think it is useful to specify where on Vatican Hill he was martyred because of the wide variety of assertions found in the literature. I have cited Vatican Hill in the article body, which will suffice for the infobox. Elizium23 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Sundayclose (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

What does significance in other churches have to do with the Church that Saint Peter was with?

User:Pipsally, this article is about the Church that Saint Peter belonged to, not the churches that he is significant in. I don't understand your point there. Following that example, I don't get why for example Popes articles like Linus's or other Bishop's articles on Wikipedia are allowed to state that their Church was the Catholic Church while Linus is venerated by numerous other religions as well. KEleison (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it's a page about Saint Peter. Not Saint Peter in the Catholic church.Pipsally (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

My bad I see that I mistyped this, I meant to say that this article should talk about the Church that Peter belonged to as this is his article. I don't understand why he is listed as having been in the "Early Christian Great Church" while this isn't even a real official thing except for historical sectioning. KEleison (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Well the Catholic church didn't really exist until the council of Nicaea, regardless of what Catholic tradition and hagiography says. He can't have been a member of something that didn't exist until 300 years after his death so the existing version is better.Pipsally (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That seems more like a personal opinion than a historical fact with your claim that the Church didn't really exist until the First Council of Nicaea. There are quotes of Catholic Church's existence through people like Saint Ignatius and Saint Polycarp, Disciple of Saint John for just very few of multiple examples. Sure, at Nicaea it was just written into the official documents as the Catholic Church which was also therefore an inclusion into the Nicean Creed, yet the name Catholic Church existed far before the First Council of Nicaea. Yet regardless of the names, they still refer to the same Church which today is officially called the Catholic Church. KEleison (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

My point is that the Catholic church is not necessarily a reliable source on itself. Tradition and history are not the same thing. And just because a name exists it doesn't mean the the person using it means the same thing as the later usage. Early church is wholly adequate. I will say I can't see why Great Church is in there, since Peter is almost the very definition of primitive christianity.Pipsally (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Jewish origin and martyridom in Rome

The Jewish origin of St Peter is directly sourced in Galatians 2:14 where St Paul says him " “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?". Possibly, the related Greek word refers to the Tribe of Judah, the same of Jesus Christ God and of the saint king David, according to the Genealogy of Jesus.

The martyridom of St. Peter and St. Paul is officially recognized by the Roman Catholic Church of Christ which, each 29th June, venerates the two apostles and martyrs as the saint patrons of the Italian capital.

Tha martyridom of Peter in Rome is mentioned as a biographical data, while the Wp article says it is not sourced in the Bible. Proof of the presence of St Paul in Rome is explicitly given in Acts 28:16, 2 Timothy 2:17 and in Romans 1:7,15. Not solely for St Peter, but also for all of the Twelve, the Bible doesn't say where they spent their last of the earthly life and the way in which they could have arrived in the lands chosen by Jesus.

However, Acts 8:40 refers Philip the Deacon was instantaneously moved from Jerusalem to Azotus by the Holy Spirit God. In an analogue way, the Twelve who had received the Holy Spirit God on the day of Pentecost, could have been moved by the Holy Spirit of God the Son to the assigned episcopal seats. This possible soprannatural reason legittimate to mention Rome in the biography of St Peter, like Patras is referred to the death for martyridom of St Andrew the Apostle. Both of them haven't a direct biblical source, but are widely cited in the subsequent tradition.

Let all the wikipedians have a good Easter in the holy name of the Lord Jesus.Theologian81sp (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Paul's Letters as Evidence of "Cephas" as Name for Saint Peter

I made a change to the article recently as an anonymous user (212.24.137.101) that was subsequently reverted so I wanted to open the subject to discussion.

The specific change was to remove the letters of Paul as a citation for Cephas being etymologically interchangeable with Peter as the name of Saint Peter. I'm not attempting to argue that Cephas is not the Hebrew name of Simon Peter but rather that the letters of Paul are a poor illustration of that association.

The specific citation to Strong's Greek does not support the claim, only indicating that the name Cephas appears in both 1 Corinthians and the letter to the Galatians. Reading those passages however does not clearly indicate that the two names refer to the same person. Take for example Galatians 2:7-9 (quoted here from the ESV),

On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

There is nothing in this text to suggest that Peter and Cephas are the same person. If the reader knew nothing of Christianity, the gospel of John, or church tradition they would likely read these names as referring to different people. Thus I don't think it's a good illustration of both names referring to the Saint. Rather we identify the two names as both referring to the Saint in light of John 1:42.

Thus Paul's letters are an example of us exercising that understanding but do not themselves provide us with clear evidence for that understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentZeppin (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)