Talk:Edmund the Martyr/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

Y 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 result was a consensus per discussion. -- Wassupwestcoast 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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?"

[12]

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 [13] [14]). 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 [15]. 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 [[16]], 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

A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template. Please review the RFC template syntax and try again To add a discussion to RFC: Add {{templatename | section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time=~~~~~ }} Use the name of the RFC tag name in place of "templatename". Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again. Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

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: [17], [18], [19], [20]

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, 625. ISBN 0-8146-2903-2.  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)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.