Talk:Saint Peter#Requested move 24 May 2019

According to the acts of the Apposes, Peter and John were sent from Jerusalem to Samaria. 1.141.63.121 (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:What the heck is "Apposes"? Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

::i think he misspelled it so i bet Apostles it was JesusChristismySavior777 (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The current lead image (henceforth Image A) should be changed to this one (henceforth Image B) or its variants (images B1, B2 and B3, see below) for the following reasons:{{Multiple image

| direction = horizontal

| total_width = 300

| image1 = Pope-peter pprubens.jpg

| caption1 = Image A

| image2 = Petersinai.jpg

| caption2 = Image B

}}

For Image B:

1. Neutrality (Image A is an intrinstically Roman Catholic (RC) image, as it was made in the 17th century by a RC painter depicting St Peter in (most likely) anachronistic RC vestments and holding the keys of Heaven; while Image B was made in the early 6th century in the Byzantine style, when both the RC and Eastern Orthodox (EO) Church were one; in other words, it is acceptable to more people than Image A, refer to the Jesus article's lead image and its discussion)
2. Already used by other language Wikipedias (Currently, Image B and its variants are used as the lead image on 8 language WP articles for {{Interlanguage link|Saint Peter ABC|lt=St Peter|be|Пётр (апостал)|ca|Sant Pere|cv|Петĕр апостол|es|Simón Pedro|he|פטרוס|ru|Апостол Пётр|am|ቅዱስ ጴጥሮስ|de|Simon Peter}} himself, used elsewhere in ~6 Peter articles as well as the lead image on Serbo-Croatian "Peter (name)" and various language WP articles on encaustic painting and {{Interlanguage link|Saint Peter (Sinai)|lt=Image B|el|Ο Άγιος Πέτρος (αγιογραφία)|it|San Pietro (Monastero di Santa Caterina in Egitto)|ru|Апостол Пётр (икона из Синайского монастыря)|uz|Havoriy Butrus Sinay ibodatxonasi ikonasi}} itself. This means it has already been considered as a suitable (lead) image by various editors of different backgrounds)
3. Notability (Image B has its own Wikipedia article in 4 languages (albeit not yet in English, refer to {{Interlanguage link|Saint Peter (Sinai)|lt=Image B|el|Ο Άγιος Πέτρος (αγιογραφία)|it|San Pietro (Monastero di Santa Caterina in Egitto)|ru|Апостол Пётр (икона из Синайского монастыря)|uz|Havoriy Butrus Sinay ibodatxonasi ikonasi}}), while Image A does not have its own WP article anywhere (verified by looking at its global usage on Wikimedia Commons)
4. Age (Not much of an argument, but as previously said, Image B is over 1000 years older than Image A)

{{Multiple image

| direction = horizontal

| total_width = 300

| image1 = St Peter Icon Sinai 7th century.jpg

| caption1 = Image B1

| image2 = Saint Peter-Sinai (6th Century).jpg

| caption2 = Image B2

| image3 = Peter Sinai - cropped.jpg

| caption3 = Image B3

}}

File:Saint Peter-Sinai (6th Century) Crop.jpg

Against Image A:

1. Violation of WP:UNDUE (having the lead image showing St Peter in anachronistic RC vestments gives undue weight to the RC perspective on him. Is the RC perspective significant? Yes. But is it the one that should be placed first and foremost in the article? No. Especially not when we have more neutral images available (refer to point 1 above)
2. By extension, an example of WP:GLOBAL and systemic bias (having not just the lead image but a majority of the article's images be RC Renaissance paintings and the vast majority simply being of RC Western European origin is a clear example of such bias.)

I hope I have illustrated my points clearly and directly. My personal preference goes towards Image B3 as it depicts only St Peter, has a reasonable image quality and isn't too tall like the others, however all are acceptable to me, besides Image B2, which is a massive ~ 8,000px by 13,000px so it's not ideal for most readers. I hope a consensus can be reached speedily. Cheers!

𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 13:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:B2 is better, as it automatically loads as a lower resolution image when opening the article. I happen to have this icon hanging in my home, so I am a fan of it over the painting. From an encyclopedic standpoint, it's really no better or worse than the other options. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::Fair enough; I wasn't aware WP autoloads it at a lower resolution, so besides that (and that I cropped Image B2 similarly to Image B3, to create Image B4; the current new lead image), I, nor I hope anyone else, should have any issue with the new lead image. Cheers! 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 16:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:There is a significant color difference between Image B and Image B3. Image B is clearer and has higher contrast. I recommend using a cropped version of Image B. EXANXC (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Changed my mind. It looks like Image B3 is better because it has a higher resolution than Image B. EXANXC (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• The reasons given in the nom are pretty poor, except for B being much earlier, and it is also much closer to the very consistent "look" of Peter from the earliest images of him, in both East and West. I'll leave which version of B to others. I certainly don't accept that Catholic or Orthodox images are not acceptable or non-neutral. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Supposing the Rubens painting is replaced, should this imply that the other apostolado paintings be edited out in the other apostles' articles? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Marco Zoppo, Saint Peter, c. 1468, NGA 414.jpg

• Image A is one of a set of Twelve Apostles by Rubens which are used as the lead images for all eleven other articles. That said, I've never thought the painting of Saint Peter was a very appropriate choice as a lead image for his article, because it isn't a typical example of his iconography. A more typical depiction (particularly in the colours of the drapery) is Image C, which has previously been a lead image of this article. {{pb}} I've noticed a tendency in earlier discussions like this to prefer older images, which has resulted in the current lead images at Jesus (another icon from Saint Catherine's Monastery) and Mary, mother of Jesus (an icon of about the same age). I think those choices are for the best, on the whole, but I'm dubious of any suggestion that older means more authentic; all three icons are from about 500 years after their subjects' lives. In my opinion a typical representation that allows one to identify other artistic depictions of the person is far more important than any attempt at a historically accurate image. For that reason my first preference is Image C, where Peter's main attributes, the keys of Heaven, are shown very clearly. (They're in Image B, too.) {{pb}} I see that a crop of B2 has now been used, which I've added above as B4. That would be my second preference, for the same reasons that the icons have been used at Jesus and Mary, mother of Jesus, but I think the colours should be lightened if that one is used. Ham II (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Technically speaking, the lead image for Jude is by Van Dyck and isn't a part of the set. Indeed, I have been unable to find a complete apostolado of all twelve apostles. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Firstly, thanks for adding Image B4 for future reference. I was planning to do so but you beat me to it!

:Regarding me bringing up the age, its related to my point on notability. Obviously, it isn't a contemporary likeness of Saint Peter, but regardless it still depicts Peter with his notable attributes (silver hair, connected beard, keys of heaven and halo), perhaps not as clearly as Image C but still visible.

:Another thing is that Image C shows facing to the right, which doesn't seem ideal as a lead image, when there are better alternatives in this regard (Image B shows Peter looking towards the viewer, Image A still shows his body facing somewhat to the viewer)

:Regarding the Rubens' paintings used on all the Apostles' lead images, it's a neat thing, I must admit although it simultaneously doesn't bring about much diversity in artwork. Perhaps this collage of only Rubens' paintings would work well in a table (like this one), but not as a hidden "easter egg" collage only someone paying attention notices by hovering above the wikilinks of the Apostles.

:Lastly, the colours can absolutely be improved in Image B4, although I do not have the knowledge to do so while simultaneously keeping the very high resolution. Perhaps someone experienced in photo editing can do so.

:Cheers! 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'd also be happy going back to C, perhaps cropped shorter. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Would opt for B3 or B4, the present 6th century image. It's much older and, to me, a Peter with more personality who, with well-painted eyes and expression, is in the present with the viewer. Holding the symbols of his office make good pictures too, but the older representation also seems consistent with the Jesus and Mary articles opening images. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

the thing is the lead image right now is NOT the earliest. i call for yet another change in the lead image. THIS is the first image of Saint Peter File:Saint Peter.webpthis image is from the fourth century. correct me when im wrong i just don’t get the change to the current lead image when it’s not the first this is from a monastery and this is 2 centuries before the current so i call for a change! this was well before the East-West Schism Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:For starters, that image is a really bad photo of a poorly preserved image. Unfortunately, artistic quality does play a part. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, plus a 4th-century image "from a monastery" seems a rather dubious claim frankly. Where exactly is it from? Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::it's from the Roman catacombs of St. Tecla and this dates back to the fourth century this info is from aleteia.org JesusChristismySavior777 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::the thing is that it is well before the current lead image and i think the people can see it really well JesusChristismySavior777 (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. So not from a monastery at all. Nor very clear. The current image was chosen because it was early; I don't think was every claimed to be the earliest. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::ok fine ill remove the comment Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::sorry bro it cant seem to delete the comment Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit request|answered=yes}}

The Burial section links to St. Peter's Basilica when referring instead to Old St. Peter's Basilica. 2601:642:4F84:1590:99F1:DB11:4E28:C0F1 (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} LizardJr8 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Pope-peter_pprubens.jpg

I'm proposing that we restore the previous lead image of St. Peter's painting by Peter Paul Rubens for the following reasons:

All other Wikipedia articles on Jesus’ apostles currently use paintings by Peter Paul Rubens. There is no clear justification for treating St. Peter differently. I don't believe Peter should receive special treatment compared to the other apostles.

Wikipedia articles should strive for consistency, especially across closely related topics. Using a Rubens painting for every apostle except Peter creates an unnecessary visual inconsistency. A reader comparing the Twelve Apostles’ articles would notice the sudden shift in style for Peter—without good reason. This goes against the principles outlined in WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:COHERENCE.

If WP:SYSTEMICBIAS were a concern, then all apostle articles should avoid Western art, not just Peter’s. For example, St. Andrew (regarded as the first bishop of Constantinople in Eastern Orthodoxy) still uses a Rubens painting.

The Rubens painting is instantly recognizable as St. Peter due to the Keys of Heaven, a traditional and clear visual identifier. It is also more visually intact and less ambiguous than the current image, the Mount Sinai icon, which is significantly damaged and harder for readers to interpret. It's unclear whether Peter is holding three keys, and the image overall lacks clarity.

This change aligns with WP:USEFUL by ensuring the lead image enhances the reader's understanding of the subject. The Rubens painting is more familiar and accessible to the general public than a 6th-century icon in poor condition.

The primary difference between the two images is the presence of the pallium in the Rubens painting. Both depict Peter with keys and a robe—symbols already strongly associated with the Catholic tradition. If the concern is reducing "Catholic imagery," the current icon does not achieve that goal. In fact, many modern Eastern Orthodox icons omit the keys altogether, while this ancient one retains them. Despite its age, the icon still leans toward Catholic symbolism while being harder to interpret.

A newer, clearer image is preferable to an ancient but highly deteriorated one—especially when clarity is important for general readers.

Many readers consult Wikipedia for images to use in educational or creative projects. A consistent, high-quality set of images for the apostles—such as those by Rubens—would be more helpful and visually coherent than a mix of artistic styles.

Finally, giving Peter a unique, ancient image suggests a higher level of precedence compared to the other apostles, which I don’t believe is appropriate in this context. If I find this inconsistency problematic, it’s likely that others do as well.

The Rubens painting served as the lead image for many years without issue. To avoid repeated disputes, I believe it's best to reach consensus now. Thanks! EXANXC (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is there any particular reason to use Flemish Baroque painting to illustrate New Testament figures, as opposed to other artistic traditions? The style is highly distinctive, but it was an ideological product of the Counter-Reformation and its symbolism was following Catholic traditions. Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think any of the images used in the articles on the Twelve Apostles (9/12 by Peter Paul Rubens) follow specifically RC traditions. They reflect Early Christian traditions shared by RC, EO, and even many Protestants. For example,

::* St. Andrew is shown with a St. Andrews' cross, just like in the EO Menologion of Basil II (1000 AD), which shows him on a cross.

::* St. Philip is also depicted with a cross, as both RC and EO traditions agree that he was crucified. ([https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2022/11/14/103299-holy-all-praised-apostle-philip source])

::* St. Bartholomew is shown holding a knife, in line with the tradition held by both RC and EO that he was flayed (with knives) and then beheaded. ([https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/0215/06/11/101690-apostle-bartholomew-of-the-twelve source])

::On the other hand, the use of EO icons, even from the first thousand years of Christianity, can be problematic since they often lack distinct characteristics except for the names. So, I think it's better to have a clear set of images in the same style and by the same painter, if possible, to maintain visual consistency. And for that, we only have the set of ten paintings by Peter Paul Rubens (according to my knowledge). EXANXC (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• OpposeThere is absolutely no need to have "a clear set of images in the same style and by the same painter, if possible, to maintain visual consistency", in fact variety would be much better. If 9/12 are by Rubens, that seems far too many. Earlier Western images will be less jarring to EO sensibilities, though it's true that EO icons have less in the way of specific attributes. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing wrong with using an ancient image to introduce a real ancient person, even a saintly one. It's done routinely for kings, popes and other saints. The icon illustrates a consensus around Peter's appearance in a way that PPR's hyperbolic portrait does not. EXANXC's appeal to "consistency and coherence" appears to invent an image choice norm out of thin air. All of that said, the icon image currently used is one of the more drab renderings available, more so than the one used in articles about the icon or [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St._Peter_(portrayed_as_a_Roman_consul).jpg this] particularly bright rendering.2601:642:4F84:1590:B88C:7053:3C3A:4D08 (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :If we can't change it to the previous one at least we should use a more clear and bright version of the current image. EXANXC (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics believe that Saint Peter was first among equals so let's just stick with the current lead image. Plus the current image (like when he said) is way older. Saint Peter still has his keys in the current image. If the other apostles have Peter Paul Rubens paintings in their lead images then that's fine. Nothing's wrong with Saint Peter standing out because he is first among equals as the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox agree. The only reason why Constantinople is now first among equals in the Holy Orthodox Church is because Rome split. Before the East-West Schism, Rome was first among equals so like I said nothing's wrong with Saint Peter standing out. JesusChristismySavior777 (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)