Talk:apostle

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process..

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


One user pointed sense 4 out as "unreferenced and unlikely". Instead of dismissing that entirely, especially as I'm unaware of that sense myself, I figure RFV would be a good idea. If it's verifiable, we should be able to get citations for it. Even if that happens, though, it should probably be an {{alternative spelling of}}. —Leftmostcat 11:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a separate etymology, as now shown. It is very tedious to cite. Are there any dictionaries or glossaries that include the spelling? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 12:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've given up on trying to verify the challenged sense. I found three other legal senses. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
this should do nicely. The apostilles referred to are defined by the 1961 Hague Convention, so google on apostle 1961 Hague convention will get you lots of hits. The first books hit is Black's, which should be plenty good enough for us. (;-) Robert Ullmann 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a related story: Cambridge_Apostles. --Hekaheka 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to that article, they're called "Apostles" because they originally had twelve members — a reference to a different sense of "apostle". —RuakhTALK 13:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. I tried, but couldn't confirm this sense. Robert's comment above makes it sound like this should be easy to cite, but, well, it's not. (Of course, if anyone thinks they can cite this, they're welcome to restore it and do so.) —RuakhTALK 13:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)