Talk:Saint Peter

Consistency with Other Apostles' Articles (No Special Treatment for Peter)

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.

Recognizability and Clarity

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 “Too Catholic” Argument Is Weak

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.

Additional Considerations

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. (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. (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 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)