Talk:Edmund the Martyr/Archive 1

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

Dates

The wording of this latest change appears confused, but it could imply there is a need for a large-scale revision of the dates in several articles dealing with English history around the time of the invasion of East Anglia and Wessex by the Great Heathen Army. Maybe there is, but this needs discussion and clear sources. PatGallacher 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England article "Edmund, St, King of East Anglia" [authored by Marco Mostert], begins:"The Anglo Saxon Chronicle (MS. A) notes the death of King Edmund of East Anglia at the hands of a Viking army under 870 (=869)." Seems pretty clear cut. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have we got the right dates for the Viking invasion of Wessex fairly soon afterwards then? PatGallacher 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The attack on Alfred at Chippenham was on 6 January 878, Alfred collected an armyat Easter 878, and the battle of Eddington was fought in the summer of 878. As of 878, the Great Army had taken large parts of Mercia and Northumbria, but it wouldn't be true to say that they had conquered either completely. Ceolwulf (II) was still king in Mercia, probably until 879x881. Most likely he was killed in battle in north Wales, and not fighting Danes. Claims that Ceolwulf was a puppet king bear more than a passing resemblance to the blackening of King John Balliol's reputation after Bruce became king. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As the person who inserted this edit, may I provide a reference? Follow the link to the Edmund pages of the Western Michigan University Medieval Institute (on the main page) and click on the article by Dorothy Whitelock Fact and Fiction in the Legend of St Edmund, where the dating of the martyrdom is discussed.Edmund869 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's here. Interesting stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually what I was thinking about was the first major Viking invasion of Wessex, when Ethelred was king but he died and Alfred took over, which included battles like Ashdown and Marten. Was this in 870 or 871? Did the Great Heathen Army move on to Wessex more or less immediately after killing Edmund, or was there a gap of about a year? PatGallacher 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the most recent scholarship, as exemplified by Michael Swanton's edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (revised edition 2000) the Great Army stayed in East Anglia for most of 870, arriving in Reading in the late Autumn. The first battle (Englefield ) is dated 870, the others you mention are given an 871 date.The Danes were reinforced by the Summer fleet that arrived in the Thames just before Easter, and Alfred's brother Aethelred was killed soon after Easter. Alfred therefore came to the throne of Wessex about 18 months after Edmund was killed in East Anglia. Towards the end of 871 the Danes left Reading for London.Edmund869 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That answers some questions, but still leaves some others. I thought the "Great Summer Army" was Bagsecg's army, who was killed at Ashdown in January some year. So what year did he and his army arrive? Or is the "Summer fleet" something different and later from Bagsecg? PatGallacher 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is quite clear from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the battle of Ashdown (and therefore the death of Bagsecg) preceded the arrival of the summer army (or fleet - the Old English word is sumerlida). Both events occurred between January and September 871, so there is no conflict between the Anglo-Saxon year (September to August) and the modern year.I do not know how the tradition that Bagsecg came over with a summer army arose, but I am not aware of any contemporary sources that would support this idea - which is not to say that they do not exist. As far as the Chronicle is concerned, Bagsecg is only mentioned once, when his death is recorded.Edmund869 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica gives Edmund's death date as Nov. 20 870. PatGallacher 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Blackwell Enyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England says 869. No contest. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For editing on 23 April 2007. Battle site: Dernford in Cambridgeshire - see link on subject page. Bradfield St Clare as site of capture / martydom.; short note in the proceeding of the Suffolk Institute (paper by Stanley West) Edmund Patrick 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

869 seems to be the accepted date. Also listed as such in the trusted Oxford Dictionary of the Chritian Church -- SECisek 12:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Link

removed link to homosexuals. as neither back up the assertion that he was / is the patron saint. --Edmund Patrick 18:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross of St. Edmund

Please can someone cite some sources to support the Cross of St. Edmund. (please remember to sign. thanks --Edmund Patrick 13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

edits by 79.72.229.201

can anyone verify the preposition that However, since saints are canonised and assigned patronages by the Catholic church as I feel that this is incorrect. one has to say that other religions have figures that can be equated to patron saints. an other addition - However, this is not true since, as Perrin (1922) states, the prohibition of the veneration of saints Edmund and Edward (the Confessor) occured during the Reformation, specifically, under the reign of Edward II and the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer I cannot find in Perrin am I missing it? And Indeed, the banners of Sts. Edmund and Edmund were carried into battle at Agincourt verification? and finally and the feasts of the saints are still venerated in the Catholic liturgical calendar - They maybe but does that mean that they are still the patron saint. I also believe that if you asked anyone how many and who are the patron saint of england the answer would be one and St George. If no-one disagrees I will remove. I for the obvious reason cannot talk to the editor. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 08:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"other religions have figures that can be equated to patron saints", St. Edmund was not an 'other religion'; he was a Catholic and martyred for his Catholic faith and no other.
"prohibition of the veneration of saints Edmund and Edward": Perrin P40 (but should have written under Edward VI)
"Edmund and Edmund were carried into battle at Agincourt": Perrin P35
"They maybe but does that mean that they are still the patron saint": As I wrote the Catholic Church canonizes saints etc. and Edmund has never been decanonized... but how would you suggest one cites a negative? There is no record of his decanonization.
"if you asked anyone how many and who are the patron saint of england the answer would be one": because we now live in a secular country and its inhabitants are ignorant... but that's no excuse... or reason to remove it... surely an encylopedia is for education.
"I for the obvious reason cannot talk to the editor": Oh yes you can! Most of what I wrote is contained within Perrin's British Flag (which you claim to have) and Catholic websites, so you have all the information at you fingertips.
unsigned is meaningless as if someone cannot stand by their knowledge it says something about the knowledge, and the respect of the rules of the talk page. (See Above). And how do I contact an editor through Perrin. but I will check now that there is more information available and I look forward to seeing the references on the article page. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 08:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"unsigned is meaningless" well it has certainly got you in a tizz Ed. I've forced you to add citations, reach for the reference books and, most importantly, forced you to recant your wild claims (Norman suppession and all that)... so not doing too bad for "meaningless" am I?
Oh yeah, and some of your references are suspect too, so I've added some clarification to aid the reader... Happy citing!
if you looked at the page history I did not add the (Norman suppession and all that), but someone who signs their work did. Enough said. Also working through your cites it all helps make an encyclopedia knowledgeable. As always with Latin always open to different interpretations. (see horology)--Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a Roman Catholic saint book with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. It lists ONLY one saint as patron of England and that is George. I also removed some nonsense about Edward IV from the article and added the saint's attributes. What ever ax there is to grind about patronage of England, it should be kept out of the article. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs: WP:NOT -- SECisek 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of the clearing that you undertook but after the anonymous editor stated that St Edmund and St Edward the Confessor were never removed from their role I could find no statement when this happened so it was new knowledge to me; could you please show your research. The fact that one publication states who IS the Patron Saint does not mean that the others are not still. In many ways it is academic as most in England would state St George but as an encyclopedia wiki should say if there are more, and more importantly that at one time St Edmund and St Edward the Confessor were the Patron Saint of England. Thanks --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was Edward VI, but a simple bit of research would have revealed this to you. Infact I even mentioned above. It is relevent because it refutes the suggestion that the Normans tried to remove Edmund's veneration.

Removed as patron? The anon. IP address, which BTW belongs to a troll - that is how I discovered this controversy - posted above, "As I wrote the Catholic Church canonizes saints etc. and Edmund has never been decanonized... but how would you suggest one cites a negative? There is no record of his decanonization."

He is totaly wrong. Decanonized? Edmund was NEVER even canonized by Rome, but was made a saint by general acclaim, as often happened at that time. That is why he is not on the Roman Calendar or in the Roamn lists. Try and find a date for his canonization or the pope who did it. You wont because it didn't happen. That doesn't mean he is not a saint nor that he wasn't patron of England. He was and the article mentions that, but he is not patron of England anymore. He was superceded by Edward the Confessor. As for a record of Edward's "decanonization" none exists because he too is still a saint, although he was dropped from the universal Roman Catholic Calendar and list in 1969 by Pope Paul VI. Look up patron of France (Sts Martin, Denis, Joan of Arc) or Italy (Sts Joseph, Francis, Catherine) and you will find more then one saint listed. England has only ONE listed, only ONE: George. The drive to have Edmund reinstated as patron (if he already is a patron, why the drive?) is run by a fringe group that earns almost no mention outside of East Anglia. They are worth a mention in the article, but no more. As an American, I have no passion or interest in this other then seeing a correct, NPOV article for this king and saint.

I never said he was canonised by Rome. get you facts right. BTW "general acclaim" still required the approval of the local Bishop/Primate. I even quoted the source (St. Augustine) to highlight the process. Try doing some research into the subject
You clearly don't under stand how the liturgical calendar is composed. Let me explain. You start with the universal calendar, then a nation/region add their nation calendar and then a diocese adds there Dioceseon calendar. Just because a staint doesn't appear in the universal calendar in doesn't mean he isn't a patron e.g. St. David of wales. Once, again RESEARCH before making stupid comments.
"You wont because it didn't happen", wrong, all you can say is that there is no record (or at least public record).
"He was superceded by Edward the Confessor", cite you source, if that was the case why were both banners carried at agincourt and other battle (again, read Perrin "British Flags").
"but he is not patron of England anymore", please prove this. Cite a source which shows his patronage was removed. You can't —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.74.238.223 (talk) 23:05:08, August 18, 2007 (UTC)


Since the XIX century, St Peter has been the Roman Catholic Patron of England, not George, Edward, or Edmund:

"On 2 June 1893, Pope Leo XIII demoted St George as patron saint for the English, relegating him to the secondary rank of 'national protector' and replaced him with St Peter as the Patron Saint of England. The change was solemnly announced by Herbert Cardinal Vaughan in the Brompton Oratory. This papal pronouncement served to exclude the Catholic Church in England from a day which is part of English tradition."

Wiki quote with no reference. And not true. He desired to make Peter "...St Peter as the principal patron..." note the work principal... meaning there were others, the fact that St. George was nolonger the "principal" did not mean that he was no longer a patron.
He also "devotion to these "two patrons of the faith" and 'guardians of all virtue" be revived" implying that St Peter was previously the "principal" patron (the other patron was Mary's Dowry).
Try reading "The Church of Old England" volume 3, Catholic Truth Society, 1894
100 years later the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales submitted this new calendar for approval in 1993, and it was approved in 2000 by JPII. The new calendar adds one solemnity, the highest-ranking feastday, that

of St. George, patron of England.

So once again, get your fact right and do some reseach.

Anon. troll is totaly wrong. Don't let the trolls get ta ya. I will work on citing this article in total. I'll adopt it with you. Let's make it GA. -- SECisek 10:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Click here -- SECisek 20:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, name calling, the last resort of someone who has no answer. And if you care to check I cite sources to backup what I write - YES! I EVEN CITE THEM ON THIS TALK PAGE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.189.180.235 (talk) 19:31, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Citations

It seems that every sentence which I wrote required a citation even the snippit "However, this is not true since..." which did continue with a reference to Perrin (1922). Plus a request for a citation for a non-existant event!

It is only fair then in the interests of accuracy and precision that the same policy be adopted throughout this article and not just to the content added by myself. There appears to be numerous claims without citations. I have made a start at highlighting them.

another unsigned statement. But I am trying to answer some of the valid questions that you have raised.

Information is important and an encyclopedia is a place for knowledge so everything helps. Two things (1) the patron saint was added to match the criteria and requirements put down by a senior editor (look at the history for the notification) but please let me know what I was try to do (ah but are you the one that asked that ? who knows). And (2)citations are useful because for example suddenly the wolf was a big grey wolf - never heard that part before - which returned for the second burial of St Edmund - never heard that part before - was sent by God - never heard that part before - to protect the head until it could be found. So it is great that this knowledge is added but it has to be verified. You will see that some of the citations have ben added to information that I and others have added which rightly do require verification. A signed statement under the talk page guidelines . --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

to 85.189.181.99

well done for removing Eastern from the list of religions in which St Edmund was / is venerated, I found no proof of that from wikipedia or external sources. In my research I did find that wikipedia does not list him as venerated by the Roman Catholic Church [1] and [2] are but two sites within the Saints Portal, there maybe more. The information will have to be referenced and as you know your way around such sites - hopefully I hand it to you. You may also think about joining the Saints Portal group they I am sure could do with your knowledge and assistance. Thanks --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 10:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not well done. Edmund is a saint in the Orthodox tradition as he was recognized as such before the schism. Here is one Orthodox site on him: [3]. -- SECisek 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

to the unsigned bit above, Anon removed Eastern from the Saints Portal, well done for finding Western, will you add it? Discussions about "eastern" and "western" Orthodox you will have to take up with the Saints Portal group. I am only using the tools provided. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 12:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
How about citing a primary source??????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.74.238.223 (talk) 22:59:19, August 18, 2007 (UTC)
"Western" refers to liturgical rite, they are still "Eastern Orthodox".
See here Western Rite Orthodoxy. Added. It may be getting close to GA. -- SECisek 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
excellent thanks for that, I have learnt something new. I have re added the link to the historical reference to St Edmunds' being King. This adds more of the historical character of his life alongside his religious importance. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 17:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean the 1911 enyclopedia site? They will make us throw the cite during GA review because it is wiki cite that anyone can edit. Do you know of another site, a BBC bio or something? -- SECisek 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

development of the page

moved our discussion as it had moved on from my talk with one of the anons! The page is Looking Good - well on its way. I will source another link to historical St Edmund, in the first sentence it adds more depth. Good point about 1911 link. Thanks --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

picture edit excellent, very powerful image at the beginning. Good One. We might soon get told off for the amount of small edits that we are doing, will try to incorporate more into one change at this end. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 13:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I edit on the fly like this all the time and nobdy has ever told me off...yet. Interesting, some of the "Edmund for patron" people appear to be racist nationalists:

[4] click on "English History". Do you have more material? I may send it for GA soon. -- SECisek 13:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I know some more about the tree and what was found in it, just a case of finding the information again. Certain groups are cattracted to St Edmund - he existed - he was 'English' more than St George; to dilute this was one of the reasons that others tried to widen the appeal. Sufflok County Council UK has adopted his banner as part of their flag. Number 10 Downing Street in reply to a letter said they had no intension at the moment to change the patron saint. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 15:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, can we get an image of the banner for that paragraph? I think I have done all I can for the page. Let me know when you have finished and I will nominate for GA. -- SECisek 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

after a bit of research not sure even an image exists yet, the decision was very recent. I will keep an eye on it and update when I can. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 08:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
reference link to 12 does not seem to be working, I cannot see why - can you --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
made a start with historical link--Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 13:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work on that BBC article! The Edmund campaign seems to have been dealt a blow by the PM. This needs to added. Link 12 (now 13) seems to work on my browser. -- SECisek 18:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved

Moved from the article: W.G. Perrin also states, the prohibition of the veneration of saints Edmund and Edward (the Confessor) occurred during the Reformation specifically, under the reign of Edward VI and the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer

Yes, veneration of all saints was prohibited in England for a short period of time. What of it? If they had singled out Edmund and Edward, it would be relevent, but they didn't. His cult was suppresed in Geneva, Luthern Germany, and everywhere else in the Protestant world, but that isn't really what this article is about. Cromwell again suppresed the saints in England during the Commonwealth, but it isn't worthy of note here.

Indeed, when the Castle of Carlaverock was taken in 1300 the banners of SS Edmund and Edward were borne, as they were also at the battle of Agincourt (1415) and the feasts of the saints are still venerated in the Catholic liturgical calendar.

Indeed what? How does this clarify the above statement. Moreover, we know that the feasts are still kept in Catholic calendars beacuse it is mentioned already that the three main Churches of the Catholic World (Roman, Orthodox, and Anglican) keep the feasts. This material is sourced, but what is it in aid of? -- SECisek 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"What of it?"
First, I don't know if you were clumsy or if is was deliberate but you missed the beginning:
"There are calls from some in the English community to again declare Edmund as the patron saint of England, suggesting that the current St George was a 13th century import by Norman-descended monarchs as a way of eradicating any trace of the English folk memory. However, Jocelin of Brakelond states
“ ...St Edmund's cult was further promoted by William the Conqueror and his successors".[14]”
What I provided was evidence to the contrary of "a way of eradicating any trace of the English folk memory". UNDERSTAND?
"veneration of all saints was prohibited in England" WRONG. Try reading the "Book of Common Prayer" and you will find references to St. George. UNDERSTAND?
"Indeed what? How does this clarify the above statement", It demonstates the icon use during the Norman period and thatthe feast is still kept, which refutes the paragraph that you omitted to move ... for what ever reason. UNDERSTAND?


PROBLEMS WITH THIS MOVE
1. The move was incomplete. Whether deliberate or otherwise;
2. the page must highlight the motives of those who promote St Edmund as a the principle patron since there are attempts to:
i) link St. Edmund with Paganism;
ii) use St. Edmund as a 'device' to remove St. George by claims that St. George is a Norman import;
iii) use St. Edmund as a 'device' to remove St. George by claims that St. George is a papal import;
iv) use St. Edmund to remove the cross of St. George as the flag of England and replace it with a ficticious white Dragon flag;
3. The page must detail HOW veneration of this English Saint ceased;
4. The page must detail WHY veneration of this English Saint ceased;
5. The page must detail the extent of St. Edmund's veneration - e.g. why it was him (and Edward's) that represented English saints on the battlefield;
6. The page must detail why St. George becames the principle patron of England inplace of Edmund (or Edward);
7. What became of St. Edmund's relics after the reformation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.189.180.235 (talk) 21:49, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Believed by some historians (and other contemproary records - (how accurate or correct is not known)) to have been taken to an Abbey in France for re interment, I will try and retrieve this information as soon as I can. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 13:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
What I added address atleast some of these questions. Accordingly, I am going to move the paragraphs in question back into the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.189.180.235 (talk)
You appear to have an agenda, but our purpose here is to write an encyclopedia, not to serve as soapbox, or to give undue weight to minority opinions. Unless reliable sources discuss the points you wish to include, they must be excluded. No debate on this issue is possible as verifiability is not negotiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"reliable sources discuss the points you wish to include" - that's the whole ****** point! there were and I quoted sources and it was removed!! Try viewing the history of this page before making other crass remarks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.189.181.99 (talk) 19:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
http://www.edmundforengland.co.uk/ is just some random website; the BBC stuff is tangential at best; books on flags cannot be considered reliable on anything other than flags. Shall I go on? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, the website cleary highlights one of the motives for a particular group. Just a quick google and I see we can also add:
http://www.whitedragonflagofengland.com (English flag society)
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/hp.htm
...not to mention the English Democrats (political party) blog: "...Norman monarchy set out to remove obvious signs of Angle, Jutish and Saxon cultural emblems and symbols, and to replace them"
So there is a long list and together they are part of this campaign to "re-instate" St. Edmund. It is valid to highlight the campaign and to provide supporting document or evidence to the contrary.
"books on flags cannot be considered reliable on anything other than flags". WRONG. The book on flags, includes banners and standard charting the first flags of England, it is also part of history. Since the banners of saints are flags (and their icons), and are well documented by Perrin (who incidently is held in great esteem by the FI that they named their lecture after him), and detail their historic use and the reason for their demise in certainly can be considered more than just a book on flags. Shall I go on???????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.189.181.99 (talk)
Please do. You could say where this campaign is mentioned by the media, rather than by websites which you yourself say are related to the campaign. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Another quick google:
The Guardian: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/2006/10/saints_alive_paper_wants_edmun.html
East Anglia daily Times: http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/default
Oh yeah, I forgot add last time. Once again, PLEASE READ and try grasp the situation before posting. The reason for the removal of the above had absolutely nothing to do with the citation. Infact the comment had been made "This material is sourced". The issue wasn't about the source. UNDERSTAND? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.189.181.99 (talk) 21:25, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Patron

Reworked, fact checked, and cited. Should be agreeable to all. -- SECisek 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't rate you fact checking. I have just removed:
"He was a patron saint of all England until the mid-14th century, when Edward III of England replaced him by associating Saint George with the Order of the Garter."
I've just read the passage in the cited book and it says nothing of the sort. It NEVER cites that St. Edmund was the patron saint before George or that St. George did infact replace an existing patron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.189.181.99 (talk) 18:41, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

GA

Articles I nominated 3+ weeks ago still have not been reviewed, so I will stick this in the queue now. It could pass as is. If anybody has any other constructive additions between now and the review, please be bold. -- SECisek 06:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

well done, I think a good value judgement on putting forward, factual and interesting at the same time - not an easy combination sometimes. Ref 14 not showing source and at this stage I'm not sure I can remember what reference that was. Can you assist. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing the article today, standby for comments. The Rambling Man 12:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments

Well, as promised, here are the comments of the Bury St Edmunds jury, aka The Rambling Man...

  • WP:CITE should be followed in the placement of all citations, e.g. [6] should be moved to right-hand side of punctuation.
  • Follow WP:EL and trim down the external links.
  • As noted above, ref [14] needs a title.
  • Follow WP:DASH for page ranges in the references (e.g. use the en-dash so pp131–134 instead of pp131-134).
  • Do the same for date ranges, e.g. 867–870.
  • "channel4.co." missing a uk in the references?
  • "217-233.. " too many full stops (and don't forget the en-dash)

*"Scarle, R.D..", "Darton & Co.. " too many full stops.

  • "Retrieved on" should be a full date.

*Wikilink the first "King" to List of monarchs of East Anglia.

  • "He was defeated in battle by the Great Heathen Army c. 870. Edmund was captured, tortured, and he died the death of a Christian martyr.[3]" would have better prose flow if was a single sentence.

*"which apparently means " ? Not encyclopaedic. Are you trying to say "which mean that Edmund was apparently of foreign origin"? *"This is a very doubtful tradition" - can you explain why?

  • "was, in fact,..." - "in fact" is redundant.
  • "...only a fourteen-year-old" - "only fourteen years old" would read better for me (less hyphenation)...

*"Edmund was said to have been crowned by St Humbert[7] on December 25, 855.[2] His coronation was said to have taken place at "Burna" (probably Bures St Mary, Suffolk), which then functioned as the royal capital."

    • Move ref [7] per WP:CITE.
    • Flow the two sentences together.
    • You need to reference "His coronation was said..." claim. Who said it?
  • "In the year 870, or just before," - one or the other? Are there citations for both, if so, use them.
  • Second paragraph of "Date and location of death" section could use citation.
  • "Dernford, Cambridge." - shire?

*Legacy section is a compilation of very short paragraphs, try to flow better to improve prose.

  • "(Argent, a cross Gules (red cross on a white field))" - one too many )'s.
  • Wikilinking blue is a bit over the top...
  • The {{cquote| .. needs closing correctly.
  • Hoxne park - should that be a Park?
  • Why (1996/2004)? Two editions? Not really needed.

So, several issues, I'll happily place the article on hold for no more than seven days in order to remedy these issues. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you need clarification on anyhthing I've said. All the best. The Rambling Man 12:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot thank you enough. Your suggestion were wonderful and I have attended to them. Please advise. Thank you again. -- SECisek 13:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Good work so far. I've just checked ref [3] and nowhere does it mention St Edmund being the patron saint of East Anglia, kings, pandemics, torture victims or wolves. I think you'd need to source of this lot. The Rambling Man 14:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, not every edit was mine. I will take a look and correct. -- SECisek 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done What else can I do? --SECisek 14:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good rework, I've moved some citations again - try to place them on the right hand side of punctuation with no spaces between the ref and the punctuation. In addition, the following comments are still applicable:
  • "In the year 869 or just before..." - not sure if the citation in the following sentence covers this, but what year? If the citation says the same then fine (I don't possess the text you're using as a citation) but if not then we need to clear this up.

Both years cited.

  • "...more widely spread version..." - not keen on this expression, but failing to suggest alternative right now, (sorry!)...

Fixed, I hope.


  • "...it came to him (Abbo) ..." - just say "...it came to Abbo..."

Easy enough.

  • "This is chronologically just possible, but that is all." - can you cite this claim? I think we need to explain why "that is all". What else makes this account so challenging to believe?

Clarified

  • A UK article so we should adopt Canonisation rather than the (rather chillingly hideous) Zee. Same with gr(e)(a)y wolf - we have grey ones...

I have NO problem with UK spellings, they are by far more widely used world wide. I just don't know them all.

Forgive me, I'm being trite! We usually opt for British English on articles which are British-centric, so in this case the grey wolf and the canonisation rule. While I'm 100% anti-Americanis(z)ation of English, I completely appreciate that unless exposed to it, it's unlikely that you'd have known otherwise. No problem, it's looking all good from here. The Rambling Man 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that I probably overlooked some of these earlier, for which I apologise. I'm not intentionally moving the goalposts but I think that once these are cleared up I'll happily promote my favourite Patron Saint of England to GA! The Rambling Man 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, if you see anything else, let me know! -- SECisek 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more. I've made a couple of minor style mods but it's a GA as of now. Well done. The Rambling Man 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious denomination

Let's get one thing right here. Neither Orthadoxy or Protestantism (including Anglicanism) existed during St. Edmund's lifetime. He was martyred for his faith - his Catholic faith - and no other faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.189.181.99 (talk)

It makes sense (to me) to call someone killed during the reformation killed since they were a Catholic, a Catholic martyr. However that is not the case with Edmund, what mattered was purely that he was a Christian. Although the Great Schism had not yet occurred, the eastern Church was already going it's own way to some extent, and both Anglicanism and Orthodoxy also see Edmund as a martyr, so there doesn't seem to be any need to be so "possessive" about him. David Underdown 10:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

St Edmund's Crown

According to this site regarding heraldic charges (http://heralds.westkingdom.org/Templates/OtherCharges/index2.htm)

A crown is a circlet of metal, often jewelled, worn on the head of a monarch as an emblem of sovereignty. As an heraldic charge, it was first seen in the attributed arms of St. Edmund the Martyr, c. 1282.

Not too sure about the date. Anyone into heraldry? TheSmokinGun 23:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also this site (http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~bcd/rolemaster/novi/her-list.txt), despite giving the wrong field colour of Gules describes the crowns as "composed of four fleurs-de-lis alternating with four small strawberry leaves". However, I believe this denotes the rank of prince rather than a king. But since Edmund was the king of a "petty" kingdom of the Heptarchy, this could be compared to a principality. Possibly. TheSmokinGun 23:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User contributions for 85.189.180.235

85.189.180.235 is a single purpose account used only to disrupt this article. We have invited this user to register and they have not, which makes me suspect sock puppetry. See for yourself:Special:Contributions/85.189.180.235. If the problem persists, I will have the article partialy protected so only registered users may edit until the offender moves on. -- SECisek 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubblish
i) registration is not required... but if it makes you happy (probably not);
ii) ONE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT RUNAWAY FROM IS THAT I CITE A SOURCE FOR EVERYTHING THAT I WRITE;
iii) You have a histroy of making huge changes/deleting other's works/ and attempt to impose a POV. You only have to look at your talk page for proof of this;

Your are refering to Proto Protestant, in which I REMOVED non-NPOV material. When I found the article could not be saved, I nominated it AfD. It was later deleted unanimously. Please don't take random comments out of context. I HAVE edited more than one article with my account. -- SECisek 01:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

iv) I have no intention of moving on;
EdChampion 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You have reverted three time today. Slap an NPOV tag at the top and we will discuss, but a consensus was reached here in the last 24 hours. -- SECisek 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

1. Let's get one thing right here. Neither Orthadoxy or Protestantism (including Anglicanism) existed during St. Edmund's lifetime. He was martyred for his faith - his Catholic faith - and no other faith. During Edmunds lifetime Christian almost always refered to Catholicism, but that is no longer the case.

Quote from St. Augustine:
"In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
"And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
"Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should ... With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion... For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
— St. Augustine (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 22:02, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

2. the statement "He was a patron saint of all England until the mid-14th century, when Edward III of England replaced him by associating Saint George with the Order of the Garter." is false. The passage in the cited book and it says nothing of the sort. It NEVER cites that St. Edmund was the patron saint before George or that St. George did infact replace an existing patron. the page of the books is available on-line (google books).

3. The campaign to "reinstate edmuund" already existed in the GA article. are you suggesting that I add a line "although there are a number of posible reasons to the motives of those who wish to see the return of Edmund, we are prohibited from listing them".

4. The use of St edmunds banner by Perrin is a valid comment and stands on it's own even without #3 above. It's shown the esteem in wich the Staint was held - his banner only one of two English saints on the battlefield of agincourt.

5. The quote from Scott Giles regarding St Edmund's banner displayed at Henry V's funeral is also valid. Or put another way HOW ON EARTH IS THE FOLLOWING COMMENT SOAPBOXING?????

"Scott-Giles writes that Edmund's banner was borne in the Irish expedition of the Anglo-Normans. During the reign of Edward IV the three crowns came to be regarded as the Arms of Ireland and where introduced into the coinage."
OR THIS
"at the funeral of Henry V, his image was draw by a chariot through the strees of London, the first comparisoned with his English lions, the second with the quartered arms of England and France, the third, with the French fleurs-de-lys, and the fourth with St. Edmunds three crowns for Ireland."
PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR LOGIC

6. The quote from Scott Giles regarding St Edmund's becomming the banner of Ireland and Munster is also valid. AGAIN PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOAPBOXING ARGUMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF: "Today, St Edmund's banner is banner of the Irish province of Munster."

7. Perrins description on how St. edmund's banner was removed is also valid. It is the start of how and why St. edmund's vereration ceased to be. continuing on from this is where are his relics - why were they moved to france - because of the reformation.

Is that enough or do you want more?EdChampion 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We will want all outstanding objections. Now, let's all be NICE and see if we can't come to an understanding here. No rhetoric, name calling, or being rude.
Point 1: We are well aware of Augstine's quote, it always gets brought up in this discussion, which comes up too often to be humourous. The Orthdox completely disagree with the assertion that they were "not around" prior to the schism. You could use the word Catholic in this instance and I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. Keep in mind that when wikified: Catholic, it probably doesn't point to what you would like it to, does it? Even so, it would provoke the never ending RCC vs. CC debate and there is no good reason to do so. He was killed for his Christian faith, not his allegiance to the Rome. It is accurate as is, the Danes wouldn't have cared whether he was a Roman, Greek, Copt, Celt (or Arian for that matter.) This fight never ends, but I can tell you that past consensus has supported the current usage rather than the one you propose. We can continue this discussion, but I would recommend you pick your battles wisely.
Edmund was martyred for his faith. This included being faithful to the Holy See, accepting the power/effects/ministers of the Keys etc. We can list the numerous hertical differences to show how the religion of Edmund differs from others. There are NO martyrs outside the Catholic Church (Popes St. Celestine I, Pelagius II etc. and various Councils). On the heresies you only have to read what Augustine says against the Manichees and why heratics can NEVER EVER make an act of faith a point hammered home by Aquinas in his Summa. We read that Edmund retired for a year to learn the Pslater, again this wan't any old version... The idea that the faith of Edmund is of the same order as one of the 200,000 sects/religions started since the reformation (most of which have more in common with agnosticism) is rediculous. The point needs to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 21:43, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


Point 2: Here is the page, read it and decide for yourself if the cite supports the fact or not. The BBC article quoted later backs, and fills out the fact, and could be cited here as well. The editor who provided that cite is disintrested, has not regularly edited Edmund's article, and supplied the fact and cite only to improve the article. What is at issue here? If you feel this is incorrect, what would be correct?
The English monarchy had many potential saints..." So what? It doesn't specify which one (if any) was chosen.
"St. George did not become patron saint of England until the mid-fourteenth century when Edward III assoicated St George with the Order of the Garter", again so what? It does state that he replace any previous patron.
Wiki doesn't require me to suggest an alternative, it is sufficent to show that the statement is false to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 21:45, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Point 3: The article DOES mention the campaign under the Legacy section. Why shouldn't it?:
"In 2006, a group that included BBC Radio Suffolk and the East Anglian Daily Times saw the failure of their programme to get St Edmund named as the patron saint of England. The Bury St Edmunds MP David Ruffley had taken up the cause and helped deliver a large petition to the government in London.[5] BBC Radio Suffolk also called for a change of the English flag from the Cross of St George (Argent, a cross Gules or a red cross on a white field) to the Flag of St Edmund.[17] This consists of three gold crowns on a field of blue (Azure, three crowns Or).[18] This is an heraldic banner introduced during the Norman period.[19] Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected the request, however the programme was successful on another level:
St Edmund (was) named patron saint of Suffolk...the high point of a successful campaign which was launched by Breakfast show presenter Mark Murphy and producer Emily Fellows in the autumn of 2006. St Edmund was originally the English patron saint but was ousted by St George.[5]"
What else would you like this to say that it does not now? We aren't going to link the article to any English politcial party's website. It isn't a legit source.
It is not beyond reason for a reader to wonder why such campaign was mounted. Motives could be listed or the above can be annotated with "although there are a number of posible reasons to the motives of those who wish to see the return of Edmund, we are prohibited from listing them"
And BTW, Wiki DOES allow the citing of primary sources. You just have to make sure that you don't "build a particular case favored by the editor"
Points 4-7 all involve his banner, which is a bit beyond the scope of this biography. The article is about the man, not the flag. It is worth a mention, which it has, but not much more here. The fact that more than half of your disputes involve the banner is telling. Now, St George's Cross has its own article. All of your information on the St Edmund's banner could go in a Flag of St Edmund article and be linked in the See also section of this article. Be bold, create the Flag article right now! Click on the red link above and type away!
What does everybody think? -- SECisek 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
a page for the banner and flag is an excellent idea with cross reference from both to both. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 08:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
i) St. George Cross has it's own page because it existed BEFORE the St. George page;::ii) St. George Cross merits it's own page due to it's size;
If we take a more realistic example of St. Andrew then, similar amount information IS CONTAINED within the SAME page. Besides this even the St. George page give a summary of the flag, it's use; it includes a coin minted with his image etc. all things not "about the man".
The only difference is that unlike the the above two pages is ours we also need to mention that his banner is no longer in use.
This really is pathetic. show me another article which has received such treatment over a couple of lines. EdChampion 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

edits awaiting protection dispute end

legendary tree: A piece of this tree is in the collection of Moyse's Hall Museum. A piece of metal was found in the tree, a local dentist volunteered to x-ray it showing a bent nail. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

question:What became of St. Edmund's relics after the reformation

original answer:Believed by some historians (and other contemproary records - (how accurate or correct is not known)) to have been taken to an Abbey in France for re interment, I will try and retrieve this information as soon as I can.

new additional info: easiest to get from this site [5]I know another extreme site but factually correct about the Pope being involved, the french refusing to hand back the relics, the 'sharing of the relics' and where they have ended. St Edmund church in Bury St Edmunds is believed to have a tooth. See also † See Bryan Houghton: Saint Edmund - King and Martyr: Terence Dalton 1970, p. 54. The relics were returned to England on July 25, 1901, when they were placed in the private chapel of the Duke of Norfolk in Arundel Castle, Sussex, awaiting the completion of Westminster Roman Catholic Cathedral. The authenticity of the relics was then questioned, however, and they still lie in Arundel. Op cit, p. 78 et seq. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw this story somewhere, too. The relics were determined to not be genuine and not placed in the Cathedral. See if I can find a source. -- SECisek 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

the way forward

so how do we get from under this impasse; I thought I would put my twopennyworth's as a start. The article as when the GA was awarded is my starting point.

  • St Edmund was a Christian Martyr, that is another bit of historical information someone can learn, Catholic / Church of England came later. He is a Saint and Martyr in the former and a Martyr in the later.
No, he was martyred for a specific faith and not one that has corrupted it's dogmas. If you want a compromise then you can have "Christian Martyr" so long as it is annotated in some way;
  • the flag / banner gets a page of its own with a link
No, the content is small and relevant enough to be contained in the existing page. It is comparable with St. Andrew (see above). A compramise: you can add a new section to accommodate the banner and coin text under a title "Icons" (or similar);
  • the importance of where his banner flag was carried is necessary to the level that it shows the importance that his image and attributes was held in way beyond his life time and whilst St George was also Patron Saint.
Agreed. But I think we should readd your line "...St Edmund's cult was further promoted by William the Conqueror and his successors" since if refers to the "cult" and not just the banner.

*the moves by various organisations some with differing political aims to get him reinstated as Patron Saint needs a mention alongside the fact of the wide range of agendas behind such moves. * the fact that religiously he does not need to be reinstated as Patron Saint must be mentioned as a link to the wiki page that deals with how Saints become Patron Saints, how they are appointed and who appoints. Most of what has been removed from the article can be placed there to stand along as useful information. And if there is not a page surely this is one excellent reason why one should exist.

You were right first time. This should be noted. We should be allowed to highlight the motives. A compromise might be to have a footnote or, if possible, point to a section in the talk page?

So that's the start of my list to which hopefully I will return - thoughts please - add and improve with the following as our joint aim

this article is to inform people - from the random button visitor to the research who wants to know a bit more about the Saint and Martyr and King of the East Angles. Thanks --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition and other disputed changes

NOTE: THE ARCHIVED DISCUSSION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SECTION WAS NOT CONSENSUS BY ALL PARTIES. IT WAS ARCHIEVED BEFORE THE EXPIRY TIME FOR THE DISPUTE (expires 21:37, August 29, 2007 (UTC)) AND WHILE I WAS UPDATING IT.

AS ONE OF THE PARTIES REFUSES TO HAVE IT REOPENED IT IS COPIED HERE WITH MY COMMENTS ADDED EdChampion 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

THE DISPUTE HAS NOT BEEN CONCLUDED EdChampion 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This can be added to the Legacy section:
Edmund's popularity among the English nobility was lasting. It is known that his banner was borne in the Irish expedition of the Anglo-Normans and also when the Castle of Carlaverock was taken in 1300. A banner with Edmund's crest was also carried at the battle of Agincourt.[1]
agreed --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
As for this:

[2]

Is this quote verbatium? It is contradicted in the next sentence, as Edward IV lived AFTER Henry V:
This is not a contradiction. The banner was used for Ireland (as she didn't have one of her own).
"During the reign of Edward IV the three crowns came to be regarded as the Arms of Ireland and where introduced into the coinage."
Further more, the whole Edmund/Ireland connection is contradicted elsewhere in Wikipedia, as it is claimed the Irish symbols have a different origin unrelated to Edmund:Three Crowns
"Like the Swedish model, it comprises two crowns above and one below. These represent the three great duchies of the province, Desmond, Ormond and Thomond."
This does not necessarily show a different origin. A new interpretation of the three crowns could have been formed. Also, a reference was not cited for the duchies claim.
So something is wrong here. The only mention of Edmund in the three crowns article is one sentence which was inseted by me.
sorry for any misunderstanding but if you are saying that this does not go into the article I agree. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Moving on:
"the fact that religiously he does not need to be reinstated as Patron Saint must be mentioned"
This is incorrect. The editor who inserted this challenged us above to prove that Edmund is not still a patron saint. That is not how it works, the burden is not on us to disprove it. There is no way this can be cited as a fact because it is wrong. For the bajillionth time, Edmund IS NOT the patron saint of England. Wishing he was will not make it so, nor will writing that he is here in this Wikipedia article. This is not a soapbox to advance that cause. I wish them the best of luck in their campagin and personally could not care less who is patron saint of England. The fact is that right now in 2007 he is not and has not been since the 14th century as cited by two different sources in the article.
WRONG. He is cited as patron in the books:
A Book of Feasts and Seasons by Joanna Bogle
The Life & Times of St. Edmund by Rev Mackinlay
We know he is patron of atleast part of england (East Anglia)
We know England as more that one Saint read my previous answer to you regarding St. George, and Pope Leo (and having more than one is not unusual)
There is a difference between "he is the patron" and "he is a patron", since the former is refering to the default or "principal" patron (like St. Denis of France)
There is no record of any subsequent "dethrownment" as a patron
SO AT THE VERY LEAST SOME DOUBT REMAINS AS TO WHETHER EDMUND REMAINS A PATRON. And this needs to be cited
agreed but I was unable to find any source of information stating at what point he was disenfranchised of his role of Patron Saint. This is not asking to disprove a negative, bizarrely it maybe a requirement to formally remove him from the role within a Christian Church, and three patron saints for one country does seem strange. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If he were still regarded as patron, he would probably be llsited as such in the calendars of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales and so on. For the CofE, he certainly isn't (see [6]). George is listed as "George, Martyr, Patron of England, c.304", Edmund simply as "Edmund, King of the East Angles, Martyr, 870". Since CofE is the established church, I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that this means he cannot be considered in any real sense to still by a patron. David Underdown 08:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've now also checked out the website for the Catholic Church in England and Wales, and Edmund doesn't seem to feature on the current Calensdar at all. see here for the general English Calendar, here specifically for November 2007 - the 20th is listed as a "Weekday of Ordinary Time" and here, for Universal (i.e. worldwide) Calendar for November). Seems fairly conclusive to me. David Underdown 09:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
To the Universal (General) calendar you add the Nation calendar (usually they map to Feria days so no confict). After that you add the diocese's calendar. If you check the liturgical calendar for East Anglia you will see St. Edmund feast listed and also listed as their patron.
"*the moves by various organisations some with differing political aims to get him reinstated as Patron Saint needs a mention alongside the fact of the wide range of agendas behind such moves."
None of the citations were from reputable secondary sources, they were all primary and including them here violates WP:OR.
'agreed on the basic point, if secondary sources are found will need to be put back in, partly to explain your last point about a barely historical figure! --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This is NOT true try reading WP:OR. Primary sources CAN be cited. This point is not to build a specific case but objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 22:43, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Let's insert the "banner at the battles" portion above into the Legacy section, set up the seperate flag article, and put these controversies behind us.
agreed --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I do NOT agreed (see my above comments) EdChampion 23:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It astounds me that an article about a barely historical figure, of whom all that is known for certain is that he was killed by Vikings over 1,000 years ago, could generate the hostility that has marked some of the posts in this discussion. The talk page is now longer than the article. -- SECisek 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
agreed --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I find most interesting is that those responsible for the majority of the dispute appear to have 'hit-and-run', so when the article becomes unprotected, I'll be carefully monitoring it for him (and his anon IP socks). Keep up the good work here, it's good to see that even an article under complete protection can be expanded, albeit via the talk page! The Rambling Man 16:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you not know that this was a bank holiday weekend marking the end of summer and it is not unusual for some to take a long well earned rest? I note that you unprotected the article before the stated time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 22:24, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
If you take a close look you will see that NONE of the above has been about SOAPBOXING - the "alledged" reason given for the locking of the page and the dispute. Do you not find that most interesting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 23:16, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was a consensus per discussion. -- Wassupwestcoast 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was that Edmund the Martyr is not now a Patron St of England and that the flag issue is tangential to the article

This can be added to the Legacy section:
Edmund's popularity among the English nobility was lasting. It is known that his banner was borne in the Irish expedition of the Anglo-Normans and also when the Castle of Carlaverock was taken in 1300. A banner with Edmund's crest was also carried at the battle of Agincourt.[1]
agreed --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
As for this:
[3]
Is this quote verbatium? It is contradicted in the next sentence, as Edward IV lived AFTER Henry V:
"During the reign of Edward IV the three crowns came to be regarded as the Arms of Ireland and where introduced into the coinage."
Further more, the whole Edmund/Ireland connection is contradicted elsewhere in Wikipedia, as it is claimed the Irish symbols have a different origin unrelated to Edmund:Three Crowns
"Like the Swedish model, it comprises two crowns above and one below. These represent the three great duchies of the province, Desmond, Ormond and Thomond."
So something is wrong here. The only mention of Edmund in the three crowns article is one sentence which was inseted by me.
sorry for any misunderstanding but if you are saying that this does not go into the article I agree. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Moving on:
"the fact that religiously he does not need to be reinstated as Patron Saint must be mentioned"
This is incorrect. The editor who inserted this challenged us above to prove that Edmund is not still a patron saint. That is not how it works, the burden is not on us to disprove it. There is no way this can be cited as a fact because it is wrong. For the bajillionth time, Edmund IS NOT the patron saint of England. Wishing he was will not make it so, nor will writing that he is here in this Wikipedia article. This is not a soapbox to advance that cause. I wish them the best of luck in their campagin and personally could not care less who is patron saint of England. The fact is that right now in 2007 he is not and has not been since the 14th century as cited by two different sources in the article.
agreed but I was unable to find any source of information stating at what point he was disenfranchised of his role of Patron Saint. This is not asking to disprove a negative, bizarrely it maybe a requirement to formally remove him from the role within a Christian Church, and three patron saints for one country does seem strange. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If he were still regarded as patron, he would probably be llsited as such in the calendars of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales and so on. For the CofE, he certainly isn't (see [7]). George is listed as "George, Martyr, Patron of England, c.304", Edmund simply as "Edmund, King of the East Angles, Martyr, 870". Since CofE is the established church, I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that this means he cannot be considered in any real sense to still by a patron. David Underdown 08:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've now also checked out the website for the Catholic Church in England and Wales, and Edmund doesn't seem to feature on the current Calensdar at all. see here for the general English Calendar, here specifically for November 2007 - the 20th is listed as a "Weekday of Ordinary Time" and here, for Universal (i.e. worldwide) Calendar for November). Seems fairly conclusive to me. David Underdown 09:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"*the moves by various organisations some with differing political aims to get him reinstated as Patron Saint needs a mention alongside the fact of the wide range of agendas behind such moves."
None of the citations were from reputable secondary sources, they were all primary and including them here violates WP:OR.
'agreed on the basic point, if secondary sources are found will need to be put back in, partly to explain your last point about a barely historical figure! --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's insert the "banner at the battles" portion above into the Legacy section, set up the seperate flag article, and put these controversies behind us.
agreed --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It astounds me that an article about a barely historical figure, of whom all that is known for certain is that he was killed by Vikings over 1,000 years ago, could generate the hostility that has marked some of the posts in this discussion. The talk page is now longer than the article. -- SECisek 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

agreed --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I find most interesting is that those responsible for the majority of the dispute appear to have 'hit-and-run', so when the article becomes unprotected, I'll be carefully monitoring it for him (and his anon IP socks). Keep up the good work here, it's good to see that even an article under complete protection can be expanded, albeit via the talk page! The Rambling Man 16:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you not know that this was a bank holiday weekend marking the end of summer and it is not unusual for some to take a long well earned rest? I note that you unprotected the article before the stated time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 22:24, August 28, 2007 (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.

Restored

A user ignored the fact that the above discussion was preserved as an archive. The editor did not follow the directive: "Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section."

I have restored per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and would ask that further discussion be placed in a new section. -- SECisek 06:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not modified it was unarchived as the expiry time for the dispute (which expires 21:37, August 29, 2007 (UTC)) had not ended as you know all too well. I had not finished adding my comments.
Consequently I have copied the section adding my comment. I leave it to you to show some common sense and revert the page back or let this stand as a monument to your chidish behaviour. EdChampion 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody refuses to "reopen" the discussion. I have nominated the article for GA review (it passed, what, a week ago?) and another consensus WILL be achieved by this process. It is my hope it will be a consensus everyone can live with. Please post issues in the new section. Responding in the middle of another editor's post is known as an Interruption. It is a good way to insure your posts get missed by other editors and it is considered poor form in most cases:

"In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "Headline added to (reason) by SECisek 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)"). In such cases, please add —This is part of a comment by USER NAME OR IP , which got interrupted by the following: before the interruption." -- SECisek 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Please consult Wikipedia:Good article review if you feel the article should be delisted. Simply removing the banner will not delist the article. -- SECisek 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

This article has been brought to WP:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. See: WP:GA/R#Edmund the Martyr.

The result was Keep. An archive of the discussion can be found here. Drewcifer 20:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph for Review

The second paragraph demonstrates poor citation by making the following statement:

"He was a patron saint of all England until the mid–14th century, when Edward III replaced him by associating Saint George with the Order of the Garter.[5][6]"

[5] St Edmund, Patron Saint of Suffolk. St Edmund's day feature. BBC (25 April 2007). Retrieved on 2007-08-20 "St Edmund was originally the English patron saint but was ousted by St George"

[6] Daniell, Christopher (2003). From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta: England, 1066 – 1215. Routledge, 78. ISBN 041522215X "The English monarchy had many potential saints to choose from: St Edmund ... St. George did not become patron saint of England until the mid-fourteenth century when Edward III assoicated St. George with the Order of the Garter"

and gives an impression to reader that the whole statement is backed by two separate sources. However, this is not the case.

Note that the statement is making three claims and that there are TWO citations for each claim:

i) St. Edmund WAS the patron saint of England prior to St. George;
ii) St. Edmund WAS replaced by St. Georoge as the patron saint of England;
iii) The "mechanism" used for this change of patron was by association with the Order of the Garter.

But [5] only refers to i and ii above (and makes no reference to Edward III) and [6] only refers to iii above and it is non-committal on a patron before St. George or even if there actually was one.

Hence, there is only a single citation for each claim and the statement should atleast read:

"He was a patron saint of all England until the mid–14th century[5], when Edward III replaced him by associating Saint George with the Order of the Garter.[6]"

And even this is slightly ambiguous since "replace" could be read as St. Edmund being associated with the Order of the Garter. EdChampion 18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Overall Review

I have just reviewed two small sections of this article: the lead and the saint banner. There are many inaccuracies and statements that are too general when we can be more specific. I have listed them below. I assume GA just means it has been checked for spelling and puctuation. I do not see how this can possibly labeled a Good Article. EdChampion 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Lead

841-20th November 869, replace with: 841-20th November 870

(1) William of Malmesbury (2) "Life & Times of St. Edmund", Mackinley (3) The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V (4) "Lives of the Saints", Butler


"while still a boy." replace with age: 14 years old

(1) William of Malmesbury (2) "Life & Times of St. Edmund", Mackinley (3) The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V (4) "Lives of the Saints", Butler


"He is seen as the patron saint...", replace with: He is the patron saint..."

Add patronage of Douai Abbey

The citation is wrong [5] refers to Suffolk ONLY (also, since this patronage was not overseen by the Church we could question it's validity.)

"Christian martyr" replace with: Catholic martyr

(1) "From Edmunds earliest years his parents trained him in the Catholic and Roman faith.", Mackinley (2) MS. Harl. 2802 f. 226


"He was a patron saint of all England until the mid–14th century,[5] when Edward III replaced him by associating Saint George with the Order of the Garter.[6]".

Still wrong (my fault). Reference [5] makes no mention of "mid–14th century" so needs adjusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Edmund is a patron of England and is cited as patron in the books: (1)A Book of Feasts and Seasons by Joanna Bogle (2)The Life & Times of St. Edmund by Rev Mackinlay

In addition: (1)We know he is patron of at least part of england (East Anglia), http://www.catholiceastanglia.org/main (2)We know England as more that one Saint (as mentioned by Pope Leo), The Church of Old England" volume 3, Catholic Truth Society, 1894 (3)There is a difference between "he is the patron" and "he is a patron", since the former is refering to the default or "principal" patron (like St. Denis of France), The Church of Old England" volume 3, Catholic Truth Society, 1894 (4)There is no record of any subsequent "dethrownment" as a patron; (5)Another example of "principal patron" is given here [8], "St. George, our principal Patron, whose Courage remained invincible in the midst of so many Torments..." written for/by King James II. EdChampion 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

EdChampion 21:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comments below. In addition, William of Malmesbury's history is only a reliable source for itself. That is, we can say "William of Malmesbury writes X", but we cannot say X is true because William of Malmesbury says so. Since Kirby (at p. 195) accepts his age as 14 when he became king circa 855, we can do likewise, so this should be changed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The listing has to be Suffolk County Council UK as Suffolk County is in U.S.A.. Whether he is the patron saint of that area I cannot say. About questioning its validity it would make life much easier if all (and there are many) patron saints appointed without being overseen by the Roman Catholic Church were removed. But Suffolk and its members have choosen to recognise this historical figure in this role, and as an enclyopedia this should be mentioned. As I have mentioned before to the anon editors et al I believe there is a worth of a page that explains how saints, patron saints, patronage were and in some cases are overseen by The Roman Catholic Church, and how they are created or adopted in modern times by modern methods. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've chagned the wording re Suffolk. The dating issue is already explained in the article, 870 used to the be the accepted figure, but new research as lead to 869 being seen as more likely. We've already gone over the Catholic/Christian thing. Neither the calendar of the Church of England, nor that of the Catholic Church in England and Wales curretnly refers to St Edmund as patron of England (his day is not even recognised as a saint's day in the Catholic calendar). Edward III is known to have reigned from 1327 - 1377, so it is not controversial to extrapolate mid-fourteenth century from a reference that says the change was made in his reign. David Underdown 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to remove all the patronages that were not offical last month. Believe it or not, Our Sunday Visitor saint's guide lists all the ones you see here! I also want to point out that patron saints exist outside of the Roman Church. Both the Anglicans and the Orthodox declare patron saints as well. -- SECisek 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Saint Banner

"Reign 25 December 855 – 20 November 869", replace with: 20 November 870


"Born Nuremberg, Germany", replace with: Born Northemburg (or North Hamburg), present day Germany

Differing sources provide the following: (1)"Norembregis", Leland (2)"Nuremburg", Drugdale (3)"Northemberges", Curteys' Register & Douay MS (4)"Northemberge", Lydgate (5)"Norinburg", Camden

However, Nuremburg is not in Old Saxony. Norden in Friesland and Nordenham on the weser are not important enough since Alcmund's capital (codex MS, Battely), quoting the Bishop of Wocester, was a "most celebrated city" and only Northemburg (or North Hamburg) fit this description.


"Died 20 November 869", replace with: 20 November 870, Heglesdune, Bodeleian MS. 240

"Buried Bury St Edmunds" First buried at Heglesdune Forest (over which a wooden chapel was built) (1)"Life & Times of St. Edmund", Mackinley 1st translation was to Beodricsworth (St. Edmund's Bury) 903


"Predecessor Æthelweard", replace with: Offa of East Anglia

(1)Gaufridus writes that the King who reigned 61 years before Edmund was called Offa - not to be confused with Offa of Mercia, or Offa of the East Saxons. (2)Offa had the support of Charlemagne, "Short History of the English people", Green (3)Offa's heir Fremund renounced the kingdom preferring a hermits life, Capgrave & Lydgate Ashmole MS 46 f. 54


"Successor Oswald", replace with, Gothrun (or Athelstan after Baptism, King Alfred stood as sponsor)

(1)"Life & Times of St. Edmund", Mackinley (2)Anglo Saxon Chonicles


Add Mother: Siwara

(1)"Life & Times of St. Edmund", Mackinley

EdChampion 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Lapidge's Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, Kirby's Earliest English Kings and Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England, 20 November **869** is correct, Edmund's predecessor as king was Æthelweard and his successor(s) was/were Oswald and/or Æthelred (II), so those things should not be changed. As for the rest, no opinion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I added his mother. Changing successor and predecessor would damage the internal continuity of the kings of East Anglia here at Wikipedia. If the kings need to be overhauled, so be it, but do not make the changes here if you do not intend to fix/create the other articles, lists, and succession boxes. His death date has been discussed and both POVs are included. There are several place already listed and cited as the scene of his death, if you have another to add, do so. The article already gives his age at his corination as 14 years old. As for the place of his birth, the article acknowleged that his German origins are likely legendary, anyhow. I am not going to change the cited info on Nuremburg, but I will not complain if somebody else does. -- SECisek 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Life

Section fails to make any mention of Geoffrey of Wells' "De Infantia Sancti Edmundi". Probably the most important account of St.Edmund's life (after Abbo of Fleury).


"ex antiquorum Saxonum prosapia", incorrect quotation, should read "ex antiquorum nobili Saxonum prosapia" [from the noble stock of the ancient saxons].


"...of foreign origin...", what is foreign? surely he was of the same extraction? St. Abbo uses the term "comprovinciales" [fellow-countrymen].


"This is a very doubtful tradition...no evidence... King Alcmund (or Alkmund), ever existed"

(1) Evidence of Edmund's father is provided by Geoffrey of Wells, Florentius, Lydgate, Leland, Bodl MS. 240;

(2) Geoffrey of Wells had access to abundant material. He mentions the sources and traditions from which he compiled his account of St. Edmund. And if the violence and vandalism of the 16th century now deprives us of these sources this is no reason for holding that they did not exist;

(3) Bad prose since it doubts his saxon origin (in the preceeding sentence) is due to "non-existant" evidence of his "alleged" father and not because of any saxon parentage (real or imaginary).


"...his birth at Nuremberg", see section "Inaccuracies in the Saint Banner" above.


"...his adoption by King Æthelweard"

(1) No citation of this. The referenced Percy Dearmer makes no mention of this, infact "King Offa of East Anglia" is mentioned in the reference;

(2) Numerous other reference to Offa, see section "Inaccuracies in the Saint Banner" above.


"...his father was King Æthelweard", the citation makes no mention of this.


"...certain is that the king died in 854", but not King Æthelweard, rather King Offa. Although Hervey suggests they are one and the same: Æthelstan—Ætha—Æffa—Offa (see "The Garland of Saint Edmund King and Martyr").


"landing at Hunstanton to claim his kingdom", lands in autumn of 855, Mackinlay.


"crowned by St Humbert on 25 December 855", North Folk formally acknowleged Edmund as their sovereign ("...began to reign... 14th year of his age", Asser), but his authority did not extend beyond Attleborough. He spent the next year learning by heart the psalter (of David, Mackinlay) while Bishop Humbert furthers Edmund's claim, the South Folk accept him, and his coronation occurs in 256 (feast of the Nativity) by Bishop Humbert (Asser).


"crowned by St Humbert ... at "Burna"". In Nolkfolk at Attlebourgh and in Suffolk at Sudbury (or South-Borough), Battely, Yates, & a note in MS. 4826 Harleian, also Camden, Leland & Hearn. Burna (or Bures-St-Mary) is situated on the Stour; it is as much in Essex as in East Anglia and was never a "royal town" of East Anglian kings, Mackinley.


"Almost nothing is known of the life of Edmund during the next fourteen years"

(1) St. Abbo writes "From his earliest you he followed Christ with his whote heart" (Office of St. Edmund, MS Bodl. Digby 109);

(2) Alcmund seeing the value in learning from Charemagne's palace, surrounded his son with competent teachers; instucted him in Latin, Mackinley;

(3) Edmund began to learn the Psalter while living in Old Saxony, Geoffrey of Wells.

EdChampion 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

After research I would agree to Catholic Martyr as it is the Catholic and Apostolic Church as it appears in the Nicene Creed. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 10:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Bures; there are many Bures The parish in Essex was sometimes called Bures St. John, Little Bures, or Bures Sackville mainly to distinguish it from Bures St. Mary in Suffolk. The river is the border and what does it is as much in Essex as in East Anglia mean. If the border is that mobile it still does not mean it was not the place where the event happened or that it happened in one of the other Bures? It is an option - always has been. As such it should stay. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 10:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Apologies for pushing this to the top of the page

but can people please indent their input into conversations. The only way I could bring myself up to date with the Patronage References (or "Why there's a NPOV tag on the page") discussion is by first looking at the time and date that points were inserted between existing points or established conservations. Once again apologies and here a gental reminder . Thanks Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 14:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A REMINDER...

NPOV means that nobody may delete a POV. All POVs must be in an article to make it NPOV. Those who want to delete an opinion with citations backing up that opinions are breaking NPOV and going against one of the very foundation principles of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia was created to be a free, open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And that means ANYONE. shutting out positions and censorship runs counter to the spirit of the WIKI project.

ALL OPINIONS MUST HAVE A SPACE. - even if you disagree with it.

EdChampion 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean that all the views expressed in reliable sources should be considered. Mere opinions matter not at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I did write at the beginning "opinions with citations..." or did you miss that? However the reliable sources, to quote, mentions that these are "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". Are you really going to insist on being so pedantic? EdChampion 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You've cited 17th century works in support of your positions before now. You keep restoring the 870 death date in the face of modern works which say 869. So, yes, I am going to ask that the things you add are properly sourced. This and this are more likely to be useful than looking through Leland. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a collection of antiquarian curiosities. This page tells you the standard that should be aimed at when editing this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"Your keep restoring the 870 death": a blatent lie: I 've change this ONCE ONLY - check the history of this article. Stop writing lies if you want to continue to merit responses form me. EdChampion
And if you had bother to read the citations you would have noted the following dates: "A Book of Feasts and Seasons" 1993, "Princes and Princely Culture" 2005 - pay more attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.231.4 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Significant is the operative word. We missed you Ed! Please present us with a recent instance of Edmund being "the Patron Saint of England" that is published by a reliable sourcs. Let's try to keep the discussion from rising to the acrimonious levels that it did last Summer? -- SECisek 23:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

you are still incapable of differentiating between "the Patron Saint of England" and "a Patron Saint of England". EdChampion 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


THIS ARTICLE WILL REMAIN IN DISPUTE UNTIL EDMUNDS ENGLISH PATRONAGE IS ACKNOWLEDGED. CITATIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED. EdChampion 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've just read in toto the Oxford DNB article on Edmund and two things are apparent. First, the death date given is 869. Second, the phrase 'the/a Patron Saint of England' does not appear at all. The very word 'patron' does not appear in the text. To include the reference in the Wiki article would be to include a fringe theory akin to Mr von Daniken's fanciful theories about ancient astronauts. Sorry, but excluding such nonsense is not violating the principle of maintaining 'neutral point of view'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
And whatever citations you manage to dig up do not change the fact that neither the calendar of the Roman Catholic Church (not even the lcoal one for Englnd and Wales), nor the calendar of the Church of England list Edmund as even "a" patron of England. The only patron given is George. QED. David Underdown 11:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Patronage References (or "Why there's a NPOV tag on the page")

"a national patron", Butler's Lives of the Saints, Alban Butler & Paul Burns.

"St. Edmund as a national patron", Saint Edmund King and Martyr, James Boniface Mackinlay.

"patron saint of England", Well I Never Knew That! The History of Great Britain, Peter Ryding.

"He [George] became a patron saint of England, without displacing either S. Edward the Confessor or S. Edmund", The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, Peter Murray, Linda Murray.

"Patron Saint of England", A Book of Feasts and Seasons, Bogle, Joanna.

"patron of England", Relatio Domni Lamberti Abbatis, Abbott Lambert prior of St. Nicholas' of Angers

"patron saint of the kingdom, including St Edward the Confessor, St Edmund the Martyr, and St George the Martyr", Princes and Princely Culture, Martin Gosman, A. A. (Alasdair A.) MacDonald, Arie Johan Vanderjagt.

"three patron saints of England, viz., St. Edward, St. George, and St. Edmund.", The Gentleman's Magazine, Lincoln Diocesan Architectural Society

EdChampion 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"patron saints, St. Edmund ...", The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, Wilfrid Philip Ward, Oxford movement

"St. Edmund, patron of the English", Mediaeval Studies ,Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies

Yeah, can I suggest you specify (without bolding or SHOUTING) exactly what sections you have problems with? Adding the npov tag is all very well but without suitable discussion you're just going to end up blocked again and eventually indefinitely, which I'm sure you'd find disagreeable. Please try to meet us all half way. The Rambling Man 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be three opinions over Edmund's patronage of England. 1) he was never a patron 2) he was but is nolonger a patron 3) he was and is still a patron; I have listed enough (and not an exhustive list) of material to at the very least include a metion to no. 3. EdChampion 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Phew. Okay, so we need to find a community consensus to decide whether the (many) sources you've provided are sufficient to endorse a mention in the article. Seems to me that you've done a good job in finding sources, I'd be interested to hear from the other main editors here to see why they don't make a good argument for listing per EdChampion. The Rambling Man 21:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ed, you have failed to answer the fact that the calendars of neither the Anglican or Roman Catholic Churches currently list him as a patron. De facto, he is not. I think we might have to take this to an RFC. David Underdown 09:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
agreed with the above statement. It would be useful though to discover when he lost his status within the two English based Churches and put that as well as the fact he once was a patron saint of England into the article. I am not sure he was ever 'the' patron saint, he did share the role with Edward The Confessor for a period of time. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 12:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
By local I assume you mean national (I have already provided you with one diocesan litergical calendar that lists St. Sdmund). But that aside, I do not follow your logic. Are you suggesting that saints who do not appear on a litergical calendar cannot have patronages assigned to them? If this is true then you'll have alot of editing to do but will be stopped for vandalism before you ever finished. If you're suggesting that the patronage of a country is absolutely unique amoungst all the numerous types of patronage in that there is a mandatory requirement on all patrons of a country, whether the tetular patron or not, to appear on the country's litergical calendar, then please cite a source - Papal declaration, edict, reference to Canon law etc. Anything. You seem not to understand the rules of Wiki - the onus is on you to proved this, not me to refute it. EdChampion 22:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The book that appears on at the top of the list is not there by accident. May I suggest that you review it and then view theses links: Nihil obstat, Imprimatur (of which Butler's contains both). EdChampion 22:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing a bit of poking around. BCP 1549 has neither George (Mark the Evangelist actually has the feast day of April 23 in this calendar!) nor Edmund listed in its calendar. 1559 saw George added back onto the calendar (but not specifically mentioned as patron), whereas Edmund didn't make it back until 1561. 1662 underwent a couple of revisions over the years, neither George nor Edmund is specifically mentioned as patron in the calendar. I wouldn't know where to find previous versions of RC calendars. David Underdown 13:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is much evidence, but I think the most damning bit against Ed's position is this: [9] "not planning to change the patron the saint of England from St George to St Edmund." George is, Edmund is not. Done and done. -- SECisek 14:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is a reference to replacing the tetular patron. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument being made.EdChampion 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think then that is it, hopefully all can agree now! from what I have read St Edmund could only still be the / a patron saint because nobody got round to formally removing him. This though is not enough to say that he is the patron saint. As an aside there are quite as few St Edmund flags appearing in Suffolk, but he is the patron saint of the county. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It certainly is enough, if you canot provide a reference to any evidence: Wiki rules. But put Edmund to one side for one moment, out of all the patronages that have ever, ever, ever been assigned, please provide just one example of a patronage (of any type) being removed. You can't. It doesn't happen. Principal patronages may change from one saint to another but the patronages given to saints themselves are never removed. Again, I repeat, this is nothing to do with Edmund becoming the (pricipal) patron, but rather that he is still a general patron. It is not impossible for a country to have more that one patron, just look at France. EdChampion 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have more faith in the Oxford DNB than the theories of a editor who has made no other contribution to Wikipedia but to promote this one obsession. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Added two more refs - including one from the Oxford Movement. And yet the ODNB doesn't explicitly say anything... EdChampion 17:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
What a re the dates of all these sources? I think that would be useful in evaluating them. David Underdown 18:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of old calendars of saints. Francis Wormald published two volumes of English calendars, then there's Stanton's Menology of England and Wales, and no doubt many more besides. It would be rash to say that no calendar lists Edmund as a "patron" of England, but unless you can show which calendar(s) say that he was, or point to a reliable source which says one does, we are not going to get any further. Princes and Princely Culture would be your best bet, although it seems to me that it does not quite say what you want it to say as it is using the word patron loosely.
There is plenty of evidence that Edmund was a very important saint. Stanton, p. 561, says that Cnut ordered Edmund's feast-day to be observed throughout England (was this when he confirmed the observation of Edward the Martyr's feast which had been ordered by Æthelred?). Edward the Confessor claimed Edmund as a "kinsman" (Barlow, Edward the Confessor, p. 257, the charters in question are S 1073/Harmer 13 and S1074/Harmer 14), which would seem to put Edmund on the same level as King Edward's uncle and namesake. Rather that relying arguing over a concept like "patron saint", which will mean nothing to a great many of our readers, we can show that Edmund was a key English royal saint by including the evidence in the article and letting the facts speak for themselves. That may require that the article be rather less hagiographical than it now is, but I think that it would be worth the trouble. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
But you still haven't shown that it is a mandatory requirement for all national patron saints, whether the titular patron or not, to appear on the nation's liturgical calendar. EdChampion 18:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The calendars show the "most important" feasts. It's a bloody long stretch to think that if he's some sort of patron that won't be recognised on the calendar. He's not even on the contemporary RC calendar at all. OK so he may never have been "formally" deposed, but you've not shown any evideince that he was "formally" appointed as such either. If there were a Papal Bull or whatever nominating him as patron in the first place, and no sign of one downgrading him that would be one thing, but all this stuff around canonisation has got steadily more "bureaucratic" over the years, so it's hardly surprising that there isn't much documentation a for the era we're talking about, and after all this is England we're talking about where we get along fine with a (largely) unwritten constitution. There isn't even anything formal to say that London is the capital or that God Save the Queen is the National Anthem, but no-one really disputes it. However, for the sake of solving this, would something in the article (not the lead per WP:UNDUE) along the lines of, "Some sources (quote some of the more up-to-date refs here) maintain that Edmund was never formally deposed as a patron of England, so he maintains that honour, however, the current liturgical calendars of the Church of England(ref) and the Roman Catholic Church in England and Waleslist only George as patron, and Edmund's feast day is not even observed in the Catholic calendar(ref)" get any consensus? David Underdown 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Edmund's feast observed in the roman martyrology for England and the East Anglia diocese's liturgical calendar. EdChampion 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
But he is not listed in the calendar produed by the Bishop's conference for England and Wales, http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/liturgy/Calendar/National/England1.html (or more specifically November - http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Calendar/2007/Nov07.html ), nor in the Universal Calendar of the RCC, (as reprodcued on England and Wales website) http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Calendar/Universal/NovUC.html Fine he's on the East Anglian calendar - he's already listed in the article as Patron of that Diocese. I don't see that that makes him a national patron (rather the opposite). David Underdown 11:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My final (hopefully) comments on Edmund as Patron

The google search for Edmund the martyr "Patron Saint"

Case against Edmund as Patron

"A new Patron Saint of England? With St George struggling to catch the imagination of the English in the way that St Patrick has with the Irish, is it time to consider a different Patron Saint of England?"

[10]

"..new Patron Saint of England?"...time to consider a different - Patron Saint of England?" again, George is, Edmund isn't.

"EADT editor Terry Hunt said: “While it's a shame that Tony Blair in his ultimate wisdom has decided not to re-instate St Edmund to his rightful place as English patron saint, I'm nonetheless absolutely delighted that Suffolk will be recognising our own saint on his special day in November.”

[11]

"...re-instate St Edmund to his rightful place as English patron saint..." - Edmund is not England's patron saint.

"St George is the patron saint of England and among the most famous of Christian figures."

"St George is the patron saint of England" - pretty clear.

Which has never been denied. Try researching patrons of other countries and you will see that is is possible for a country to have more that one patron a titular (principal) patron and one or more minor patrons. Try looking at France. EdChampion 19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Case For Edmund

"St Edmund the Martyr - Original Patron Saint of England?"

[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/st-edmund-martyr-original-patron-376879.html]

And what about the sources cited above by me? EdChampion

The number one hit on google is a message board for Stormfront.org whose motto is White Pride World Wide.

Formulate your google queries right, as you have done, and you can return anything. Search for "the legends of St.George" and you return the BNP site. EdChampion

I will not demonstrate any more in favour of Edmund, but I will outline the three groups advocating the position that Edmund is a/the Patron Saint of England:

1. White power/England first groups that see St George as Norman propaganda to destroy "English identity".

This actually appeared on the message board rather than the site itself. You can find similar claims for st george by other extreme groups - including some in the USA. It's not the first occasion that a claim on some higher authority has been used to advance "a cause". It's no different that George Bush claiming "God told him" to go to war with Iraq.EdChampion

2. Roman Catholic Groups who see Edmund as a reminder of pre-Reformation "glory days" in England, George being held so dearly by the C of E.

Don't know of any off-hand but St George's day has always been a low-key affair in England, mostly going unnoticed - hardly dearly loved... EdChampion

3. Orthodox Christian Groups who see Edmund as a reminder of pre-schism "glory days" in England, George being adopted by the Roman Catholics.

ditto EdChampion
Perhaps, rather that resorting to sluring people with your detractions and calumnies you should return to the dispute. EdChampion 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

The "pro Edmund" positions are advanced almost exclusively on message boards and blogs. Every major independent source (read:reliable) on the web makes it quite clear that George is Patron. If a source bothers to mention Edmund at all, it always mentions that he was displaced by George.

This is not true as in the numerous sources cited above. EdChampion

The position that Edmund is not now the Patron of England is one with broad consensus behind it. The position that Edmund is a/the Patron is a fringe position being advanced by groups who wish to place a descendent of Harold (!?!) on the English throne, people who believe there has been no archbishop of Canterbury since Cardinal Pole died, and Greek/Russian immigrants to England looking for someone they can be proud of. Blog away, but keep it out of Wikipedia.

First, you still haven't grasp the difference between a titular (i.e. principal) patron and a non-titular (i.e. general patron). Second, there is no evidence that any of the authors of the above sources fall in any of the categories you mention. EdChampion

This is hopefully the last I will have to offer on this subject. We may be approaching the point where an RfC is needed. I admire Edmund greatly and the work I have poured into making this article far superior to that of George or Edward the Confessor should make it quite clear that I have no reason to be biased against Edmund as Patron. Reality just does not support that position.

BTW: There is no such thing as a "tetular patron".

try titular paton EdChampion 19:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC) EdChampion

--SECisek 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute: Douai Abbey

Can someone explain why Douai Abbey was removed from the patronages and why under WIKI rules it could not be added. EdChampion 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have in my possession a guide book published by Douai Abbey, Woolhampton in 1979 that states on page 2 that St Edmund, King and martyr is indeed its patron, as he as been for the community since its foundation in Paris in 1615. I hope this clears things up. - Galloglass
Fair enough. The website actually has a caption for the nave windows that says "These four windows are in the south aisle wall. Reading from left to right, the first window depicts St George, Patron of England ... with a very timid dragon. The second, which shows St Edmund, Patron of the Abbey..." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a picture of the Boss in the centre of the roof in the Abbey church taken about 25 years ago depicting St Edmund filled with arrows. Quite a remarkable piece of work, which if I can find I will add sometime. - Galloglass —Preceding comment was added at 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Abbey's website backs that George is patron of England and Edmund is not. I will add Douai Abbey to the article. -- SECisek 09:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Patron saint of England

This is a dispute about Edmund the Martyr and the patron saint of England.

Yeah, good call. The Rambling Man 19:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it's about Edmund the Martyr being a patron saint of England. Not to be mistaken with the titular (i.e. pricipal) patron of the England EdChampion 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ed, do yourself a favour and head over to WP:RFC. You're a lone voice right now, you're right, this is a wiki, but a wiki needs community consensus, not a single editor rebelling. Hence the request for comment, it should draw in opinion from outside the argument. In the meantime I'd suggest focusing your efforts there, instead of continually adding NPOV tags against consensus. Good luck. The Rambling Man 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wonder if it would be better listed under Religion and Philosophy (instead/as well), rather than History, a lot of this seems to come down to the "ranking" of Edmund on the various liturgical calendars, and we're more likely to get knowledgable input from that direction, rather than historians. There's one chap I can think of who might be good to ask, I'll drop him a note. David Underdown 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
For the Roman Catholic Church, the situation is clear. St George is the patron saint of England: see National Calendar for England. For the same Church, Edmund the Martyr is not even a (secondary) patron of England, as St Brigid and St Columba (Colum Cille) are secondary patrons of Ireland (cf. National Calendar for Ireland): if he were, his liturgical celebration would necessarily be in the National Calendar, but, as can be seen in the site already referred to, it is not included.
[A by-the-way comment: He is recognized as a saint, being included in the Roman Martyrology under the date 20 November, and may therefore be celebrated liturgically everywhere on that day, unless in some places obligatory celebrations are assigned to the same date. He may also be inscribed in some local (not national) calendars for obligatory or optional celebration. If, as the article states, he is the patron saint of the Diocese of East Anglia, he is celebrated annually in that diocese, which includes Suffolk. (Not everyone would agree that it would be fitting or even possible for local government authorities, rather than the Church, to declare someone the patron saint of a territory, as seems to have been done for Suffolk.)]
I cannot speak for other Churches, such as the Anglican Church. Lima 13:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The Catholic position is that St. George is the patron Saint of England. He was confirmed as patron by Pope John-Paul II in 2000 after the Bishop's conference of England & Wales in 1993 that sort to restore St. George as principal patron (replacing St. Peter) and submitted their request to the Vatican. Note that he is patron because of this edict by the pope and not merely because he appears in the litergical calandar.
The Irish calander given above also applies the term "secondary patron" to two saints. It is interesting that the term patron is used for St. Brigid (one would normally expect to read the word patroness), unless of course a patroness is necessarily a secondary patron - but this suggestion is easily disproved by reading the liturgical calendar of Sweden. But England also has a patroness and yet no "secondary patron" title is afforded to her in the calendar. If we look to the French calandar we read not only of St. Denis as patron but also St. Therese as a co-patron, which inferring equal status. But when one reads St. Martin de Tours feast there is no recognition of his patronage.
While it may be fine to use liturgical calendar's to determine a nation's primary patron, it is clearly wrong to use them for determining secondary patrons. They are not reliable and there is no consistancy.
If we look back to the time of the rebuiding of the Catholic hierachy in England by Leo XIII we read in his pastoral letter "we finally invoke as intercessors with God ... the blessed patrons of England...". The pontiff refers to the English patrons prior to the reformation and that England has more that one patron. Providing that it can be shown that St. Edmund was a patron prior to the reformation then I cannot see why he would not be seen as a secondary/minor/auxillary patron of England now. I cannot find any reference of his removal (or St. Edward for that matter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.77.144 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There doesn't seem to be an option in the 'Request for Comment' process for multiple categories. I was stuck between biography, history and religion. I chose the median. If this doesn't pan out, then religion can be chosen next. In the mean time, I've put in a request for peer review under the biography project. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Edmund the Martyr for reviewers comments. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BL link

The link is fine, but should not be in the body of the article per: Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember

"2. External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox."

Try your hand at creating one and load it over mine if you don't like it. -- SECisek 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations in Lead

I know citations in the lead is a source of endless Wiki quibbling at both GA and FA. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations in the lead section.

"Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."

Since the citations were kind of random, I placed them all in the body. If necessary, some could return. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

When we GA-ed this article, I was a cite-er in the lead. Since then, the last few GAs I worked on wouldn't allow them so I have reversed myself. Moving them to the body was the right thing to do. -- SECisek 00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

martydom

from the article ... These details induced the writers of the British Museum's account of the bog body called Lindow Man[23] to suggest that the body of St Edmund recovered in the fens "was in fact a prehistoric bog body, and that in trying to find their murdered king, his people had recovered the remains of a sacred king of the old religion still bearing the marks of his ritual strangulation."[24]. Having read book referenced in 23 a long time ago and not having read book referenced in 24 should not 24 be 23, if my memory serves me well. If I am wrong no problem, I will have to go back to the book when I can. P.S. have a restful and enjoyable St Edmund's Day. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 15:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why so it IS! A happy and holy St. Edmund's day to you all. If you sure the ref is wrong, be bold. -- SECisek (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Edmund is becoming spooky. I've just got back from the evening service. I was startled to hear the life of St. Edmund for the first reading - I wasn't paying attention. Then, he got mentioned again during the sermon and was invocted during the communion. It is pretty rare to hear an actual saint's name be said. I certainly have never heard of St Edmund being mentioned before - or it went right over my head. BTW, no mention of the patron saint of England but he was commended to us as being of special interest to younger people 'cause he was king and died young: kind of morbid. So, if this should be written up in a parish newsletter, can we add St Edmund - Patron Saint of Young Dead People. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My Churchman's Ordo Kalendar has today as a red letter day and says "Edmund the Martyr, king of East Anglia" but no mention of patronage, there either. -- SECisek (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear EdChampion , it may well be that you feel the conversation(s) has / have not finished. At the end of the archive it said If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Please feel free to do so, below this edit. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute not resolved: St. Edmund's patronage of England

"a national patron", Butler's Lives of the Saints, Alban Butler & Paul Burns.

"Christendom honoured him with St. Edward the Confessor, St. Stephen of Hungary, St. Ferdinand of Castile, St. Canute of Denmark, St. Louis of France, as a royal national patron." "St. Edmund as a national patron", Saint Edmund King and Martyr, James Boniface Mackinlay.

"patron saint of England", Well I Never Knew That! The History of Great Britain, Peter Ryding.

"He [George] became a patron saint of England, without displacing either S. Edward the Confessor or S. Edmund", The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, Peter Murray, Linda Murray.

"Patron Saint of England", A Book of Feasts and Seasons, Bogle, Joanna.

"patron of England", Relatio Domni Lamberti Abbatis, Abbott Lambert prior of St. Nicholas' of Angers

"patron saint of the kingdom, including St Edward the Confessor, St Edmund the Martyr, and St George the Martyr", Princes and Princely Culture, Martin Gosman, A. A. (Alasdair A.) MacDonald, Arie Johan Vanderjagt.

"three patron saints of England, viz., St. Edward, St. George, and St. Edmund.", The Gentleman's Magazine, Lincoln Diocesan Architectural Society

"patron saints, St. Edmund ...", The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, Wilfrid Philip Ward, Oxford movement

"St. Edmund, patron of the English", Mediaeval Studies ,Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies

There appears to be three opinions over Edmund's patronage of England. 1) he was never a patron 2) he was but is nolonger a patron 3) he was and is still a patron; I have listed enough (and not an exhustive list) of material to at the very least include a mention to no. 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 3 December 2007

RfC

This went RfC already. user:Lima is an arbitor with serious Roman Catholic credentials who weighed in during the RfC. Nobody is puhing an "Anglican POV" - there is fact and fantasy. The consensus is not with you, New Jersey Ed. Do you really want your masked pulled off? Let this go. -- SECisek 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this from the archive addressed Lima's comments:
"The Catholic position is that St. George is the patron Saint of England. He was confirmed as patron by Pope John-Paul II in 2000 after the Bishop's conference of England & Wales in 1993 that sort to restore St. George as principal patron (replacing St. Peter) and submitted their request to the Vatican. Note that he is patron because of this edict by the pope and not merely because he appears in the litergical calandar.
The Irish calander given above also applies the term "secondary patron" to two saints. It is interesting that the term patron is used for St. Brigid (one would normally expect to read the word patroness), unless of course a patroness is necessarily a secondary patron - but this suggestion is easily disproved by reading the liturgical calendar of Sweden. But England also has a patroness and yet no "secondary patron" title is afforded to her in the calendar. If we look to the French calandar we read not only of St. Denis as patron but also St. Therese as a co-patron, which inferring equal status. But when one reads St. Martin de Tours feast there is no recognition of his patronage.
While it may be fine to use liturgical calendar's to determine a nation's primary patron, it is clearly wrong to use them for determining secondary patrons. They are not reliable and there is no consistancy.
If we look back to the time of the rebuiding of the Catholic hierachy in England by Leo XIII we read in his pastoral letter "we finally invoke as intercessors with God ... the blessed patrons of England...". The pontiff refers to the English patrons prior to the reformation and that England has more that one patron. Providing that it can be shown that St. Edmund was a patron prior to the reformation then I cannot see why he would not be seen as a secondary/minor/auxillary patron of England now. I cannot find any reference of his removal (or St. Edward for that matter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.77.144 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC) EdChampion 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I have again been asked to look in. I think the anonymous editor who wrote the above perhaps understood "calendar" as a concrete printed calendar. Such calendars may indeed be unreliable and may differ from each other. When speaking of a "national calendar", I did not mean such calendars. What I referred to was the official set of liturgical celebrations, drawn up by a country's Catholic bishops and confirmed by the Holy See. There is no question of the calendar, in this sense, being unreliable: it is what the printed calendars must conform to; and it will vary only if the bishops decide to change it and get the change confirmed by the Holy See. Normae Universales de Anno Liturgico et de Calendario, 59 indicates that a secondary patron is included in such an official calendar for celebration with an "obligatory memorial". (The Irish bishops have decided to give the celebrations of that country's secondary patrons the higher rank of "feast".) Inscription in the calendar doesn't make a saint a patron: it is the fact of being a patron that ensures his inscription in the calendar. It follows that, if a saint's liturgical celebration is not now in the national calendar, even as a memorial, that saint is not now a patron, primary or secondary, of that country. The saint may have been a national patron earlier (the quotations that EdChampion gives seem to indicate that Edmund the Martyr was a patron (even if perhaps not the patron) of England in the past); or the saint may be destined to become a patron in the future, in which case the official calendar will then be changed. Individuals may call on the saint to intercede with God for the country, but only a decision by the country's bishops, confirmed by the Holy See - or an extremely unlikely motu proprio action by the Pope - would make that saint an official national patron.

I would appeal to the two who are discussing the matter to try being silent on it - both of them - for 24 hours. Lima 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse my ignorance. When did this process begin? This surely wasn't the process whereby Ireland got its three patrons, even thought they may now fulfill the requirements you describe. Secondly, and rather importantly, if a secondary patron has an obligatory memorial, does it follow that a saint with an obligatory memorial is some form of patron? Curiously, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know when countries first began to have patron saints assigned to them. Or should I say to be assigned to patron saints? It may well have been a popular (of the people) initiative, or that of a king or a bishop or ... What does it matter? At present, in the Catholic Church, a confirming intervention of the Holy See is required for official naming of a patron saint, and it is the present that was/is discussed here. By no means all obligatory memorials are of national or regional patrons. I have had the curiosity to count how many obligatory memorials there are in the general calendar of saints. Unless I miscounted, there are 69. And each country will have its additional obligatory memorials. That would add up to quite a lot of patrons for a country to have, most of them with no special relationship with the country. Each of the saints can be considered a patron of people, parishes, schools, guilds etc. that bear that saint's name, and others too may choose that saint as their personal patron. But the same holds for saints who have only an optional memorial in the calendar, and even for those whose who, though recognized as saints, do not appear at all in the liturgical calendar. In any case, what was/is discussed here is whether one particular saint is classified as a patron of England. If the question is about being now an official patron, the answer is clearly: No. But I suppose any individual Englishman or woman or any group of them is free to pray to any saint whatever as a patron (an unofficial one) of their country. Lima 14:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it should also be noted that the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglicans, and even potentially Lutherans, and several of the various groups which have separated from those parent groups, also recognize saints and patron saints in a way at least, and that he might be considered an official patron by one or more of those bodies, might be relevant. If he is officially recognized by one or more of those bodies, it would probably be worth mentioning, although I would indicate which specific church held him as a patron as well. And not every saint whose feast is required is necessarily a patron of anything related specifically to that country, just an indication of how important that individual is seen in that country. John Carter 15:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Lima, I find your response puzzling. In your original comment you provided two references to the English and Irish websites of the Catholic Church as evidence of national patronages. I replied with “....made a patron by Pope John-Paul II in 2000 after the Bishop's conference of England & Wales in 1993 that .... and submitted their request to the Vatican. Note that he is patron because of this edict by the pope and not merely because he appears in the liturgical calendar.”. But from your comment above you now agree with me on this point.

I highlighted differences between your two references and the websites of the Catholic Church in France and Sweden (which I should have referenced [12] [13]). You also now agree with me on this point: these calendars and the ones you cited as evidence are not reliable.

Regarding Normae Universales de Anno Liturgico et de Calendario, 59. First it makes no mention that all patrons primary/secondary/minor/auxiliary must be accommodated in the calendar. Second it makes no mention of secondary national patrons:

Festa propria, nempe: a) Festum Patroni principalis dioecesis. b) Festum anniversarii dedicationis ecclesiae cathedralis. c) Festum Patroni principalis regionis aut provinciae, nationis, amplioris territorii. .....

Memoriae obligatoriae propriae, nempe: a) Memoriae Patroni secundarii loci, dioecesis, regionis aut provinciae religiosae. b) Aliae memoriae obligatoriae inscriptae in calendario cuiusque dioecesis, vel Ordinis seu Congregationis.

Notice that national is missing? What this shows is in fact the contrary to what you write. You have provided proof that it is not mandatory that a seconary national patron has a memorial.

It is interesting that you mention a "Motu Proprio", since one has recently been released by Pope Benedict XVI (SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM) on the Traditional Roman rite which can be read here [14]. Cardinal Bertone was reported in "Le Figaro" as saying that the Traditional rite based on the 1962 missal would keep its own liturgical calendar. Therefore there are now two liturgical calendars. In most countries this may make no difference in terms of patron saints but in the case of England St. George was only made patron in 2000, so depending on the calendar one follows St. George or St. Peter is the patron saint of England! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.66.185 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% The is no reference to a secondary national patron requiring an Obligatory Memorial in the Normae Universales etc. EdChampion (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have happened to come back to this page. Perhaps I should bookmark it for a while. I agree with what is said about the letter of the Normae quoted, but I imagine that what it says about secondary patrons would be applied by analogy to a country's secondary patron also. However, that is practically beside the point. The essential thing that I was saying is that a saint who in a country's official liturgical calendar is not mentioned at all, and is given neither solemnity nor feast nor any form of memorial, is surely not officially classified as a patron saint, primary or secondary or co- or whatever, of the country. (Some countries do have more than one principal patron. I think Italy is one: Francis of Assisi and Catherine of Siena. The continent of Europe certainly has no less than six patrons, all equal, including the Swedish Birgitta/Brigid, not the Irish Brigid.) It appears that I must repeat that it is not inscription in the country's official liturgical calendar that makes a saint that country's patron. But does anyone really think that, if a saint is officially elevated to the position of patron of a country, that saint would be altogether ignored in the country's liturgical calendar? Merry Christmas. Lima (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Lima, you appear to be abandoning the Thomistic approach and reverting to something more akin to Alice (in Wonderland) and the use of “imagination”. But I feel that you have only read half of what I wrote. It is not just that the word nationis is missing from the Memoriae obligatoriae propriae of patroni secundarii, but the fact that the word nationis is explicitly present in the one of the preceding lines that makes reference to patroni principalis namely, Patroni principalis regionis aut provinciae, nationis. This re-enforces the fact that nationis is clearly missing from patroni secundarii. And it certainly is the point; it must be missing for a reason.
It does appear that countries can have more than one patroni principalis (e.g. St. Denis & St. Therese of France, a point I made a while back in the archive talk page). However, this is derived from the French liturgical calendar.
Regarding liturgical calendars, you do not have to repeat anything. It was I who showed you the discrepancies amongst some national liturgical calendars, and how they were not reliable in determining all the patrons of a nation, and that, in the case of St. George, it was the approval by Pope John-Paul II in 2000 that elevated St. George to patroni principalis (my post of 21:11, 22 November 2007 in the archive). In short, I demonstrated to you their unreliability in determining national patrons and later you agreed with me.
It is hard to determine when St. Edmund first became patron. It appears to be between 900AD and 1200AD. And although he does not appear in the liturgical calendar, he is remembered in the Roman Martyrology [[15]], and for the nationis and not just the loci or dioecesis.
But let me ask you a question. Who do you think the patrons of England are? When the Catholic hierarchy was restored by Pope Leo XIII, In his pastoral letter he writes "we finally invoke as intercessors with God ... the blessed patrons of England...", who do you think he was referring to? Happy Christmas! 81.163.36.113 (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I still think questions such as who were considered patron saints of England in the century before last, or even in the last century, or even indeed by stable groups attached to the 1962 form of the liturgy, are of little relevance in comparison to this: Does anyone really think that a saint now officially ranked as a country's patron (principal, secondary or co-) would be altogether ignored in the country's present official liturgical calendar? Happy Christmastide. (As you see, I have, though only for the moment, bookmarked this page.)
The present Martyrologium Romanum has, under 20 November, "8. In Anglia, sancti Edmúndi, mártyris, qui, rex Anglórum orientalium, in prœlio contra Normánnos invasóres captus pro Christi fide martýrio coronátus est." This is more than the "In Anglia sancti Eadmúndi, Regis et Mártyris" that was in older editions. I don't understand the significance of "and for the nationis and not just the loci or dioecesis": the Martyrologium does not, as far as I know, describe any saint whatever as patron of a particular territory or group. Each entry after the first of the day begins with the place of death of the saint: the town, if known, otherwise only the country or province, never the diocese; if the death occurred in Rome, it even gives the place, such as "Romæ in cœmetério ad duas lauros via Labicána miliário tértio, sancti Tibúrtii ...". Lima (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (The example I have given may indicate that at least in some instances, the place given at the start of an entry is the place of burial, rather than of death. But certainly not patronage. Lima (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
Lima, the question is relevant in that it seeks to understand whether there is more than one patron of England; who they are/were seen to be; if or when they were added and/or removed (and if so by whom or what process) etc. By looking at other patrons it may help in determining the status of St. Edmund, possibly even revealing some, as yet, unsourced references. However, if you have already envisaged replies such as "what is the valid Catholic source of your list" or "which Cardinal or process demoted this patron" and realised that you cannot find an answer, it is better to say so rather than dodging the question.
I can only repeat what I wrote: the word nationis is missing for secondary patrons, unlike for principal patrons where it is present. It is missing for a reason. In fact we can say that not only is it possible, but that there must exist some secondary patrons who are not in some nation's liturgical calendar, otherwise the omission of nationis would be absurd.
I referenced the Martyrologium Romanum to show that St. Edmund, even though he is not present in the liturgical calendar, is still remembered to some degree. I never wrote, however, that this was proof he was a patron. The reference to loci/dioecesis/nationis was to show that the inclusion in the martyrology referred to England rather than Bury St. Edmunds or East Anglia. In addition, he is also remembered in The Office for Holy Week. 80.145.207.50 (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And I by no means deny that:
  • "nationis" is not found in that part of the Normae that you referred to
  • St Edmund is recognized as a saint of the Church, as are other Englishmen who are not in the liturgical calendar
  • St Edmund may once have been ranked as a national patron (principal, co-principal, or secondary)
But if you think he is now a national patron, how do you explain that he is not now in the national liturgical calendar, while others who are not ranked as patrons of England are included in the liturgical calendar for England? If, as well as St George, someone else is officially a patron of England (something for which I have no evidence) that someone else seems not to be St Edmund. Lima (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Lima, there could be a number of reasons. The last changes to the Liturgical calendar were possibly more in keeping with the "spirituality of the times". May be in the "spirit of ecumenism" is not politically correct to commemorate Church martyrs. Or perhaps the East Anglia diocese just wants St. Edmund all to her self. We can speculate, but it has already been agreed that inclusion in the calendar doesn’t make a saint a patron nor does the exclusion remove a patronage.
But let me take you back to something I have mentioned previously and the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy in England. Here is and extract from the Apostolic Letters:
"... we again invoke, as our intercessors with God, the most holy Mother of God, with the other heavenly Patrons of England, especially, St. Gregory the Great, ... again to restore the Episcopal Sees in England."
"And we decree that these, our Letters Apostolical, shall never at anytime be objected against or impugned, or any other; but shall always be valid and enforce ..."
"Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the Seal of the Fisherman, this 29th September 1850, in the fifth year of our Pontificate, A. Cardinal Lambruschini"
Question: Given the above as a valid Catholic source, and given that Sts. Peter, Paul & Gregory are specifically mentioned, and given that these Apostolic Letters "shall always be enforce", and given that there exists no record of the removal of his patronage, and given that his feast appears in the Liturgical Calendar of England in the way you view the Normae, I ask you, within you current knowledge and understanding of the Catholic church and the resource available to you: Is St. Gregory the Great a patron of England? (and if not, why? What references have you to the contrary?) 77.182.113.212 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving this quotation from the bull Universalis Ecclesiae, which by "heavenly Patrons of England" refers, it seems to me, generically to every saint in heaven who would be seen as having an interest in England, selecting only the Virgin Mary and St Gregory for individual mention. It does not clearly refer to any saint as national patron in the formal sense.
Pope Gregory, Saints Peter and Paul, the Virgin Mary, John Fisher, Thomas More, Margaret Clitherow, Edmund the Martyr, and hundreds and more of others are all heavenly patrons of England; but that does not mean that each one of them has been chosen as a national patron, like Saint Andrew for Scotland. Perhaps you and I really agree in substance, even if we have understood words in different senses. Lima (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Lima, you give another odd interpretation of something which is unambiguous, but it seems to me that you have merged "heavenly saints of England" and "heavenly patrons of England" when one is actually a subset of the other. A search of the Vatican website for "heavenly patrons" will show many official documents which cannot be reconciled with your “interpretation”. And any suggestion that “patron of England” doesn’t carry the conventional meaning in the Universalis Ecclesiae would require a valid reference.
But all this is avoiding the original question regarding St. Gregory. The answer is, of course, yes. If you answer no then you will have to argue against the Universalis Ecclesiae and cite valid sources. You could answer don’t know but then again what explanation could there be for your doubt and inability to give assent?81.186.252.27 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Pity. I thought we might reach agreement. You take it that England has several patron saints in the strict, technical, assigned, sense (how many?). I accept these as patrons only in a broad sense. On some website that I saw, Our Lady of Knock and St Kevin (why this saint rather than, say, St Ita?) were listed as patrons of Ireland. You may agree with whoever put these as patrons of Ireland, and I too consider them patrons of Ireland, but only in a broad sense. You consider Universalis Ecclesiae unambiguous. I do not. I consider the attitude of the Bishops Conference unambiguous. You do not. It seems there is no hope that we can agree. Pity. Lima (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Edmund the Martyr a/the current Patron Saint of England

Done

EdChampion has accepted this site as an authoritative source for use in Wikipedia and it does not include Edmund as a Patron of England. The subject seems to be closed. See these difs for EdChampion's citations: [16], [17], [18], [19]

While I believe this website is of highly dubious accuracy, I will accept it as a source in the interest of ending this dispute. My best wishes to all who have weighed in over the last few months. -- SECisek 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on stop being silly. I have reopened the RfC. EdChampion 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not being silly...are you? Is that site an authoritative source, because if it is the arguement is over and if it is not the four other articles need to be reverted. Which is it Ed? You can't have it both ways. -- SECisek 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you are. The fact that the list is incomplete (e.g. fails to mention St. Peter too) does not mean that those currently listed are false. And if the site is not to be trust we would have to remove the reference on the article page to wolves, kings and pandemic (epedmics actually ... the GA should have picked that up). EdChampion 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely national patronage would have been mentioned here. If you are saying that the website "overlooked" a fact as important as national patronage, then it cannot be a credible website for use at Wikipedia. On the other hand if the site is credible, then the arguement here is over. Shall I revert the other articles, or are we done here? -- SECisek 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the specific source EdChampion is citing on which this claim that Edmund the Martyr is a patron saint of England is being made? John Carter 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See the archive. there is 125k almost exclusively on this issue. -- SECisek 21:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My reason for asking is that any of the following could be the case:
  • 1 - Edmund could at one time have been seen as being the official patron saint. That might be worth mentioning if a specific reliable source mentioned it explicitly. The BBC link provided doesn't indicate what the source for Edmund once being considered patron of England is.
  • 2 - It is possible that Edmund is one of the secondary, tertiary, or whatever patrons for England. It is the case that some places have or have had more than one patron. But, again, a specific reliable source which goes into detail about when and where Edmund was declared the patron would be required. At least the BBC link provided does not supply that information.
  • 3 - Lord help us, but there are more than a few schismatic groups out there, any one of whom might have declared Edmund patron of England for whatever reason at some point. If that were the case, that also could be reasonably included, maybe like "Patron of :England (according to "church x")". But, again, a specific reliable source indicating when and where the subject was declared a patron would be required. Again, I didn't see such a reference. John Carter 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Point 1 above is I think a point that no-one has argued with, he was at sometime seen to be a patron saint of England, and from my limited research a role he shared with Edward the Confessor. This should and must be mentioned when good references are found.
2 I cannot answer at all and
3 If this situation existed then I doubt anyone could find fault with the proposal. The difficulty is (excepting that he once was) : Is St Edmund Still a patron saint of England?

The fact that there are various groups ranging from the bizarre to the I want a person who existed and actually visited England groups to the St George has been adopted by another set of the bizarre so lets change the saint is in fact possibly noteworthy in a encyclopedia. The entry itself should not be part of that self same programme. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 07:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

wasupwestcoast argued point 1, not with any explicit evidence but solely on the basis that the word "patron" did not occur in the Oxford DNB.
Edmund's national patronage appears in Bulter's Lives of the Saints with carries both a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. In addition I also have a full 9 vol. illuminated edition which has "published with the expression permission of Cardinal Manning" blazoned across the inside page. In addition there are the works quoted above from the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies and Lincoln Diocesan Architectural Society. And, not least, the book on the life of St. Edmund by REV. ]. B. MACKINLAY, O.S.B. EdChampion (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edmund's Article in Catholic Encyclopedia make no mention of the supposed patronage but is quite explicit in naming St George as Patron of England in the first phrase of his article. This edition carried Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, as well. Are you saying something is objectionable about the Edmund article, Ed? -- SECisek (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Easy. 1) The St. Edmund article is abridged and not detailed as St. George. 2) St. George is the principal patron where as St. Edmund is a secondary. 3) Similarly, the mention of the patronage of St. Columba, asecondary patron of Ireland is also missing. EdChampion (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Possibly true. However, the rules of wikipedia indicate that the burden of proof lies on the individual who seeks to add content, in this case, you, who seek to add the content relative to Edmund being a current patron of England. Please indicate what reliable source states that Edmund is a current patron of England, and, if possible, which organization sees him as such a patron. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
References were added above and noone has provided any evidence of the removal of his patronage. EdChampion (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
We should really just wait and see what else the RfC brings in. -- SECisek (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Butler's

As for the claim that he is listed as "a national patron" in Butler's, he certainly isn't in this edition, avaiable on EWTN website. -- SECisek (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Read "Butler's Lives of the Saints, New Edition (November)" by Alban Butler, Sarah Fawcett Thomas, Paul Burns EdChampion (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am familiar with the volume in question. Does it indicate which church body sees Edmund as a patron, though? What would be most useful would be an exact quotation from the book, indicating exactly what it states, preferably with page numbers, so that it could be added to the reference citation. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Bulter's is written for the Catholic Church. Check pages 173-175.
For the Anglican's there is "Studies in Church Dedications: Or England's Patron Saints" by Frances Arnold-Forster which also mention's St Edmund. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Won't have access to the sources till tomorrow, but will do what I can do review the material then. Thank you for the pointers. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just borrowed the following from my local library:Burns, Paul (2003). Butler's Lives of the Saints: New Concise Edition. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press. p. 625. ISBN 0-8146-2903-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help) Edmund the Martyr does not appear at all in the text. For Nov 20, there is listed St Edmund of Abingdon (c.1175-1240). Now this isn't the 12 volume set but Edmund the Martyr didn't make the short list. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the 13-volume set is somehow out of circulation right now, which I find inexplicable. It will be some time before I can get to the source, I'm afraid. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

I haven't located who said this in the archives but someone did mention that the article should be less of a hagiography; and, I think it was even EdChampion who wondered about Edmund being the patron saint of wolves, etc. So in the interest of Wikipedia, why not drop entirely the hagiographic bits and concentrate on the history. The whole notion of sainthood and patron is soooooo divisive that I think we can no longer see the forest because we don't dare look around the tree in front of us. For an individual consulting Wikipedia, do they actually care about the hagiographic aspects? A devout Catholic would know already what Edmund means to him or her. A devout high church Anglican likewise would not be asking Wikipedia about the status of Edmund, nor an Orthodox adherent. But all three would like to know Edmund's known history and biography. This may be wishy-washy but sometimes the sins of ommision are better than the sins of commision. Any thoughts? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments and hopes expressed above. There is much that can be re-introduced from previous editions of this article (even pre GA) that will fulfill any historical goals. I may have to hold up my hand a bit to the "saint / patron" subject as I foolishly believed that part of the history of the subject was the fact that he once was / may still be / some want him to be - a patron saint / the patron saint. To most of these public the the semantics of his present position is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a platform to inform so, though this might delay everything, there could be a paragraph on the previous roles Edmund had or still has. This wording could be sorted out either at a sandbox set up specifically or here and on consensus moved to the main page. As I have said before I believe there should be a page about "patron hood" as a subject and this paragraph would have obvious links to such. If though such a paragraph leads to the continuation of the last few months its positive informing role becomes irrelevant the major role of any article and I paraphrase Wasupwestcoast "... all ... would like to know Edmund's known history and biography". Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 07:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The development and motivation of the hagiography of Edmund, the shaping of the legendarium, are aspects of genuine history, no doubt about it. Impassioned squabbles based on personal opinion, over whether "Saint" Edmund is in actuality "patron" in some sense of anything at all—— those are best left for Sunday School. Reports of who have claimed Edmund as patron (with references) and what published historians have concluded such things meant to them are history. A shift of patronage from Peter to Edmund or vice versa is a political fact, and a fact of history. The article needs to cover the history. --Wetman (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bare in mind that broad consensus about what the article should look like exists. I am uncertain we need to make drastic changes to satisfy the one single purpose, disruptive account that turns up for a few days every six weeks. An overhaul as part of a drive to FA would be positive, but would require several commited editors. -- SECisek (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I agree with the feeling that the saintly aspects should be expanded and not removed but as Secisek right points out it would need someone to volunteer their time and expertise to properly expand those aspects so as not to offend anyone. In other words, it may be easier to say nothing than to say half of something and make someone totally irate. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A good start would be for you to point out how each of the 10 citations given above by myself break Wikipedia:Verifiability and why they are not valid Wikipedia:Citing sources. BTW, congratulations on your new admin role, perhaps we can now work to make this article NPOV and resolve the outstanding dispute.
Wikipedia:Consensus does not mean majority and even more so given the tiny number of editors. There has never been a discussion on this talk page as to what the article should "look like", let alone any consensus. As to "make drastic changes", there has only ever been one major dispute and it is hardly drastic. It would be helpful if you could quit the exaggerations, falsehoods and insults. EdChampion (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated discussion

I've added the template {{RecurringThemes}} to the top of this talk page. If someone wants to include a brief synopsis and archive links after each "|" in the template - the template parameters - then there will be a convenient top of page link to debate archives per repeating topic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a repeated discussion, it is because the dispute still hasn't been resolved. EdChampion (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

EdChampion

In an effort to give both of us a welcome break from Edmund - you and I should probably stay out of this for a time and let events run their course - I propose, as a good-will building project, you and I should edit Thomas the Apostle to GA. Intrested? Anybody else? Everyone is welcome, of course. -- SECisek (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article

I found an interesting, or at least relevant, article by Alan Thacker, "Peculiaris Patronus Noster: The Saint as Patron of the State in the Early Middle Ages" (in Maddicott & Palliser, The Medieval State: Essays presented to James Campbell, pp. 1–24). In this, Thacker looks at the evidence for early "Patron Saints" in Western Europe. A good third is devoted to Anglo-Saxon England. Most of the discussion is of Gregory the Great and Cuthbert of Lindisfarne. No mention of Edmund. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

EdChampion found a website that claimed Gregory the Great, Cuthbert of Lindisfarne, St Michael and St Augustine were all patrons of England, but he changed his tact when it was pointed out to him that website made no mention of Edmund. Is the article on-line. I would like to see it. -- SECisek (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting book and one that I have just aquired. You should read page 22 where it does mention the martyred East Anglian king Edmund, already the object of widespread veneration that Campbell includes in the account of the early patron saints of the English state. EdChampion (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article status

Ed, please don't delist this unilaterally, there is a process to be followed, you are a major contributor to the article so it is improper for you just to delist. I have restored the lsiting, but opened a review. David Underdown (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While the delisting was not endorsed, neither for procedural or substantive reasons, a number of issues were raised, and it was decided that the article should not be listed. The discussion will be added to the GAR archives shortly. Geometry guy 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Patron Saint

I don't know how long this will go on, but writing that Edmund is the current Patron Saint of England in Wikipedia will not make it so. He is not now, and the failed campaign on his behalf should make that clear:

This BBC article about the campaign couldn't be any more to the point.

This article even suggests that at the very least Edmund could be made a second patron saint, which he is not as of now.

It was a publicity stunt put on by a radio station and it failed. The joke is over.

Further more, the de-listing of the article was nonsense. EdChampion cited the suggestions for improvement to FA verbatium as reasons why the article should be de-listed from GA. It had passed GA not once, but twice in the last six months - the second time the editors refused to even review it - and it has not changed considerably since. This time, the genius who closed the review stated that in the absence of consensus the article should be pro-actively delisted, inspite of the fact that an absence of consensus should have resulted in no change of status. No matter, the article remains a "good article" in content if not in fact. Once more, I don't know how long this will go on, but writing that Edmund is the current Patron Saint of England in Wikipedia will not make it so. --SECisek (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is rather poignant that your first edit of the article since the termination of your short lived retirement introduced yet another inaccuracy. It appears that you are still either incapable of comprehending what has been stated or are stubbornly refusing to recognize it. I have never once claimed St. Edmund to be the current Patron Saint of England – as you well know.
The BBC is not an authority on patron saints nor according to Wassupwestcoast a “reliable source” but more of a “local interest filler on BBC Suffolk”. But if you actually read the BBC articles together with the Normae Universales de Anno Liturgico et de Calendario mentioned by Lima you would have understood that the campaign is in relation to the patroni principalis of the nation. The BBC is not suggesting a secondary patron but a co-patron of equal status – this is not without presidence, Lima mentions this and gives Italy as an example. However, this is not what is meant by a secondary patron (patroni secundarii), again I refer you to the Normae, it has already been exhaustively explained before. Finally, the BBC campaign had no value. It is not within the powers of the British PM to declare saints or appoint patrons: it would have no validity just as with the county of Suffolk. Lima alludes to this in a post “Not everyone would agree that it would be fitting or even possible for local government authorities, rather than the Church, to declare someone the patron saint of a territory, as seems to have been done for Suffolk”.
As for the GA status Mike Christie gave a comprehensive and independent analysis of the article to which Geometry guy, another independent, added his support. The result was that this article “does not yet meet the criteria for broadness and reliable sources” and the GA comment added on this talk page (now conveniently archived) states “a number of issues were raised”. This is why the article was delisted. EdChampion (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

GA nom

This article was delisted due to instability brought about by a content dispute. The article has been quiet for over two month now, so I am renominating this article for GA as a religious article. -- Secisek (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole episode has been a mockery of Wikipedia. The guidelines of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and Wikipedia:Fringe theories should have covered it. Certainly, the official policy of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not should have stopped this contempt for the project. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The guidelines you quote are utterly irrelevant. If there had been a claim along the lines that "St. Edmund is the patron of England and not St. George" then you could have a point but this has never been suggested. You are correct though, this has been a disgraceful episode and one in which you must acknowledge your part.
I have provided numerous supporting references for St. Edmund as a patron of England including Butler's Lives of the Saints which is officially approved by the Catholic Church Nihil obstat and without error Imprimatur. In addition there are references from the Catholic Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies and the Lincoln Diocesan Architectural Society (remembering that Lincoln was part of the East Anglia kingdom). I have asked you explain why the 10 citations given by myself do not conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability and why they are not valid Wikipedia:Citing sources. You have no answer, you know these to be valid references but show contempt for Wikipedia in refusing to acknowledge them even though they clealy meet precisely what you demand in all article on your own User Page!
Further, in the achieve there are references to statements by Popes Pius IX and Leo XII which clearly demonstrate that secondary patrons of England exist, some of which are named. In light of the fact that it is the Catholic Church that declares saints and appoints patrons your comments are absurd. Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church is part of this "fringe theory"! EdChampion (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
For reference, here are the comments I made at the good article reassessment. I haven't re-read the article since I made these comments so I don't know how many of them still apply; I hope they are useful to the editors here. Mike Christie (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Secisek's comment is completely false. This article was never delisted due to “instability brought about a content dispute”. This was made clear by Majoreditor who stated “It also appears to be stable, with fewer than a dozen edits in the last month.” which can be reviewed here [20].
The result of the last GA was that this article “does not yet meet the criteria for broadness and reliable sources” and the GA comment added on this talk page stated “a number of issues were raised”. This is why the article was delisted. None of the issues raised in the last review have been address. There have been some changes to the layout and formatting(which was never an issue) and the inclusion of an extra image. A comparision of the current version with that that was GAed shows the content to be pretty much identical. Nothing has really changed. EdChampion (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

Withdrawn due to the return of SPA EdChampion. -- Secisek (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Patron saint

Ed, you wrote above that you "have never once claimed St. Edmund to be the current Patron Saint of England – as you well know." and then you start an edit war in the article to maintain that he is "Edmund is seen as the patron saint of England". You have said I don't understand and you are correct, I don't. You also seem to suggest that Edmund is not the patron saint of Suffolk, which he is. Now, try to explain once more for me what you are getting at here. Please be polite. -- Secisek (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, in my quick edit to the article I forgot to change "the patron" to "a patron". St. Edmund is patron of the Diocese of East Anglia (of which Suffolk is part). The county council itself does not have the power to assign patrons. EdChampion (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And "a patron" is is more accurate for all since St. Edmund is not the only patron of kings wolves etc. a quick google proves that.

They do and they did, but never mind that for the moment. Ed, give me, right here and right now, what you consider to be the strongest source that would back the following statement: "Source X also lists Edmund as a Roman Catholic patron of England." -- Secisek (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

They may claim it but doesn't make it valid as point out by Lima. This answer has already been given to Wassupwestcoat plus all the references in the archive not to mention history etc. A point I made a long time ago there is no record of any saintly patronage being removed is doesn't happen. Yes new ones come along and are made princial patron but the others still exist. It's called tradition. EdChampion (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I know they are in the archive, but which one source do you think makes the best case? -- Secisek (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You could pick pretty much pick anyone of them, but both Catholic sources of Butler's and the Pontifical Institute state St. Edmund is a patron of EnglandEdChampion (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry Ed, can you point me to the Pontifical Institute source. -- Secisek (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in the archives! And I forgot to add the indirect references to other patrons by the two popes given above. EdChampion (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

All it says is the following:

Is this a book? What is the full title? Who were the editors? Do we have page number? The switch from the to a may have us quite close to a resolu...no, I wont say it yet. -- Secisek (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We could try Salih, A Companion to Middle English Hagiography, if anyone can get a look at that. She mentions a forthcoming (as of <2006) work, Bale (ed.), St Edmund, King and Martyr. If Ed is relying on Googling, he should bear in mind that a reference to Edmund as "patron of the English [nation]" need not mean "patron of England". The "English [nation]" referred to may be this kind of thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential arbitration

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This discussion has gone stale. EdChampion (talk · contribs · count) has made no edits to Wikipedia since 19 April 2008. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


I was asked to look at this article as a potential GA before the nomination was withdrawn as the article is patently unstable. Its a real shame to see this kind of thing flaring up, and I see that this particular point has been going on for a long time. I'm happy to offer my services as an impartial ajudicator if the principal people involved in the debate are willing? Although I am not an administrator I have had experience arbitrating in disputes and calming arguments and edit wars and I would be happy to try and mediate in this case if necessary. I have no history in this debate, no contact with any of the editors involved before last week and have no vested interest in the result beyond a stable article. If the people involved are willing to accept my judgement after hearing their cases here I'd be happy to try and mediate a solution satisfactory to both sides.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not participated significantly in the debates here but I have an interest in the topic and posted a critique of the article at WP:GAR. I've seen Jackyd101's work elsewhere and am confident of a fair mediation. I'll sign up to abide by her judgement if the main editors here will. Mike Christie (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I picked this article up and ran with it last summer because I had just completed Dunstan and wanted to work on Sts. Edward and Edmund the Martyr. I have no axe to grind other than wanting this article on the saint to get to GA. I will consider any compromise, however I will not compromise fact.

I will accept any arbitration as binding.

A quick look at the following Google searches should demonstrate that George is in fact patron and Edmund has not been for centuries: "Patron of England" Edmund "Patron of England" "Patron Saint of England" "Patron Saint of England" Edmund

The links either state that George is patron or argue that Edmund should replace him as such. There seems to be a few blogs that hold the position that Edmund's patronage continues to this day. It is certainly, you will see, a fringe theory. Check the searchs. -- Secisek (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved with this for some time. I've seen a number of disruptive edits without explanation and I appreciate this is a challenging case. I would also wish to offer my services as some kind of arbitrator here, this should be relatively easy to resolve and I struggle to see why there's such an issue. Worst case scenario is that we develop a "Controversy" (or similar) section where various POV's can be expressed and discussed to manage a neutral perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), if either of you dare want to arbitrate, please do! I've been labeled as troublesome here. Oh well. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

well done those that are happy to tread into this particular valley! As long as it is fact based I am content, a paragraph on a "Controversy" (or similar) sounds great but I have to say a difficulty may have already been created by calling it "Controversy" (or similar), although I cannot nor want to speak for others. Another more neutral title for the section and we might be getting somewhere. Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) I wish you both well. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
A look at EdChampion's contribution history indicates he can go months without showing up here. If we don't hear from EdChampion I would be concerned that any agreement would break down when he returned, as he is one of the main disputants. Mike Christie (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That has happened a number of times. -- Secisek (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts about the advantages of mediation. I am against creating a Controversy section here, indeed I do not care for such things as a general rule. Where there are conflicting interpretations, these should be dealt with at the appropriate place in the article, either explicitly in the text, or by mentioning alternative viewpoints in the footnotery. Attribution, using reliable sources, is extremely important when dealing with such conflicts. I have no objection to mediation per se, but I would be extremely dissatisfied by any solution which sought to impose a particular form on the article. I view the question of when, or if, Edmund was, or is, a Patron Saint of England as a trivial detail. If the problem is one of tendentious editing or, as well may be the case, disruptive editing by a single-purpose account, we have other tools to resolve such problems. It runs in my mind that there was an episode of harassment earlier. Can Secisek confirm this was indeed the case? Given the tediously repetitive nature of Ed Champion's editing, a topic ban would be easily enforceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have gotten a few text messages from good ole Ed on my cell phone. I work in a public occupation and my work contact info is available to anybody who can do a google search. It wasn't anything worse than the messages I get from political opponents - he never sent anything harassing per say - but google-stalking is crossing the line. He also addressed me by first name before it was public here. He accused Wassupwestcoast of being my sockpuppet, which is bizarre given that he has edited at Wikipedia longer than me - I guess I was supposed to be his sockpuppet. Needless to say the case was closed without action. I have a few ideas who pulls the strings of Ed's SPA, but I am against sloothing, so I have not invested the time it would take to prove anything. It is time to resolve this. -- Secisek (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, it may be that without one of the major participants in this dispute that this cannot be simply resolved, but if a consensus can be established on the talk page and that consensus worked into the article properly then should this EdChampion bloke show up again there are clear grounds for reverting and, if negative behaviour continues, blocking him. I would ask as a first step if some one could summarise for me below the different points of view on this issue and where they come into conflict (I've read through this page and the archives, so I have a pretty good idea, but I'd like someone to summarise it to make sure I'm right). I also ask all editors to refrain from any breaches of wikietiquette and WP:CIVIL while the discussion continues (I'm not pointing any fingers, just a general blanket rule). Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What nonsense, harassment, hateful text messages, stalking, name calling etc. such pathetical accusations, but then a quick Google search does indeed reveal that to some calumny is a profession...
As usual Secisek failed to realise in his "fringy theory" message above that this is exactly what I had already stated to Wassupwestcoast 4 hours before he posted! How is it possible to arbitrate with someone who has consistently demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to comprehend what the issue is!
By arbiter you seem to infer judge. I do not know you or your level of knowledge on this subject. Perhaps you could present us with what you believe the issue(s) to be rather that asking. It would provide a better picture of what you have understood thus far. EdChampion (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of "harassment or hateful text messages". I have accused you of stalking me on Google, which you concede you have done. I read the above as a personal attack on my profession and I will warn you as such.

If everyone accepts an arbitration but you, it will not change the outcome. You say I have an "unwillingness to comprehend what the issue is". I am willing to accept the arbitration of ANY group of independent editors because this dispute has thus far been you versus everbody else who you cannot bore away from the article. This not a message board, restating your point over and over until nobody cares to correct you anymore has not and will not work work. Submit to the arbitration, make your case and we will see what consensus says. We have tried this before, but knowing it will not be in your favour, you have avoided this in the past by not particpating and then returning to say we censored your voice. I think this has at last caught enough attention - that will not work this time. I was trying to nurse a compromise out of you above, you refuse to even cite me a page number, and you return to insult me? Perhaps this does not even need to go to arbitration. -- Secisek (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As EdChampion is now aware of the suggested mediation I suggest we proceed. Secisek, can you provide the summary of the stated points of view on the issue as Jackyd101 requested? You are probably better able to do that than I am. Mike Christie (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I will give EdChampion the chance to state his problems with the article as he understands them in his own words. If he has not responded here by the end of today, I will lay them out as I understand them. Go for it, Ed. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Secisek (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 March 2008

Thankyou Mike. In response to the question posed by EdChampion above, my knowledge of Edmund is irrelevant. In the end, Wikipedia is intended to be accessible to all people whatever their level of knowledge and is judged solely on provision of reliable sources. In my role as arbieter/judge/mediator/whatever I would base any decision solely on the sources provided by the parties in dispute. When theose sources are not webaccessible then I would ask them to quote the relevant sections, although I have access to a university library in case of dispute. Thankyou to all who have commented.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed, will you not list your problems with the current article for us? -- Secisek (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed, the ball is in your court. I am going to renominate this for GA if you aren't to going to raise any real complaint with this article. -- Secisek (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Re-nom it. Ed's sporadic edits are bordering on disruptive vandalism. The consensus rules here, so take it to WP:GAN again. If Ed shows up in a month or two completely against consensus then his edits will be removed and his account could be blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If it were to be renominated, I'd like to suggest that the nominator read these comments I made at the reassessment page. I will probably not do the GA review, but those are the sorts of things I would be looking at if I were the reviewer, so that might be a useful list. Mike Christie (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

First, Secisek I take you accusation as a foul personal attack and will warn you on your user page of this. Hardly an environment conducive to mediation. Indeed grounds enough to withdraw from mediation.

Second, we are not waiting for me we are waiting for you. You were already asked by Mike Christie "can you provide the summary of the stated points of view on the issue as Jackyd101 requested?" You replied on his user page with "I'll post the requested follow up in the next 12 hours." Then you wrote "If he has not responded here by the end of today, I will lay them out as I understand them".

Can I suggest that everyone read Wikipedia:Mediation to try and comprehend what mediation really is. Why is it that one of the disputants now appears to be running the show? Note that I am not obliged to participate in this and if I do not then the dispute still exists.

I would still like a reply to my previous question to Jackyd101. I wasn’t asking for knowledge of St. Edmund but understanding of the dispute.EdChampion (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)— EdChampion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ed, while you're calling policy, what about WP:CONSENSUS? We'll have to see if your opinion is held by the consensus. If not, sorry but this is a Wiki and consensus rules above all else. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been away from this debate for some time. Could someone please explain to me the clear point of controversy in the current situation, the positions of the opposing sides, and what sourcing they have to verify their positions? John Carter (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Although I believe there have been various disagreements, the main issue that I'm aware of is that EdChampion asserts that Edmund is a patron saint of England -- not the only one, and not necessarily the main one; EdChampion is aware of Saint George. He asserts that Edmund was once a patron and has never been "delisted", so to speak, and hence still is a patron and should be listed as such. Secisek, is that a fair summary? And is that the main issue? Mike Christie (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a dispute with the article as it is. This is, or is very close to, the consensus version that passed GAN and was refused from GAR when EdChampion tried to delist it the first time.

It is important that Ed lay out his complaint(s) with the article in his own words as he himself has said that the dispute is due to the consensus side being "either incapable of comprehending what has been stated or are stubbornly refusing to recognize it."

Any understanding we - the consensus side of the discussion - lay out can later be attacked. If we lay down what we think Ed thinks is wrong with the aticle, this will not end even if there is a binding reslolution. Any editor can just return here at a later date and say the resolution missed the point completely: "You ruled on X, but my problem was really with Y all along!" Ed, you have the problem(s), please - tell us what they are or I will procede with the GAN again. Also, if anyone here believes I have attacked them personally, by all means - feel free to pursue the matter through the channels here at WP. -- Secisek (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit ill the last few days. I think that your summary is correct Mike, but as Secisek says above, the reason I want EdChampion to list his issues with the article himself is so I (and everyone else) can gain a clear picture of exactly what he takes issue with. Then these problems can be dealt with without the potential that people might later come back and dispute what was agreed. I would also like Ed (and anyone who agrees with his point of view) to provide sources which back up what they say so that these can be judged against the sources currently present in the article. Then I (and others participating) can assess whether the coverage of Edmund's status as patron saint (and it seems that he has been regarded as such in the past and apparently still is in some quarters) is covered well enough in the article or whether adjustments are required.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That's reasonable. Secisek, with regard to the GA nom, I think the article is probably good enough for GA and I would not object if it were renominated and passed. My understanding of the GAR is that EdChampion nominated it, and my notes (mentioned above) were made in that GAR. I didn't agree with most of what EdChampion said, but I found some other points which I felt needed improvement. The result was that Geometry Guy closed the GAR leaving the article delisted. It's quite possible that the issues I raised did not need to be fixed for GA, though they might for FA; I mostly work at FA so I think in terms of those more stringent requirements.
That's all just FYI; I'd be happy to discuss the suggestions I had for improvement with Secisek if he is interested in implementing any of them. Mike Christie (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How wonderful, I return from my hols only to find someone, who isn't even one of mediators, has decided to unilaterally terminate the distpute without any discussion. What now? EdChampion (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just hang on. I've contacted the party involved and we might be "reactivating" the discussion shortly, one way or another. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to close the debate! It is now open again. Two weeks had passed with no discussion so I was bold. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers! There has never been a consensus over this issue. If there had then there would be no need for mediation since mediation is a mechanism by which to reach a consensus – hence there would be no need for it. A quick search of the article’s history proves there has never been consensus on this issue. It is worth reminding you all that this isn’t a political election or the like, so stopping “spinning” and those on the receiving end of such garbage realize when you are being spun “election equaling” propaganda. Mike summary is correct. I will start to work through the archive page and provide details of the dispute.EdChampion (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he was implying that there was any consensus, just that there wasn't any active discussion taking place. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues for arbitration

Ed, please list your issues so everyone can gain a clear picture of exactly what you take issue with in the current article. -- Secisek (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On holiday again, I suppose. -- Secisek (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Move forward

For those interested in this article, it is time to move forward. WP:Verifiability, WP:Original Research,and Wikipedia:Consensus are policy. Consensus is not a synonym for unanimity. Text without reliable attribution will be deleted. Wikipedia:Gaming the system, although a guideline, will not be tolerated. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding dispute

I did write that I was working through the archive to give a summary of the dispute. A pity some are so impatient; as a result what is given below is not complete (nor proof read). In addition I have yet to find on-line resources for some of the references. In order to move things along I will given what I have written so far (but there is more to add and possibly some editing).

1.1 In order to fully comprehend this dispute the reader needs to properly understand the terms of sainthood, intercession, veneration, patronage and the profit of calling upon the saints to pray for us.

1.2 With regard to intercession, Canon Law states the purpose is "To foster the sanctification of the people of God, the Church commends to the special and filial veneration of Christ’s faithful the Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, the Mother of God, whom Christ consituted the Mother of all. The Church also promotes the true and authorentic cult of the other Saints, by whose example the faithful are edified and by whose intercession they are supported." [Can. 1186 [21]].

1.3 With regard to patronage, "A patron is one who has been assigned by a venerable tradition, or chosen by election, as a special intercessor with God and the proper advocate of a particular locality." [The Catholic Encyclopaedia, Volume XI [22]].

1.4 With regard to prayers to patron saints, the Angelic Doctor writes that it is profitable “because it is granted to some saints to exercise their patronage in certain special cases” [Summa, Sup. Q.72 Art. 2 [23]].


2.1 It is wholly wrong to presume that in the appointment of a new principal patron, whether it be of a parish, diocese, country etc., results in the abolition of the patronages of all existing patron saints of that locality. Such a wild assertion is certainly not supported by the code of Urban VIII [Acta Sanctae Sedis, XI, 292] who defined the rules for the selection of patrons and which make no such declarations.

2.2 There exists no process for the removal of saintly patronages – in custom, in Canon Law, in the code of Urban VIII or by the Roman Curia. Therefore such powers must reside with the Pontiff himself who would exercise these through a Papal Bull, a Motu Proprio or a declaration by the country's bishops, confirmed by the Holy See - as in the case of St. George who was confirmed as principal patron by Pope John-Paul II in 2000 after the Bishop's conference of England & Wales in 1993.

2.3 It is not just that there exists no record of the removal of St. Edmund’s patronage but universally there exists no record of the removal of any saintly patronage of any patron of any country. Or to put it another way, for there to exist a record of removal would be utterly unique within The Church.

2.4 But to remove a patronage would signify that, “in certain cases”, it would no longer be “profitable” to pray to a saint. Hence it could have the affect of deterring rather that fostering the “sanctification of the people of God”. And The Church does not deter from the intercession of the saints.


3.1 The rank of one patron with respect to a locality and the saintly patronage of another patron of the same locality are completely separate. Canon Law states “A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states ...” [Can. 20 [24]], hence for a new patron saint to replace an existing patron saint and for that existing patron saint to have his patronage abrogated would require an explicit statement of that fact.

To give a contemporary example, on the 7th July 2007 Pope Benedict XVI issued a Motu Proprio named “Summorum Pontificum”. This had the effect of restoring the Tridentine (Latin) Mass, as an “extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”, which had been replaced by the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council. But the Motu Proprio specifically states that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated and, hence, always remained a valid celebration of the Roman rite. [25]

3.2 Further to this, even if there were existing doubts about abrogation then “the revocation of a previous law is NOT presumed ...” [Can. 21 [26]]. This expresses the fact that presumption favours the continuance of the earlier law. [New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, John P. Beal, James A. Coriden].

3.3 Canon Law then goes one step further: “... later laws must be related to the earlier ones, and insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.” [Can. 21 [27]]. In doubts about revocation an attempt must be made to relate the new law with the old and see if they can be harmonized. If they can then both should be observed. [New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, John P. Beal, James A. Coriden].

3.4 But there exists no record of the abrogation of St. Edmund’s patronage of England. It cannot be asserted that The Church, in error, failed to lawfully abrogate a saint’s patronage through forgetfulness, ignorance or the like. Such assertions are refuted in Canon Law: “Ignorance or error is NOT presumed about a law ...” [Can. 15 §2 [28]].

Therefore, one can only hold the opinion that St. Edmund’s patronage of England has NEVER been abrogated.


4.1 The Catholic Encyclopaedia states that “An authentic catalogue of patron saints of countries of the world has yet to be made. Some countries appear to have no celestial patron, others have several assigned to them ...” [The Catholic Encyclopaedia, Volume XI [29]]. There exists no official Vatican document that lists all national patron saints, both principal and secondary.

4.2 Urban VIII laid down the rules that should guide the selection of patrons of countries, but without interfering with the traditional patrons then already venerated, that is, from 23rd March 1638 onwards. [The Catholic Encyclopaedia, Volume XI [30]]. Therefore, by this period St. Edmund was already seen as a patron of England.

4.3 The Normae Universales de Anno Liturgico et de Calendario, 59 [[31], Latin translator [32]] defines the feast days of the liturgical calendar according to their order of precedence. The Normae Universales requires an Obligatory Memorial for all secondary patrons - apart from national patrons: "N.59 e) Memoriae Patroni secundarii loci, diocesis, regionis aut provinciae religiosae" ("Memorial of a secondary patron of the place, diocese, regions or religious provinces"). Where as for principal patrons national (nationis) patrons are explicitly mentioned: "N.59 c)Festum Patroni principalis regionis aut provinciae, nationis, amplioris territorii" ("Feast of the principal patron of a region, province, country, wider territory"). Hence the Normae Universales accommodates the possibility that there exists secondary patrons of countries that may be omitted from the liturgical calendar since, as mentioned above, a catalogue of patron saints of countries has yet to be made.

4.4 It also should be noted the term patron is never used by itself; always prefixed by principal or secondary. Generally, we can make a distinction between the phases "the patron" and "a patron", the former referring to the principal patron, the latter to secondary patrons. For example, "St. Patrick is THE patron saint of Ireland” while "St. Brigid is A patron saint of Ireland". Or even more apt "Not until the mid fourteenth century did St George begin to be recognised as a patron saint of England, and only later still did he displace the two royal saints as the [author’s own emphasis] patron." [The Death of Kings: Royal Deaths in Medieval England, Michael Evans].

4.5 It has been suggested that St. Edmund is not a patron saint since his feast does not appear in the National calendar for England. Unlike St.Brigid and St. Columba whose feasts do appear in the National Calendar for Ireland as secondary patrons [33].

However, the Irish calendar given above also applies the term "secondary patron" to two saints. It is interesting that the term patron is used for St. Brigid (one would normally expect to read the word patroness), unless of course a patroness is necessarily a secondary patron - but this suggestion is easily disproved by reading the liturgical calendar of Sweden. But England also has a patroness and yet no "secondary patron" title is afforded to her in the calendar. If we look to the French calendar we read not only of St. Denis as patron but also St. Therese as a co-patron, which inferring equal status. But when one reads St. Martin de Tours feast there is no recognition of his patronage [34].

While it may be fine to use liturgical calendar's to determine a nation's principal patron, it is clearly wrong to use them for determining secondary patrons. They are not reliable and there is no consistency. Further, as will be shown later, there are secondary patron saints of England and who are mentioned by a Pope and an Archbishop of Westminster.


5.1 Butler's Lives of the Saints which carries both a Nihil obstat and a Imprimatur states that St. Edmund was first made a national patron during the reign of King Alfred the Great (871AD to 899AD): "As a Christian patriot-king, symbol of resistance to the Viking invaders, Edmund immediately became the object of a cult, which, encouraged by Alfred no doubt for his own purposes, would develop to make him a national patron" [page 173, "Butler's Lives of the Saints, New Edition (November)" by Alban Butler, Sarah Fawcett Thomas, Paul Burns, Continuum International Publishing Group, ISBN:0860122603].

5.2 Abbott Lambert prior of St. Nicholas' of Angers (circa, 1100AD) writes of St. Edmund as "patron of England" [Relatio Domni Lamberti Abbatis].

5.3 There are several patrons of England. For Edward the Eldar's coronation (900AD) there is mention of St. Mary, St. Peter and St. Gregory [Peculiaris Patronus Noster: The Medieval State]. And we know that these three are patron saints of England as on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul in 1893 Pope Leo XIII restored St. Mary under the title "Mary's Dowry" and St. Peter as the principal patrons of the country [The Church of Old England" Volume III, The Catholic Truth Society, London, 1894].

5.4 The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies writes of St. Edmund as being a "patron of the English" [Mediaeval Studies, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1939] and details how his feast was kept and always an occasion of celebration [p.143].

5.5 Sarah Salih in her book "A Companion to Middle English Hagiography" writes of St. Edmund in "his capacity" as a "patron of England". She quotes from the writings of English monk John Lydgate (1370AD to 1451AD). Note then this still during the period of the patrons Saints Mary, Peter and St. Gregory.


6.1 During the reformation devotions to the saints was prohibited. It wreaked havoc with the memory of the saints and blasphemously destroyed most records, relics and shrines. A quick "google" will show that there are countless works describing the destruction and prohibition of he veneration of relics [e.g. The Stripping of the Altars].

6.2 To quote the Bishop of Salford:

"... the reformers did their best to blot out of the memory of the people all thought and recollection of their Patron Saints. They set themselves especially to destroy veneration and love for the Blessed Virgin and St. Peter, the one the destroyer of all heresies, and the other the touchstone of the faith. As to St. George, they passed a law declaring that his Order should no longer be called by his name, but should be known simply as the Order of the Garter ..."

"So well did they succeed in wiping out all memory of our great Patron Saints, that Fr. Bridgett’s discovery a few years ago, that England had been extraordinarily devout to Mary and had been known as ‘Our Lady’s Dowry’, came upon the public with the force of a surprise and as an historical revelation. It is the same with St. Peter. So thoroughly had the reformers done their work, that the thought of Mary and Peter, as the great Patrons of England, though they had been recognised by Church and State as ‘universae Anglorum genti Patroni’, entirely passed away and was hidden for three centuries, from the recollection of men." [The Church of Old England, Volume IV, The Catholic Truth Society, London 1894].

Once again we have references to the "Patron Saints" of England.

6.3 G. W. Perrin [British Flags, 1922] suggests that St. George's lucky survival was due largely to his foreign extraction and that he was perceived as a soldier’s saint – a saint of the battlefield.


7.1 With the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy in England under Pope Pius IX (1850) we read the pontiff’s words "... we again invoke, as our intercessors with God, the most holy Mother of God, with the other heavenly Patrons of England, especially, St. Gregory the Great, ... again to restore the Episcopal Sees in England ..." "And we decree that these, our Letters Apostolical, shall never at anytime be objected against or impugned, or any other; but shall always be valid and enforce ..." Universalis Ecclesiae.

Another clear indication to several patron saints of England including Sts. Mary, Peter and Gregory. It is quite obvious then that England does have more than one patron saint.

7.2 The first Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Wiseman in his book "Recollections of the Last Four Popes and of Rome in Their Times” wrote of the English college in Rome and the painting of Durante Alberti known as the "patron-mystery". This is expanded upon in the biography of Cardinal Wiseman "The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman" by Wilfrid Philip Ward which was written with the express permission of Cardinal Vaughan [page v] and who writes of Alberti’s representation of the "Holy Trinity and the English patron saints, St. Edmund ...".

7.3 As was mentioned previously on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, 1893, the bishops of England and Wales, in response to the wishes of the Pope Leo XIII, consecrated England to the Mother of God and St Peter in the Oratory Church in London [The Church of Old England Volume III, The Catholic Truth Society, London, 1894].

7.4 Two weeks before Cardinal Herbert Vaughan’s announcement at the Oratory Church (15th June 1893) he wrote a letter to The Times newspaper since there were rumors of the Blessed Virgin and St. Peter "replacing" St. George. Of this he wrote “it will not be to substitute them for St. George, who will always retain his place among our patrons.” [The Times, 15th June 1893]. Two things are clear: first, England does have more that one patron and second, that after St. Georges’ replacement, as principal patron, he would still be seen as a patron of England (and national protector) along with the other patrons i.e. there would be no abrogation of their saintly patronages.

7.5 But the Anglican position is still evident in 1893. In the run-up to this Cardinal Vaughan was attacked in the Anglican (protestant) press. As an example: "For cool impertinence the following is difficult to surpass. The pope has given the private request made by Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster, when in Rome, that St. Peter might be made patron of England ... The impertinence of the proposed transfer passes belief." [Manchester Examiner, 30th May 1893]

In a letter to Lady Lea, Cardinal Vaughan writes: "St George has champions in the protestant press - they like his horse and the snake so much better that St. Peter." [Letters of Herbert Cardinal Vaughan to Lady Herbert of Lea, 1867 to 1903]


8.1 NPOV means that nobody may delete a POV. All POVs must be in an article to make it NPOV. Those who want to delete an opinion with citations backing up that opinions are breaking NPOV and going against one of the very foundation principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia was created to be a free, open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And that means ANYONE. Shutting out positions and censorship runs counter to the spirit of the WIKI project. All POVs MUST have a space even if you disagree with it.

8.2 It is quite clear from above that the any suggestion that “St. George is the only patron saint of England and that there exists no other patron saints of England” is solely an Anglican POV and the only POV that is present in the article. The two users pushing this POV are user:Secisek [35] and user:Wassupwestcoast [36] both declared themselves as members of the “Anglican communion” on their user pages.

8.3 There has been a scurrilous attempt to label this dispute as a Fringe Theory. It is a calculated effort to prevent any Catholic or Orthodox POV from appearing within this article. In the hope that, eventually, some “mud” will stick the slur is repeated over and over [evidence: Secisek - 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [37], 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [38], 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC) [39]; Wassupwestcoast - 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC) [40],17:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [41], 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) [42], 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC) [43]]. However, it is patently obvious from what has been written thus far and viewing the Wikipedia definition of [Fringe theories] that the claim is utterly false. The proof to several English patrons has already been shown and the website provided in 9.1 lists some of the patrons of England. Further, it is not uncommon for European countries to have several patrons [Ireland[44], France [45], Sweden [46], Italy [47]]. It is far from any precedent as some would have you believe.

8.4 The two mediators have both agreed that the main dispute is this:

"Edmund is a patron saint of England -- not the only one, and not necessarily the main one;" and "Edmund was once a patron and has never been "delisted", so to speak, and hence still is a patron".

And this has also been agreed to by myself. The mediators came to their opinion without prompting or direction from anyone.

Yet the statement just given is irreconcilable with the comment by Secisek [00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC) on this talk page] and demonstrates an inability and/or unwillingness to acknowledge the truth of this dispute. This refusal is repeated throughout the talk page and archive.

Most recently this blatant falsehood has been use again “The editor insists that St Edmund, not St George, is the rightful patron saint of England” [evidence: 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [48]]. A deliberate attempt to twist the dispute when it has always been made clear by myself that St. George was always seen as the principal patron of England [evidence: 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC), 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC) on this talk page, “St. George is the principal patron where as St. Edmund is a secondary” 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) , “St George is the patron saint of England" ... Which has never been denied.” 19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC), 22:50, “St. George, our principal Patron” 10 November 2007 (UTC) [49]].

8.5 This is the reason why Secisek, despite being asked twice by Mike Christe to state the dispute [20:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC), 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) on this talk page], cannot give his assent to the statement. To acknowledge the statement would indicate to all the always was (and is) propounding the lies as on [User_talk:Raul654] talk page [50]. Further, Secisek has stated three times that he would provide the information requested. To date he has fail to do so [evidence: 15:18, 26 March 2008 on this talk page;20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC) [51], 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC) [52]].

8.6 But it is clear that this dispute is wider than this one article. It is not only about the patronage of St. Edmund but of all the patrons of England. It has already been shown that England has more that one patron saint: St. Gregory’s patronage has already been given and the website cited in 9.1 below [53] lists some of the patron saints of England. However, when attempts have been made to add the saintly patronage of England to these saints the edits have been reverted event though a reliable source is cited [evidence: Gregory the Great - [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]; Cuthbert of Lindisfarne - [61], [62], [63]; Augustine of Canterbury - [64], [65], [66]; Michael (archangel) - [67], [68], [69]]. Conclusive proof that the Anglican POV is being pushed outside of this article.

8.7 One other underhanded technique that must be exposed - just as one might see in a political election - is an attempt portray anyone holding the view that St. Edmund remains a patron of England as being extremist or fanatical. This is evident in Secisek’s post of 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [70] where he tries to tie such views to ‘White Power’ fascist and fundamental Catholic and Orthodox Christian groups. Again there is the twist that these groups seek to “replace” St. George with St. Edmund, which as the moderators and all others (save one) acknowledge.


9.1 The source cited for the various patronages of St. Edmund is [71]. This reference was deemed to be a reliable source and consequently added by Secisek 14:51, 20 August 2007 [72]. The website is managed by the Star Quest Production Network [73] a Catholic media website started by Fr. Roderick Vonhögen.

9.2 The website has the support of Pope Benedict XVI and Fr. Roderick Vonhögen’s superior the Bishop of Utrecht [74], and reflects the ideas that the Vatican has with modern communications [75].

9.3 The “catholic-forum” URL is referenced from 275 Wikipedia articles [76] and the “SQPN” URL is referenced from 31 Wikipedia articles [77]. Hence all these articles see this website to be a reliable source.

9.4 The website makes quite clear that, just like the Catholic Encyclopaedia stated (point 4.1), the site is "not complete" and "there are thousands of saints not yet listed, and there's lots of information to add ..." [78].

9.5 The site lists which saint is the patron of what. It does not list which saint is not the patron of what. Nor can this be inferred since, as the website makes clear, it is not complete.

But to assist anyone still suffering from naivety here is a simple analogy: the statement that "the number two is a natural number, an even number and an integer" is a perfectly valid. The fact that the inclusion of "a prime number" is omitted does not invalidate the statement. Nor can it be inferred that, because of the omission, the number two in not seen as a prime number. Whoever propounds this twisted logic should be ignored.

Similarly, the fact that St. Ulrich [79] is also seen as a patron saint of Wolves but is not mentioned on the site [80] does not invalidate the mention that St. Edmund is also seen as a patron of wolves. Nor that St. Ulrich is not seen as a patron of wolves.

9.6 In addition, [Wikipedia:Verifiability] states that "Sources should DIRECTLY support the information as it is presented in an article". The mere fact that a source omits certain facets of information is certainly not direct support that source believes such facets to be false. Nor should it be since there are a number of reasons for omissions.

9.7 The site does make it patently clear that, just like other nations, England does indeed have more that one patron saint. To date the site lists seven patron saints of England: Augustine of Canterbury, Cuthbert, George, Gregory the Great, Michael the Archangel, Our Lady of Mount Carmel at Aylesford, Our Lady of Walsingham.


10. Some references to St. Edmund’s patronage of England:

"S. Edmund is one of the patrons of England" [A Glossary of Terms Used in British Heraldry, John Henry Parker, p.119]

"... the arms of the three patrons of England, ST. GEORGE, Argent a cross Gules, ST EDWARD the CONFESSOR as given, and ST. EDMUND, usually Azure, three crowns or.” [The Coat of Arms By Heraldry Society (Great Britain), (3rd ser. v. 1, pt. 1, no. 209 (spring 2005)]

"In the outer lights on the North side are the three Patrons of England, S. Edward, S. Edmund, and S. George." [A Guide to the Collegiate Church of Stratford-on-Avon, George Arbuthnot]

"The white banner with the red cross being held by one of the angels refers both to the resurrection of Jesus, the instruments of whose Passion are depicted in his halo, and to St George, who, along with Sts Edmund and Edward, is another of the patron saints of England” [Chaucer: An Oxford Guide, Steve Ellis]

"Edmund the Martyr, AD 975, and Edward the Confessor, AD 1042; and these, with St. George, are the three patron saints of England." [The Symbols, Standards, Flags, and Banners of Ancient and Modern Nations, George Henry Preble, 1980]

"He [St. George] became a patron saint of England, without displacing either S. Edward the Confessor or S. Edmund of Bury, and the patron of the Order of the Garter" [The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, Peter Murray, Linda]

"Christendom honoured him with St. Edward the Confessor, St. Stephen of Hungary, St. Ferdinand of Castile, St. Canute of Denmark, St. Louis of France, as a royal national patron." [Saint Edmund King and Martyr, Fr. James Boniface Mackinlay]

"St. Edmund is England’s patron." [A Book of Feasts and Seasons, Bogle, Joanna]

"the patron saint of the kingdom, including St Edward the Confessor, St Edmund the Martyr, and St George the Martyr." [Princes and Princely Culture, Martin Gosman, A. A. (Alasdair A.) MacDonald, Arie Johan Vanderjagt]

"Some of the angels in the corbels against the south wall bear shields with the arms of St. Edmund, three crowns, two an one, ... the three patron saints of England." [A handbook of Bury St. Edmund's. With additions by J.R. Thompson, Samuel Tymms, 1855]

"patron of England, St. Edward, St. George, and St. Edmund” [Journal of the British Archaeological Association By British Archaeological Association 1846 Page 91]

"In the left panel King Richard kneels, supported by the two patron saints of England, St. Edmund with his arrow, and St. Edward the Confessor with his ring ..." [A History of English Art in the Middle Ages, O. Elfrida Saunders, Tancred Borenius]

"... depicts him alongside the other two patrons of England, SS. Edmund and George, and all three of them wearing armour.” [The Death of Kings: Royal Deaths in Medieval England, Michael Evans]

"The seal of the Nation is divided in three parts. In the upper part is St. Edmund, patron of the English, ..." [Traditio, Johannes Quasten, Stephan Kuttner, Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law]

"Relics are unfashionable. Nevertheless it somehow seems improper that the mortal remains of a saintly king and patron of England should lie discredited in a private chapel." [Saint Edmund, King & Martyr, Fr. Bryan Houghton]

"three patron saints of England, viz., St. Edward, St. George, and St. Edmund." [The Gentleman's Magazine, Lincoln Diocesan Architectural Society]

"As St. Edmund does not always wear the insignia of royalty, his picture is often mistaken for that of St. Sebastian; but the beard on the upper lip, denoting military rank, is the attribute solely of the latter. He is one of the patron saints of England” [Hand-book of Literature and the Fine Arts: Comprising Complete and Accurate, George Ripley]


11.1 An Orthodox POV is given here www.orthodoxengland.org.uk [81]. This is the web site for the magazine Orthodox England and the Orthodox Christian parish of St John the Wonderworker in Felixstowe, Suffolk, UK. This site is seen as a reliable source by 17 other Wikipedia articles [82].

11.2 This article is written by the web site author Rev. Fr. Andrew Philips. A biography of him is given here [83]. He is an accomplished writer and has published several books on Orthodox Christianity. Both the web site and Rev. Fr. Andrew Philips are reliable sources.

11.3 He reiterates a point already made about the difference between the phrases a patron and the patron: "I emphasis the word 'a' national Patron (not 'the'), because countries may well have more than one Patron, as is the case of England." He goes on to write that "at no time was there a thought of abandoning altogether St Edmund or Edward as Patron-Saints." and confirms that "right up till the Reformation in the sixteenth century, all three still played national roles." And that "even since the Reformation, no informed person has actually dared say that any of these is no longer a national Patron."

In summary, St. Edmund is also seen as a patron of England by the Orthodox Church in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChampion (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


We are of course all still waiting for Secisek to acknowledge the dispute. To date he has so far refused. I assume Jackyd101 comments of 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC) apply to all and not just my self. Needless to say I am not going to be bound by any decision. EdChampion (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Two points. (1) WP:CONSENSUS does not require all parties, just a majority of parties, to agree. (2) I'm assuming based on the above that your argument is that Edmund might remain a Roman Catholic patron of England. There are and were saints recognized by other churches as well, potentially including patrons. As separate churches, I can't imagine that they would need to "delist" a Roman Catholic patron to not include that party as a patron in their church; they would only need to mention those parties which that church does recognize as a patron. Am I right in believing that the substance of your argument is regarding Edmund's status as a RC patron of England, based on the evidence presented above? John Carter (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
1. You are wrong about consensus: “Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved” - but we know that one party will not agree to acknowledge what the dispute is truly about. “opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise” – but we know that two parties have try to label this as Fringe Theory to push a certain POV. “a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. However, to find the actual consensus (or what it will end up as), you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree” – i.e. it is NOT the number for or against. If a consensus exits then there is no need for mediation. The very fact that mediation was offered demonstrates that consensus doesn’t exist.
2. I am not saying “might” but rather "is" a Catholic patron of England: numerous references to St. Edmund as a patron of England, no record of any abrogation of his (or any other saint’s patronage) and clear canons of Church's law. EdChampion (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Both points have been refuted numerous times. Consensus is not unanimity. 'Neutral Point of View' is not a free-for-all for equal space for any opinion ever conceived. Several reputable editors quoting 'reputable sources' have countered your arguments. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the apparent stalemate, I suggest that mediation be tried again. Given that the one party who appears to have most vigorously opposed a certain version of the article, User:EdChampion, apparently disappeared when the mediation was offered, I suggest that mediation be attempted again. It would be truly unfortunate, and perhaps a bit puzzling, if the same circumstances which led to the previous mediation request were to recur again. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not “disappear” but rather went on holiday. For the last two week I worked through the archive pages, as I wrote on 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC). In all this time Secisek failed to respond. Both the mediators and myself had agreed on the dispute. We are all still waiting for Secisek to agree to the dispute as described by Mike Christe. This he still refuses to do.
Given that it is the view of the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, the “for any opinion ever conceived” line is utter nonsense. This is just further proof (if needed) of your blatant Anglican POV pushing. All that I wrote are from reliable sources, where as, the only source you quoted was the Oxford DNB and then it wasn't anything direct but merely because “patronage” wasn’t mentioned. This is not how you go about citing references. Please re-read 9.5 & 9.6 above and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you are still not convinced please provide the exact details of your sources and we can submit them to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cheers!! EdChampion (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Ed, your comments above seem to me to be, basically, both explicit violations of WP:AGF, which you should read, and, dare I say, somewhat amusing, considering that I clearly and explicitly describe myself as a practicing Roman Catholic. I have provided links to the Anglican calendar, and for that matter the Lutheran calendar, the Eastern Orthodox calendar, the Oriental Orthodox calendar, and any other calendars I can document into articles as I have been working on those calendars. I would sincerely urge you to perhaps take a rather more detailed look at activities before making such unusual rushes to judgement. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You’ve got the wrong end of the stick. The first paragraph was indented as reply to your message of 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC). The second paragraph waas to Wassupwestcoast, which was indented in relation his message (18:51, 3 May 2008) and carried a reciprocal “Cheers!” signature, was a response to him. EdChampion (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Added 7.5: Anglican view of patrons still evident in 1893.

The point about the calendar of saints is that in the English calendar he is no longer specifically listed at all, rather than just not being mentioned as a patron. The current calendar was approved in 2000 [84] so unless you have any reference published after that date, this seems to be the most up to date Catholic view of Edmund's status, which seems not to accord him a particularly high rank. Both Catholic and Anglican views are points of view, so wehre those views diverge it shold be made clear and be noted in which particular tradition he is still regarded as a patron of England. Perhaps many of the other editors of this page do tend more to the Anglican point of view, though it should be noted that the Church of England is the established church, and parts of church law also form part of the law of the land, which does perhaps give it a slightly stronger position in some ways. In many of the references you give above (whether or not they have in effect been superseded by the current calendar) it is far from clear from the limited context you give whether the reference to patronage is still valid at the time of publication, or whether it is actually referring to the state that was in effect when the statue window, coat of arms etc was created. It is not just Anglicans who have supported this view as this post extracted from the archives shows:

For the Roman Catholic Church, the situation is clear. St George is the patron saint of England: see National Calendar for England. For the same Church, Edmund the Martyr is not even a (secondary) patron of England, as St Brigid and St Columba (Colum Cille) are secondary patrons of Ireland (cf. National Calendar for Ireland): if he were, his liturgical celebration would necessarily be in the National Calendar, but, as can be seen in the site already referred to, it is not included.

[A by-the-way comment: He is recognized as a saint, being included in the Roman Martyrology under the date 20 November, and may therefore be celebrated liturgically everywhere on that day, unless in some places obligatory celebrations are assigned to the same date. He may also be inscribed in some local (not national) calendars for obligatory or optional celebration. If, as the article states, he is the patron saint of the Diocese of East Anglia, he is celebrated annually in that diocese, which includes Suffolk. (Not everyone would agree that it would be fitting or even possible for local government authorities, rather than the Church, to declare someone the patron saint of a territory, as seems to have been done for Suffolk.)]

I cannot speak for other Churches, such as the Anglican Church. Lima 13:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Note his view that status as secondary patron would necessarily require inclusion in the calendar. David Underdown (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked Lima to expand a little on this view, his replay can be seen here. David Underdown (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Note also that Urban VIII was Pope 1623–44, somewhat after Edmund is popularly held to have been superseded by George, so I'm not entirely sure whether his rules for the appointment/recognition of patrons might have in this case. David Underdown (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the inclusion of an Anglican POV – only when it is pushed to such an extent that it seeks to prohibit all other POVs. For example, the nonsense of the label "Fringe theory"; refusal to acknowledge the dispute, propounding this lie on other talk pages; the disruption of other articles outside of this one; the attempted smear of trying to portray such views as extremist; general attempts to suppress the dispute.
The liturgical calendar is not responsible for defining patron saints. The reason why St. George is the principal patron of England is because of the request by the Catholic bishops of England & Wales conference in 1993, which was later confirmed by the Holy See in 2000. In addition it also required the restoration of St. George from a third class saint. Lima confirmed this in his post of 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC): "Such calendars may indeed be unreliable and may differ from each other. When speaking of a "national calendar", I did not mean such calendars. What I referred to was the official set of liturgical celebrations, drawn up by a country's Catholic bishops and confirmed by the Holy See."
Although Lima did write that he thought "secondary patron would necessarily require inclusion", in his post of 21:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC) he acknowledged this was not the case and wrote that ""nationis" is not found in that part of the Normae" – memorials for secondary patrons are not obligatory (point 4.3 above). Now the word "nationis" must be missing for a reason (since Canon Law does not allow us to presume error about a law), and we see that this clearly ties in with the fact that "An authentic catalogue of patron saints of countries of the world has yet to be made" (point 4.1).
But it is not just that the word "nationis" is missing but also that it IS included for principal patrons. If "regio" accommodates all "regions" whey then have "nationis"? Why for one and not the other? The wording is quite clear.
Pope Urban kept the traditions without interfering with the traditional patrons then already venerated. Edmund was already venerated as a patron by that time. It was Ss. Mary and Peter who were seen as the "great Patrons of England" not St. George – who was seen the protector of England (point 6.2). But the quotes from Cardinal Vaughan and Pope Leo clearly demonstrate that there is more than one patron saint of England. EdChampion (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Butler does notseem to confirm that he is necessarily still a patron, only that after Alfred he came to be seen as a patron - no mention is made of his current status. The wording at the top of the current national calendar includes "The National Calendar for England received the recognitio of the Holy See in 2000. The calendar includes a wide range of Saints from England representing the history of Christianity in this country.
The Calendar also includes the Feasts of the 6 patrons of Europe established by Pope John Paul II.
The National Calendar is complemented by diocesan calendars which can include more local saints and attach greater solemnity to particular local patrons."
So is this not "the official set of liturgical celebrations, drawn up by a country's Catholic bishops and confirmed by the Holy See"? We could have an interesting argument as to whether England is currently a nationis or regio - it is not a sovereign state after all. What makes it any more a nation than say Catalonia? In any case a pdf of the English translation of the GIRM is also available from the Liturgy Office of the English and Welsh Bishops' Conference (index of resources here), published by the Catholic Truth Society, and the general introduction to GIRM http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/index.html states "The translation for England and Wales of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal has received the recognitio of the Holy See and is published by the Catholic Truth Society in April 2005." so the addition of nation to that section of the GIRM in the English translation has been approved, even if it is (apparently) missing from the original Latin. David Underdown (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Bulter’s states that Edmund became a patron of England. It makes not mention of any removal. It references the works of Fr. James Boniface Mackinlay and Fr. Bryan Houghton – quoted above - which it must see as reliable sources. We know from Lydgate that Edmund was seen as a patron in the 15th century and from Cardinal Vaughan on how the reformation of the 16th century “wiped out all memory of our great Patron Saints”. There is no record of abrogation (or of any patron) and Canon Law state that we cannot assume error/ignorance of the Law. Hence the case is proven.
There seems to be some confusion over the Liturgical Calendar. First, the GIRM is not the GNLY, hence, the reference you gave is not relevant. One is instructions in the use of a Missal the other is the General Norms of the Liturgical Year. Second, the table in the GNLY only indicates the precedence of Liturgical Days that appear in the Liturgical Calendar. It does not indicate what days must appear in the Liturgical Calendar; this criterion is detailed in Part II 48-55. It also indicates that for “special historical or pastoral reasons” the table need not be followed (54). Further to this if we read an earlier GNLY (1937) we read that the number of secondary patrons admitted to the Liturgical Calendar was limited: “not more than two secondary patrons are admitted [to the Liturgical Calendar] for any place, diocese, etc.”. Hence there were restrictions on which secondary patrons a country with several patrons (e.g. France, Portugal) could admit i.e not all the patrons appeared in the calendar. EdChampion (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Actually it was the GNLY I had read, apologies for mixing up acronyms above. http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/GNLY.pdf This states that the day of a secondary patron is to be ranked as a Proper obligatory memorial. There is no mention of any restriction on the number of secondary patrons. Edmund is not so ranked in the current calendar. David Underdown (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The table in the GNLY is not stating “which saints must be admitted to the Liturgical Calendar” but that any saints that are admitted must conform to the order of precedence listed in the table. The fact the Edmund is not listed does not affect his patronage of England. The example was to show instances where secondary patrons have not been admitted to a Liturgical Calendar. EdChampion (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
We've both made our points both of which rather rest on our own original research, rather than a clear-cut reference, post-dating the current calendar that absoultely confirms the status. I'm now content to let the others who have been following this discussion decide which arguments seem the more persuasive, and I'm perfectly happy to be bound by consensus. One final thought, it might be better to trim some of the stuff about patronage from the led, where the nuances can't be discussed, and concentrate on spelling out the various view points more clearly in the relevant section of the article. David Underdown (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi all, I was the person who originally suggested arbitration, and it seems this issue is still current and would probably benefit from some. Sadly I am now too busy to take this up, but I'd like to add my add my two cents (and forgive me if I have missed, misread or forgotten something important). I think there are some points to consider here:

  1. Edmund clearly was widely considered patron saint of England in the past, but he has now been largely supplanted by Saint George.
  2. As there is no mechanism for "demoting" a patron saint, Edmund may well technically still be a paton saint (I'm not clear on the legal niceties of this, but this does seem to be the gist).
  3. There are a small number of people who still consider Edmund to be the official patron saint of England.

Thus my suggestion would be that a sentence along the lines of "Edmund was once, and still is in some quarters, considered patron saint of England although he has now been widely supplanted by Saint George" added to the third paragraph of the lead. Then later in the article, in the appropriate section, have a more complex discussion, saying something like: "Edmund was widely considered patron saint of England during the middle ages (probably should give a more defined period than this) but was supplanted by Saint George in XXX because XXX. Some people continued to consider him patron saint and this tradition continues today, particulaly in Suffolk." Then there could be a brief summation of the evidence provided by either side. I hope this is helpful and I'm sorry I cannot get into a more refined debate on this, but I am just too busy. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As a start I have amended the line suggested to specifically state those Churches who do see St. Edmund as a patron of England. EdChampion (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ed, just give us the much talked about quote and the page number in the current edition of Butler's and this is over. Why have you not been able to do that? This has been going for almost a year now. -- Secisek (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As Secisek says Ed, we need the quote and the reference. Until we get them there is no hope at all of including this in the page. I personally would love to include him as a patron of England on this page but with no evidence (and I have looked believe me) it is just is not sustainable. - Galloglass 16:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This dispute does not hang solely on Bulter’s; there are numerous other reliable Catholic sources given above including Fr. Bryan Houghton (1970) – prior of Bury St. Edmunds. However, for brevity 5.1, 2.3 & 3.4 on their own confirm St. Edmund as a patron of England. The information you requested: quote, page, title, authors, ISBN was added weeks ago – see 5.1 above. The Orthodox POV is independent of Butler’s. It was added a few days ago – see 11.1 – 11.3 above. EdChampion (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This still troubles me because there is no mention of Edmund's patronage in my edition of Butler's. Can somebody confirm that p.173 says what Ed claims. -- Secisek (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There should be no need for you to doubt me. Don't you think that if I was going to invent citations I would have written something better? But it seems we may have reached a compromise... EdChampion (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your lengthy synthesis and OR above was a total waste of your time. Ed, you cannot "prove" by arguement here on the talk page that Edmund is patron of anything. If he is, it should be published in a major work and ought to therefore be cite-able in the article. That is the point you have been missing for almost a year now.

The reality of this project is that Wikipedia is not about fact and error, truth or fiction. It is about what is cite-able and what is not. All anyone has ever asked is that you point us to a major publication like, Bulter's, that says, "Edmund is seen as a Patron Saint of England." Again, it doesn't say that in the edition of Butler's I own, or in my copy of Our Sunday Visitor Saints, or a half dozen other books on the subject I own.

...and sideshow suggestions that you have been opposed because of an "Anglican POV" (I was baptized, confirmed and married in the Roman Catholic Church. I attended Roman Catholic schools for 14 years. I began attending a Anglican church a few years ago largely because of their use of the Latin Mass.) or because of what I do professionaly are both suggestions that are not allowed here (per policy) at Wikipedia - even if your assertions were correct.

Bare in mind much of the last year you were arguing that Edmund was "THE" Patron of England. I have been really trying to give this to you since you switched your position to "A" Patron, but you remain uncoporative even in compromise. If the citaion can be proven legit, it should stand. That is all we have ever said. --Secisek (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, calm down Secisek, I think we both want to see a speedy end to this. As you say it has gone on too long – and I do think we are close to ending this.
I have compromised. I have split out Catholic & Orthodox POVs from the those of the Anglican, Methodists etc. and added that Edmund is patron of the nation rather than country. I think have found the Bulter’s reference. If this works … [85]
The definition of Nation is “a large body of people, associated with a particular territory” [86]. Both Butler’s and the Orthodox ref. use the term national patron. Yes, in the summary the Orthodox ref. does use people but Butler’s does not use it. Now, both Catholic and Orthodox POVs can be accommodated using the word nation but they cannot both be accommodated with the word people. The only alternative would be to split them and as David Underdown mentioned above the list in the lead probably needs reducing. BTW, glad to hear you like the Latin Mass. EdChampion (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Perrin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ {{cite book - | last =Scott–Giles - | first =W.C. - | title =The Romance of Heraldry - | publisher =J. M. Dent - | date = 1965 - | location =London - | isbn = }}
  3. ^ {{cite book - | last =Scott–Giles - | first =W.C. - | title =The Romance of Heraldry - | publisher =J. M. Dent - | date = 1965 - | location =London - | isbn = }}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edmund_the_Martyr/Archive_1&oldid=863059770"