Talk:Edmund the Martyr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Edmund the Martyr was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edmund the Martyr article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article's Talk Page has a tendency to attract repeated discussions of the same themes.
Please read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. Dec 2006-January 2008


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1].
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)

[edit] GA

Withdrawn due to the return of SPA EdChampion.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

[edit] 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:

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [2]].

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 [3]].

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 [4]].


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 [5]], 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. [6]

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 [7]]. 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 [8]]. 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 [9]].

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 [10]]. 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 [11]]. 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 [[12], Latin translator [13]] 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 [14].

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 [15].

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 [16] and user:Wassupwestcoast [17] 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) [18], 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [19], 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC) [20]; Wassupwestcoast - 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC) [21],17:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [22], 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) [23], 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC) [24]]. 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[25], France [26], Sweden [27], Italy [28]]. 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) [29]]. 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) [30]].

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 [31]. 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) [32], 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC) [33]].

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 [34] 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 - [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]; Cuthbert of Lindisfarne - [42], [43], [44]; Augustine of Canterbury - [45], [46], [47]; Michael (archangel) - [48], [49], [50]]. 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) [51] 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 [52]. This reference was deemed to be a reliable source and consequently added by Secisek 14:51, 20 August 2007 [53]. The website is managed by the Star Quest Production Network [54] 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 [55], and reflects the ideas that the Vatican has with modern communications [56].

9.3 The “catholic-forum” URL is referenced from 275 Wikipedia articles [57] and the “SQPN” URL is referenced from 31 Wikipedia articles [58]. 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 ..." [59].

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 [60] is also seen as a patron saint of Wolves but is not mentioned on the site [61] 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 [62]. 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 [63].

11.2 This article is written by the web site author Rev. Fr. Andrew Philips. A biography of him is given here [64]. 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 [65] 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 … [66]
The definition of Nation is “a large body of people, associated with a particular territory” [67]. 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)