Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was Paul Jewish?

I thought Paul was Jewish, but the lede doesn't state that so I'm wondering if that is correct? The article references Paul's conversion multiple times but I'm not seeing what religion he converted from and to. Wouldn't it be appropriate to add? Pythagimedes (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Move proposal

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. Barring divine intervention, this move request won't pass. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 16:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME (Google Ngram). I would propose to move this article from Paul the Apostle to Paul since Apostle is a title used by Christians. Jews and Muslims refer to him only as Paul. Also, we have Jesus, not Jesus Christ, Omar not Omar Farooq and many on. In the same way, we should have Paul rather than Paul the Apostle. Also when I only search Paul, Paul the Apostle comes up. The move would also satisfy the criteria set by WP:TITLECON, as pages about other prominent figures from that era are titled only by their first names, including Jesus, Barnabas, Ali, etc. Biskut Merry (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose - there are a lot of Paul's in this world, not just this one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment - Well there's a lot of Jesus' and Muhammad's in the world. Yet we have only Jesus and Muhammad articles for them. MullahBalawar 16:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Block-evading sock, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - proposer fails even to consider the ambiguity of the name Paul and fails to propose a move for the existing target page. Although Paul the Apostle may possibly be the most notable individual to bear that name, he clearly is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Not quite the primary topic. O.N.R. (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitly not the wp:PT—blindlynx (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it wouldn't give enough information as the article title to be clear which Paul is being discussed. I agree that "...the Apostle" maybe problematic though in a global context. I do see a lot of other language Wikis saying "Paul of Tarsus" equivalents in their language, maybe that would be clearer without having religious baggage.Dan Carkner (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. No evidence that Apostle is the clear primary over many other similarly named subjects. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Paul links to a disambiguation page - Paul the Apostle is consistent with other page names such as John the Apostle, Andrew the Apostle, Philip the Apostle, etc. - Paul the Apostle satisfies MOS:SAINTS - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree per nom. This article should either simply be Paul or Paul (Christian apostle), Paul (Bibical figure) or something else like this. Paul the Apostle is a title used only by Christians. MullahBalawar (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Block-evading sock, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose MALFORMED the target is a large dab page. And unneeded. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unlike Jesus or Muhammad, Paul is a very common first name in the English-speaking world. The apostle is not the primary topic. JIP | Talk 18:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes and no... Muhammad is among the top ten most popular baby names in the UK these days, for example, Jesus will be a very common first name among people of Latino descent in the US. But I agree that an article named Paul alone will not be clearly referring to this particular historical figure.Dan Carkner (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed title would be highly ambiguous; the current one is clear, and probably more recognizable than any of the alternatives would be. P Aculeius (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose no clear primary topic for just "Paul" even though the Apostle gets the most views[[1]] and Britannica has the article at "St. Paul the Apostle" so perhaps move there. Google shows the film first as does Images but Books seems to return more results for the apostle and the given name has considerable long-term usage and common usage. Also oppose alternatives by MullahBalawar per WP:NATURAL, also "Jesus" is much less ambiguous as well as being more well known and the Britannica article is "Jesus". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Havelock Jones. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to Saint Paul. I agree that moving to "Paul" is far too ambiguous, but highly revered Christian figures tend to have their articles in the form of "Saint [name]" whenever no other figure (or thing) of the same name is notable, for instance, Saint Peter, Saint Nicholas, Saint Patrick, Saint Monica. The use of a suffix instead of "Saint" is usually restricted to figures who share their name with someone just as notable (e.g. Augustine of Hippo, Augustine of Canterbury). Paul is also more popularly recognizable as a saint than an apostle, and I find far more references referring to him as "St Paul" rather than "the Apostle Paul" or "Paul the Apostle", especially in neutral, non-Christian resources. Further, the title "the Apostle" can lead people to mistakenly think that Paul is one of the apostles proper, an easily avoidable confusion. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 03:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
See the previous move requests linked to at the top of the page. That won't fly either. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The nom of the move from "Saint Paul" agrees that the title "Saint" should only be used when the figure is most recognizable by that name. Not only is Paul more recognizable as a saint than an apostle, but the main objection in that move was the religious connotation of the title "saint" (which is why that move was to "Paul of Tarsus"), however, the title "apostle" is equally religious, it is considered a divine office in Christianity believed to be reserved only for who Jesus or God selects. If we are to follow that move's argument, then a move to a fully neutral title like "Paul of Tarsus" or "Paul (biblical figure)" seems the correct result. I think we should just be pragmatic. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 04:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The last move request is seven years old, and the previous discussion of "Saint Paul" is from 2010. Consensus may have changed in that amount of time. I opposed the current proposal, but the one suggested by GN-Z11 makes some sense to me, and actually seems like a better name than the current title. True, there are other articles that it could refer to, but since they are all named after this one, it makes sense to me for this to be considered primary and for disambiguation to be performed using hatnotes. But that would need to be discussed as a separate move proposal, not under this one—this one has gone on too long and has been too one-sided to give subsidiary proposals a chance to be noticed or fairly debated by the participants. Let's wait for this discussion to finish, then someone can propose moving the article to "Saint Paul". P Aculeius (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be fine (finest, indeed) with Saint Paul, but you will get a whole lot of strongly Protestant editors who object strongly - they don't care as much about Saint Peter and later "Saint ...." figures. But give it a try by all means. "Paul of Tarsus" is hopeless. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just noting for the record that the nominator of this RM, Biskut Merry, is a block-evading sockpuppet. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2021

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 section.

Paul the Apostle → Saint Paul – I outlined my rationale for this move in the discussion above, though it was too late to properly discuss it. Per Ngram it's quite obvious how much more common it is to refer to Paul as a saint than an apostle. The usage of "saint" is certainly a moot point (e.g. this move discussion on Saint Peter) but as in many other articles there comes a point where the familiarity of a name overwhelms the need for absolute neutrality. I don't think many readers will get the feeling that we're endorsing the sainthood of Paul by referring to him by what the vast majority of popular and academic resources–Christian and non-Christian–refer to him by. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 05:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Very strong oppose never found in objective 3rd party sources. Completely unheard of in Google Books or even newspapers. Has the nom just searched church names? Yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    • You may have noticed that I deliberately itemized "St Paul's" and "Saint Paul's" in the Ngram link above so as to filter out references to churches. I noticed just now that it shows an error message when opened, but I found that re-clicking the search button fixes that, so be sure to check again. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 08:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
      • "Completely unheard of in Google Books" press x to doubt. -- Calidum 04:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This would be a more natural disambiguation than "Paul the Apostle". JIP | Talk 10:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This article has cycled several times in the past between Paul of Tarsus, Paul the Apostle and Saint Paul, before reaching stability at its current name. There was a detailed discussion of those three options at Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 10#Requested move ending in consensus for the current name. Nothing has changed. Havelock Jones (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe we should choose the best title, not the most stable one. The main argument for the choice of "apostle" over "saint" in that discussion was the supposed prevalence of the name "St Paul" to refer to other topics, but as per P Aculeius in the discussion above there's no reason for them to be more primary than their namesake. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 11:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems like the most likely formulation of all for various reasons. I note that both "St. Paul's" and "Saint Paul's" could refer to the saint as well as churches. But the only church approaching the notability of the saint is Saint Paul's Cathedral in London, which already contains natural disambiguation. And the only other possibility that might approach the same level of notability is probably Saint Paul, Minnesota, which also contains natural disambiguation (part of the reason being the large number of other towns named after the saint).
I have no idea what "objective 3rd party sources" might refer to. If it means "excluding any sources that are concerned with religion", then it's an invalid categorization—it'd be like excluding historical sources about Napoleon or scientific writing about Einstein. As the nominator points out, referring to him as "Saint Paul" doesn't imply any endorsement of his religious worth, views, or whether he should in fact be venerated; it's simply the title by which he's best known. The notion that English language books never call him this is too absurd even to require refutation; and since this is a figure from early Christianity, we wouldn't expect him to pop up in current newspaper articles to any significant degree.
I find the argument that the article title has been "stable" unpersuasive. Clearly there have been different opinions on the best title for this article for years, and there never appears to have been a solid consensus for a single title; the fact that the parties involved chose to stop arguing and leave it at one title for a few years shouldn't determine the outcome now if a consensus for a different title can be reached. If there's no consensus to move it, then it'll stay where it is. If a consensus to move it develops, then it's not particularly relevant how much time has passed since the previous title was adopted. P Aculeius (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, "Saint Paul" and "Apostle Paul" are about equally common. Nobody else is calling him "Paul the Apostle." "St. Paul" is vastly more common than any of the other possibilities, according to this ngram. 99to99 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per MOS:SAINTS – “Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint"”- most importantly, Saint Paul violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as it has a Christian bias; it is not used by Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Taoists, Baháʼís, Jains, etc, - WP:NPOV states, “This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.” – to achieve neutrality in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the title Saint Paul cannot be used – also, using Ngram falls under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Google test and Wikipedia:Search engine test – the accuracy of Ngram searches cannot be determined, which makes the results unverifiable per WP:VERIFY, “All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.” – but all other arguments aside, the only one that really matters is WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by editor consensus – cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- in the previous move discussion, someone pointed out the Christian bias of the term Apostle, but Saint is an honorific bestowed by the Christian church and therefore bears a Christian bias, whereas Apostle is a generic term meaning, in its most literal sense, an emissary - Paul was an apostle, like Joe the Mechanic or Bob the Baker, which means Paul the Apostle achieves a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) - the Wikipedia article on Apostle notes that the term apostle is used in Islam and the Baháʼí faith - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This analysis suggests that we should call him just "Paul." How do you know that Sikhs or Taoists prefer "Paul the Apostle" to "Saint Paul"? The designation "apostle" comes from Paul's own writings: "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God" (Rom. 1:1). 99to99 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- see previous move discussion - to use "Paul" as the article title has disambiguation issues - I didn't say that Sikhs or Taoists prefer "Paul the Apostle", simply that Paul is not regarded as a saint in their religions, so to be inclusive and achieve a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) we need a neutral title for the article, such as Paul the Apostle - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
We would have to do a lot of moving work if this argument is valid. Even Buddha is technically a religiously exclusive honorific; Muslims and Jews won't refer to Siddhartha Gautama as "enlightened" given his teachings, neither would they refer to Mohandas Gandhi as a "mighty spirit" (Mahatma). I feel like it should also be noted that 'saint' is an almost exclusively Christian title on the formal level. No religion as far as I know shares it. Similar situations, overwhelming usage forces our hand, and rightly so. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 16:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- other pages are irrelevant to this discussion - see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages WP:OTHERCONTENT, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page" - as noted in the previous move discussion, Paul the Apostle is consistent with page titles of other Christian apostles, Andrew the Apostle, John the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, Philip the Apostle, Matthew the Apostle, etc., all without the honorific Saint in accordance with Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) - see WP:TITLECON, "Consistency in titles means that: titles for the same kind of subject should not differ in form or structure without good reason" - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Paul is not entirely "the same kind of subject" as the articles you mentioned. All of them are members of the twelve apostles proper, and Paul is not. He is, however, a recognized saint, and therefore of the same subject as the likes of Saint Peter and Saint Patrick, who have their article titles in the proposed format. That, I think, is more consistent. Also, can you clarify how you think other pages are irrelevant to this discussion, yet you also argue that we should keep the title to keep it consistent with other pages? GN-z11 ☎ ★ 18:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- that Paul is not entirely "the same kind of subject" is an opinion - he is known as the apostle to the gentiles and therefore recognized as an apostle so WP:TITLECON applies - there have been move proposals for Saint Peter to Peter the Apostle, but consensus was not reached, I don't know about the status of Saint Patrick - the other articles mentioned, such as Budda and Ghandi, are not related and fall under WP:OTHERCONTENT - Epinoia (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Again Paul is not the exact same kind of subject because he is not a member of the group most commonly known as the "apostles", unlike all of those you mentioned. That's not an opinion, no historian would say there were thirteen apostles. He applied it to himself as he firmly believed God appointed him to be one and therefore deserving of the title... as a honorific, perhaps? He is more unambiguously known as a saint, a more formalized title, and that's why he's far more recognized by it. I mentioned Buddha and Gandhi are mere counterexamples, and they are related as religious figures who have their honorifics attached to them on Wikipedia. Why should we let them be if religiously exclusive honorifics are un-encyclopedic? GN-z11 ☎ ★ 03:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This argument conveniently ignores what the guideline cited goes on to say immediately after the text quoted above says: 'If the base name (for example, "Saint Anne") requires disambiguation due to lack of primary topic for the saint, natural disambiguation has been preferred at Wikipedia. This leads to titles like Saint Anne and Matthew the Apostle.' The guideline explicitly notes that in some cases it is appropriate to use titles such as "Saint Anne" as natural disambiguation when the name along would be ambiguous—as it clearly would be for "Paul", or indeed most saints who share their names with vast numbers of notable and non-notable people throughout history. The subsequent comment about controversial or neutral concerns in such cases specifically refers to cases where different groups contest whether a particular person should be considered a saint—not whether saints are recognized by non-Christians. As far as I know there is no significant disagreement about Paul being a saint, any more than about Peter or most of the other early church fathers; this is just about the least controversial case there could possibly be.
You don't need to be a Christian or subscribe to any of Paul's views to recognize that he is usually called "Saint Paul", more than any other title, whenever it is not already clear from the context who is meant. I realize that this will carry no weight with those who wish to avoid any reference to Christian designations even in topics devoted to Christianity, but I am not a Christian myself, and never have been; I have no particular reverence for Saint Paul—indeed, I have some serious disagreements with some of his teachings. But that's still what he's typically called, and I see no point in pretending otherwise. The argument that he shouldn't be so designated because non-Christians don't believe in saints is a vast oversimplification, and it wrongly and pointlessly suggests that non-Christians are in opposition to Christianity and all its beliefs and traditions, which is not the case at all.
The argument that we should not be guided by what is done in other articles is simply wrong: the titles of other articles do not control the outcome in any particular case, but they should most certainly inform the discussion, and the fact that a number of other articles use the proposed style for the same reason that it is argued this one should is relevant and important, whether or not individual editors find it persuasive. P Aculeius (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- natural disambiguation is achieved by the title Paul the Apostle and satisfies MOS:SAINTS - there is at least one other Saint Paul, Saint Paul of Narbonne - Epinoia (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say that there were no other saints named "Paul". There are probably several. But this one is far and away the most important; most people probably haven't heard of any others, and even those who have wouldn't expect "Saint Paul", mentioned out of context, to refer to any of them. P Aculeius (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
"You don't need to be a Christian or subscribe to any of Paul's views to recognize that he is usually called "Saint Paul", more than any other title" Perhaps in English, though it sounds strange to my ears. In Greece, he is universally known as Απόστολος Παύλος (Apostolos Paulos, Apostle Paul). A google search for the Greek term finds 379,000 results. The term "Άγιος Παύλος (Agios Paulos - Saint Paul) finds 364,000 results. Most of them concern hospitals, a famous beach in Crete, and other saints whose name is Paulos, rather than the Apostle. Dimadick (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe someone did state above that it is very rare for an early religious figure (who is not the main one of their religion) to appear in the news. Even in English most of Google's results for "Saint Paul" in all its forms are local stories from the Minnesota capital. However, in the search results of Google Books/Scholar the majority of them, unsurprisingly, are about Paul. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 03:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Granted, my remark about what he's usually called only addressed what he's usually called in English, since I don't know what he's called in other languages; but that's really all that we're interested in, since this is English Wikipedia, and the title should be based on what he's usually called in English. I have no objection to making exceptions when they seem warranted; but "Saint Paul" seems more natural, more common, and unlikely to cause confusion.
My remarks about not needing to be a Christian to recognize what he's usually called—as well as that about not being one myself—were prompted by the rather strong assertion that calling him a saint is inappropriate because it is somehow offensive to people like me. I don't need or want anyone to tell me what should offend me, assume that I'm offended, or lecture others about how their beliefs are offensive because I don't share them. There's quite enough intolerance going around without people assuming that non-Christians need to be protected from even hearing Christian ideas treated as ordinary, everyday things. But that may be just my personal reaction to something that seems patronizing. I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else; my point was that I don't need anyone walking on eggshells just because I, or people with similar beliefs, are known to exist somewhere in the cosmos. I certainly can't claim to speak for all non-Christians, but I'm pretty sure that most of us don't have the slightest concern about Christian saints being referred to as saints. P Aculeius (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this entirely. None of us are spokesmen for the non-Christian world (or for the Christian world, for that matter.) The guidelines tell us to follow the reliable sources, not to set Christian authors against non-Christians. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that non-Christians are less likely to call the subject "saint." How is "apostle" less Christian than "saint," anyway? 99to99 (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the NGram is unfortunately doomed, as it can't differentiate Paul himself from things named after him. (Catholics do more commonly refer to him as Saint Paul and they're the ones most given to naming things after saints.) Comparing apples to apples, sure it seems one-sided but try and see with a few prepositions and you realize that many of the Saint Paul's are just referring to places and things named after him. Red Slash 07:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - From an internal perspective, Paul repeatedly refers to himself throughout the NT as an ἀπόστολος (transliterated as "apostolos"; see 1 Cor. 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1 in Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece [28th ed., 2012] as a number of examples). This word is (obviously) translated as apostle. Paul calls himself "an apostle to the Gentiles" (see Rom. 11:13 ESV). Luke refers to Paul alongside Barnabas as an ἀπόστολοι (transliterated as the plural "apostoloi"; see Acts 14:14 in NA28). Paul is clearly a "saint" alongside fellow believers when addressing Christians in Corinth (see 1 Cor. 1:2 ESV)—but he is never named as "Saint Paul" within the NT text anywhere. I personally feel that preferring "Saint Paul" as the page name drifts away from the weighty witness found in the primary source. VistaSunset (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
By that logic, we wouldn't refer to "Saint Peter" either—the New Testament isn't going to call anyone a "saint", least of all in speech by persons referring to themselves. I'm completely baffled by the reasons being given for opposing the nomination: 1) nobody calls him this in "objective 3rd party sources"; 2) some churches are named after him, although the only notable examples are called things like "Saint Paul's Cathedral"; 3) the article shouldn't be moved now because it hasn't been moved for several years; 4) calling him a saint is offensive to non-Christians; 5) Google can't distinguish between "Saint Paul" and "Saint Paul's Foo"; 6) he doesn't call himself a saint in the New Testament. Arguments should be based on actual Wikipedia article titling policy: what is the subject usually called in English? Not what does the subject refer to himself as in the New Testament, not whether other things that people, rather than internet search engines, can easily distinguish from the subject are named after him, and not whether non-Christians should be offended by Christians venerating certain people as "saints". These are not logical, policy-based arguments—it's more of a "throw it against the wall to see if it sticks" approach, with the only common theme being "I don't like it". P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – a little note about many things being named "Saint Paul". How is this used as an argument against the move? In fact it just further reflects how ubiquitous the "Saint" reference is; there's a reason why there isn't an Apostle Paul's Cathedral or Paul the Apostle, Minnesota. While I couldn't prove just how much those other things distort Ngram results, just ask yourself how many detailed tomes about US state capitals and cathedrals and beaches would have to exist in order to render the data completely unusable. 18 of the first 20 search results on Google Books for "Saint Paul" are about Paul, so are 19 of the first 20 on Google Scholar (excl. results pushed up due to author name). GN-z11 ☎ ★ 18:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
    Three reasons:
  1. first, it's not really an argument AGAINST, just saying that you can't go "hurr durr look at all these Ngrams" (not accusing anyone of doing that, of course!). That's all people are saying.
  2. second, remember that Catholics like calling him "Saint Paul" and they also like naming things after their saints. People who don't call him "Saint Paul" are also pretty unlikely to name things after him. Caiaphas wasn't going around naming cities after "Paul the Heretic"
  3. third, there's an argument to be maed for WP:NATURAL disambiguation. An article titled "Paul the Apostle" is 100% going to be about, well, Paul the apostle. But an article titled "Saint Paul" could be considered by a reasonable (if ignorant) person to be about one of the many things named after him, like the capital of Minnesota. If people really can't decide, that's a minor incentive to keep the title where it is; it is less ambiguous. Red Slash 05:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Of the tediously endless amount of argument I wrote for this move, only two sentences were about Ngram, and it was only one link. It was indeed a Roman Catholic who named the Minnesotan city after the saint, but that's far from the case everywhere–for instance the cathedral is Anglican. Think about your case in a more practical way, what would the reader do. If they type "Saint Paul" in the WP search bar, the first result that would come up is a redirect to Paul's page. If we changed the title, the first result will simply be the link to the page. There is no difference. If they type "Saint Paul" on Google, the first result is the apostle's WP page, but there is an indented link to the city, which has more than enough disambiguation in its title that the only people realistically affected would be those with severe visual difficulties. By the way, other than the city, is there any other thing named only "Saint Paul" that is sufficiently notable to be considered? GN-z11 ☎ ★ 14:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - He is frequently referred to as just "Paul" (in context). Only certain (albeit large) denominations use the term St./Saint Paul, or saint anybody. More to the point, Protestant and academic studies publications will refer to him as the Apostle Paul (or similar) and then Paul thereafter, where Roman Catholic publications will often refer him as St. Paul throughout, making it seems as it this is a more common term for him in Google searches, but not making it a universal term for him. More important, Wikipedia naming policy is to avoid such honorific as "Saint" in article names when another term can be used. This is clearly the case here. tahc chat 21:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
"Apostle" is equally honorific. Why do you think Paul went to such strenuous ends so that it gets applied to himself? Apostles are believed by mainstream Christians to be divinely appointed confidants of Jesus, we should not deem it as not honorific on the basis of its other senses any more than we should deem "saint" not honorific because it also is used to refer to a virtuous person or a Mormon. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 14:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clearly goes against MOS:Saints. "Saint" is clearly a religious honorific, and overtly sectarian. "X the Apostle" is a disambiguator, not an honorific. It is commonly used in neutral sources (e.g. histories). Walrasiad (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Please show me where in the MOS link does it "clearly" state that 'Saint' cannot ever be used even when it is by far the most used title for a person. The MOS states "other forms of natural disambiguation are typically preferred, all other things being equal" and that is exactly my point, other things are not equal. Nobody outside learned spheres recognizes Paul as am apostle more than a saint, and even in academia the latter it is his most common title as I've shown a few times above. The title "apostle" can create much confusion between Paul and the proper group called the "apostles", making it a very shadowy "natural" disambiguation at best. In fact, you could argue that the title "apostle" is actually even more honorific than 'saint', for only 12 (+ Paul, loosely) people had the privilege of bearing it according to Christianity, compared to the thousands upon thousands of saints. In Christianity it is believed that Jesus gave the apostles overarching heavenly roles, such as judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Lk 22:30). Wikipedia shouldn't be overtly endorsing such theology as a neutral encyclopedia, which is why we should simply refer to the most common and most recognizable and far less confusing disambiguator, which in this case is "Saint". Or, if you do really believe your objection, you should realistically be nominating to move the page to "Paul of Tarsus", therefore relieving the article of all honorifics. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 05:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
This is not a Christian encyclopedia. "Apostle" is not an honorific, it is a disambiguating descriptor. "Saint" is a religious honor granted by the Roman Catholic Church to anybody after a process of religious beatification and canonization. "Apostle" is not, it is historically specific, and sufficiently disambiguating . "Paul the Apostle" is perfectly natural, and used commonly in non-religious and non-Christian literature, indeed we use that appellation on the title pages of practically all of the apostles. I might prefer "Paul of Tarsus", but that is not proposed in this RM. I am replying to this RM. Walrasiad (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Paul is an apostle because he called himself this in his letters and the church recognizes these letters as canon. How is that different? Is the issue that "saint" comes before his name and "apostle" comes afterward? That is just Wikipedia! On Gbooks, "Apostle Paul" is vastly more common than "Paul the Apostle."[2] 99to99 (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Historians also recognize these letters, they are cultural-historical documents from the 1st Century. Whether or not they're regarded as canonical by the Catholic Church does not change that. Walrasiad (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Simply denying that "apostle" an honorific isn't going to magically stop it being an honorific, and an extraordinary one at that as I've explained above. I'm aware this is not a Christian encyclopedia, but just how is "apostle" less Christian than "saint"? Both have equally honorable and exclusively Christian connotations, so we are just forced to refer to the most used one. No Wikipedia policy tells us to be so utterly neutral that any title with religious connotations must be instantly scrapped, which, if we are going to do, gets us back to "Paul of Tarsus", which is never going to get past COMMONNAME objections. We're stuck with two very religious honorifics, and policy tells us to pick the most common one if that's the case. I honestly don't understand the mental gymnastics. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 15:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I know what I have to do to become a "Saint". What do I have to do to become an "Apostle"? Walrasiad (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not about anything that you can do or not do. It is about the will of God calling you to be his messenger, according to 1Co 1:1. If the Corinthians support you, that's a big plus, according to 1Co 9:2. 99to99 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said in the previous RM the Britannica article is at "St. Paul the Apostle" but that title appears to be against MOS:Saints however I'd argue that "Saint Paul" is likely the common name in England due to how churches are named namely "St Paul's Church" so I'm not sure about this one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't agree with the premise that it violates MOS:Saints; but move discussions on this article have occurred multiple times in the past. Discussion on the current article title was done in the past and consensus was reached. Nothing has changed that would negate that consensus. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The move history shown in the banner indicates that the article was moved five times over a relatively short period, with two further proposals failing to achieve consensus, not including the one above, in the course of which this proposal was generated. I respectfully submit that this shows a decided lack of consensus about the best title. If you think that "Saint Paul" is the most suitable title, then there is nothing about the article's history that should prevent you from supporting that move. The fact that we may be unable to achieve consensus due to the number of people who think that "saint" is non-neutral shouldn't determine your opinion about whether it's a better title. P Aculeius (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as best fit with WP:COMMONNAME - this is unambiguous, and as Paul is impossible, fits MOS:Saints. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no reason to move as the title is already being disambiguated and in WP:NPOV. This proposal is obviously an attempt to favor the Christian POV. Jerm (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, right. I think you'll find the most strongly Christian commenters above are against it. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
And there are also Christian commenters who support it...so whatever. Jerm (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose MOS:SAINTS advises against "Saint", and while the vast majority of churches and towns named after this person are variants of Saint Paul, that (paradoxically) adds to the confusion when referring to the person that way. Also he didn't identify as a Saint during his life, as that is a posthumous title (and one established by the church well after his death). Overall, while there is an argument for this move, I prefer the current title. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose MOS:Saints clearly states "other forms of natural disambiguation are typically preferred, all other things being equal". AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What splitting the difference Saint Paul the Apostle VinceBautista (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak support: Still think "Paul of Tarsus" identifies him, is to the point, and avoids contentious terminology. Manannan67 (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apostle or Missionary

I think writing Paul the Apostle was a Christian missionary is much better since Apostle in Christianity refers to the Twelve Disciples of Jesus/Īsā and Paul is not one of the twelve apostles. Writing Paul the Apostle was a Christian apostle is wrong. This should be changed to Paul the Apostle was a Christian preacher or Christian missionary. ShuratiMuslim 16:28, 4 October 2021sock puppet edits - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial/Archive#08 October 2021

a disciple is a follower or student, an apostle is an emisssary, one who is authorized to convey a message - while Paul was not one of the original twelve disciples, he could still be an apostle, and is known as the apostle to the gentiles - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_the_Apostle/Archive_14&oldid=1061015413"