Talk:Henry, Bishop of Uppsala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Henry, Bishop of Uppsala is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 28, 2007.

Contents

[edit] Fiction?

If Henry was canonised within three years of his reported death by a pope who knew him personally, this seems like credible contemporary evidence that he probably existed --Henrygb 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. If. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 11:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Henry has never been canonized by the Pope. That is imagination. He is called "the Saint" in Finland, but that is only a domestic invention. --Drieakko 05:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Legends of Henry are presumably formed together from several individuals. What is known for sure, is that Henry's supposed bones were moved from the church of Nousiainen to Turku in 1300. However, there does not seem to have been a church in Nousiainen already in the 12th century, so the bishop buried there could be the unnamed priest who was consecrated as the bishop of Finland around 1209. --Drieakko 05:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
He seems to be called a Saint in Rome by the Pope (John Paul II) [1] [2] --Henrygb 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Pope was probably just window-dressing. According to [3] Henry was never formally canonized. He is also missing from [4]. --Drieakko 04:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I removed the following line from the lead:

This assumes that only RC canonization is the only way to be considered a saint -- he's also not been canonized by the church of scientology - so?  :) Henry commemorated on the calendars of Protestant churches of Scandinavia. -- Pastordavid 01:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Henry was a Roman Catholic bishop and Roman Catholic church has not canonized him. Calling him nevertheless a "saint" (like so often done) at the same time when Roman Catholics in general have a strict process for persons to become saints is misleading. Protestants do not have saints in Scandinavia even though key church persons are commemorated. --Drieakko 08:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
After giving it a thought for a while, I removed all Saint categorizations of Henry since he does not fall into definition of a saint as defined in the respective Wikipedia article Saint. --Drieakko 14:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The categorization of him as both an Anglican saint and a Lutheran saint has been restored, as he does fall within the definition of Saint as defined by those categories. The Saints banner has also been restored, to make it possible for the members of that project to know that this article is a potential candidate for the "biography of the month (soon to be of the day)" section on one of the feast days he may have. John Carter 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sounds reasonable. But to be noted is that neither of those churches recongizes Henry as a saint - they just commemorate him in their calendars of "holy men". Wikipedia regards protestant holy men as equivalent of saints in its naming of categories, which is somewhat paradoxical, when the same articles also state that saints are not recognized by the same churches. --Drieakko 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to the issue of canonization. I have revised the language of the lead. Prior to the 1580s, no saint was officially canonized - the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints was not established until then; prior to that, the recognition off saints was largely driven by grassroots, local traditions - indeed most of the most recognizable saints of the Christian tradition were never formally canonized. The word for this is that Henry was recognized as a saint "pre-congregation." I also included some extended info in the lead about the continued recognition of Henry by church bodies. Pastordavid 18:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a recollection that Pope Alexander III reserved the right to name anyone a saint strictly to Popes in 1171. Is this correct or not? --Drieakko 09:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That was, at one time, thought to be the case. Recent scholarship suggests otherwise however, and has shown that what was previously ascribed to Alexander III actually took place under Innocent III (1199-1216). Even with the attempted centralization of the recognition of the cultus of saints under Innocent, the process did not truly become centralized - especially in Northern Europe - until after the Reformation and the reforms of the canonization process by the Council of Trent; especially the foundation of the predecessor to the COngregation for the Causes of the Saints. Pastordavid 15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English born?

Modern books (and a tour guide on visit to the catherdral church in Turku) tell me that Henry was reputed to be English born. This is not mentioned in the articlr. Does anyone know why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC).--Tom 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that he was English-born has been derived from the 16th century information that he came to Sweden together with the future Pope Adrian IV who was Englishman. --Drieakko 08:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will update the article. I saw later that the Finnish version contains the reference to his his English origins.--Tom 09:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of May 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: yes
2. Factually accurate?: yes
3. Broad in coverage?: yes
4. Neutral point of view?: yes
5. Article stability? yes
6. Images?: yes

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — • The Giant Puffin • 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Insertformulahere

[edit] Collaboration

In support of the push to raise this article to FA status, this article has been named as the Wikiproject Saints collaboration of the month. Suggestions for imporovement can either be made on the collaboration page or on the project talk page. Pastordavid 19:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A peer review might help to get some more eyes on this article, and get it up to FA status. Pastordavid 19:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I have asked a peer review from a sister project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Bishop_Henry. --Drieakko 07:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for more detailed info on Henry's current standing. I organized parts of it to the main body into "Henry's status today" to keep the preface simple enough. --Drieakko 07:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political usage section

This section represents judgements, rather than facts. Statements about the purpose of the legend and the intent of its creators are interpretations. If they represent the work of a given scholar, they should be presented as such, otherwise they fall outside of WP:NPOV and wander into the the realm of original research. Pastordavid 18:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tuned it down now. I also made a lot of other edits to comply with the peer review. A few places still require a reference, but the article starts to feel ready for the FA review quite soon. --Drieakko 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Are there no other Bishop Henries in history? Is this personage always referred to as simply "Bishop Henry" in English scholarly works? Srnec 15:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd change the title to "Bishop Henry of Uppsala" if more Bishop Henrys appear in Wikipedia. --Drieakko 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think "Henry, Bishop of Uppsala" is preferred Wikipedia form. There are already other bishops with the name Henry on Wikipedia: see Henry I, Bishop of Augsburg, for just one example. Srnec 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Srnec is right on here. Check out the naming conventions for clergy. The preferred form would be Henry, Bishop of Uppsala. Pastordavid 17:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, quite right. I'd propose the move to be done as the current FA review has drawn to its conclusion. We also need to disambiguate the "Bishop Henry" link. --Drieakko 06:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Not expert on these matters, but would Bishop of Finland be more appropriate? I think he's mostly remembered as the allegedly first Bishop of Finland, not as some bishop of Uppsala. Or is his Bishopness of Uppsala somewhat more uncontroversial? --Pudeo⺮ 14:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This issue is broadly discussed in the article. No source says he was the Bishop of Finland, although that has quietly become a conventional claim later on. It is possible, that he actually was one of the early Bishops of Finland who was later changed to a Bishop of Uppsala for political reasons, but this is speculation. --Drieakko 14:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
And yes, all legends, written by the medieval Swedish church, say that he was the "Bishop of Uppsala". --Drieakko 14:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA

Article was today promoted to Featured Article. Thanks for everyone participating in the process! --Drieakko 04:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awkward opening sentence

I don't think "St. Henry... was a legendary Swedish clergyman." works. He is legendary or he was a clergyman. You can't have it both ways. Presumably, he really did exist, so it would be something along the lines of "St. Henry... was a Swedish clergyman, whose xxxxxxx is legendary." Fill in the gap. Cheers. --Dweller 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I modified the entire opening section to make it more fluent. --Drieakko 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Good job. --Dweller 18:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous Sentence

I hate to nitpick but in the second miracle, it says 'Bishop's finger found in spring'. Was this bishop Henry? Is it in a spring of water or the spring season or a bed spring or what? Is it possible to clarify this from the legend? I can read Latin after a fashion but I thought that the person who started this might better be able to tell me. Even if these things are clarified it doesn't sound like a miracle unless, of course, the finger was wagging at someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnor (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Spring season. For some reason, this was counted as a miracle in the medieval times. --Drieakko 03:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But was it Bishop Henry's finger?
Yes, it was his finger, supposedly. --Drieakko 03:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the sentence "Henry's legend is commonly considered to have been written during the 1280s or 1290s, latest for the consecration of the Cathedral of Turku in 1300, when his alleged remains were translated there from Nousiainen, a parish not far from " is unclear. The phrase ',latest...' isn't clear. I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. Johnor 03:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC).

I think it was lacking "at the". Fixed. --Drieakko 03:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in that case, the sentence is still a bit unclear to me. Do you mean the legend was written for the consecration of the Cathedral? Or were his remains translated there for the consecration? Thanks for the clarification on the above. Johnor 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Both, at the latest for the consecration of the Cathedral which was also the same point when his remains were moved in. --Drieakko 03:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word use =

You make use of a word litteration which I see no definition of in English. Do you mean iteration?Johnor 05:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Litteration" is a rather rare word for giving a written form for oral stories. --Drieakko 05:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually it seems to be with one t only. Fixed. --Drieakko 05:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case the word use would simply mean putting it in letters, not translating it from an oral myth. Perhaps it could be put another way. Thanks. Johnor 06:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear sentence

I don't fully understand the sentence below: "The Pope who had strongly sided with Sverker, ignored him at first, but finally recognized him in 1216, commenting many requests that he had apparently made ever since having taken the office." The 'commenting many requests' parts is what is unclear. I don't know what you are trying to say there. Thanks. Johnor 06:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So, ever since Eric had gotten the crown, he had apparently sent requests to the Pope, who kept ignoring him. Finally in 1216 the Pope sent Eric a letter in which he recognized him as the King of Sweden and commented also his earlier requests. Kindly clean up the way you see best. --Drieakko 06:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, congratulations on your article and research. Johnor 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Drieakko 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Does the change of policy have to do with Pope Innocent III spending his last year of life and trying to resolve remaining issues from his long reign? Or is the Pope mentioned actually his successor Pope Honorius III? Dimadick 10:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It is Innocent III himself, the original Latin letter here: [5]. --Drieakko 10:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Henry's Status Today

I'd like to note that Finnish-Americans in Michigan celebrate St. Henry's feast day as Heikkenpaiva on January 20th -- but my wiki-fu is weak. Could somebody with better skills than mine please add this? Source: http://www.cityofhancock.com/event-2007-heik.html or: http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=5924074&nav=81AWKojr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.57.50 (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Added in references. --Drieakko 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop of Finland or...?

As this is a FA and even made it to the mainpage I'd like to question the "bishop of Finland" a bit... was this really the offical term used? as i understand that in the 13th century what today is Finland was divided into Finland, Tavastland and Carelia? If he was "only bishop of Finland" it might be well to point out that Finland only means the region around Turku. But if he was bishop of "the eastern land" (as these three were called in Sweden at the time), then maybe that should be featured in the article. Gillis 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Bishop of Finland", or occasionally "Bishop of the Finns" was the term used in the Papal letters in the early 13th century. Note however that, according to official truth, Henry was a Bishop of Uppsala, who just stayed in Finland. --Drieakko 04:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
To continue my previous post, "Finland" had no set borders at the time so what exactly was the bishop's area of work remains vague. In the 14th century, "Finland" appears as the regional name for the current Finland Proper, so it can be assumed that the early bishops were active roughly on the same area, however definitely including Satakunta as well. The bishopric was renamed latest by 1259 as the Bishop of Turku, which during the Catholic era covered the entire eastern half of Sweden, e.g. approximately the modern Finland. Many history books that anachronistically present "borders of Finland" during the Swedish era, actually apply the bishopric's borders for that. --Drieakko 09:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
In addendum, I don't understand why the opening sentence calls him the Bishop of Uppsala, and then immediately talks of his part in a military conquest and a controversial murder. Was he a general as well? Any position in court of the King? And then "allegedly" died in... "Alleged" is more of an accusation or controversial assertion. The appropriate word would be "believed" or "claimed." I do believe these are immature errors and it confuses readers. K a r n a 19:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm? Bishop of Uppsala and King of Sweden led a crusade or a military expedition to christiniaze Finland. Not much is known about his earlier life. This article tells everything what is known about him. And yes, the whole First Swedish Crusade is controversial and can't be verified.--Pudeo⺮ 21:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"He conquered Finland with King" - but what was his role? Like the Pope during the Crusades - the religious figure-head? Or an actual general? I wish this were made clear. And unverifiable it may be, but I am just suggesting the word usage is wrong. K a r n a 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The legends do not separate Eric's and Henry's role in the crusade in any way. Of Henry's life, the legend has almost nothing to say except that he led the crusade with the king and was murdered in Finland. And not many words are used even for that. The legends themselves are contemporary propaganda, and as such unreliable. --Drieakko 04:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and propose such an opening sentence - "Henry was a Christian religious leader who is believed to have played a major role in Eric's conquest of Finland and in establishing the domination of Christianity as the first Bishop of Uppsala." ? K a r n a 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the proposal. However, Eric's "conquest of Finland" is also just a legend and is likewise disputed. Also, nothing is said about Henry's role in the alleged conquest in the legends telling about it, just that he traveled with the king. Henry was not the first Bishop of Uppsala either. I'd rather keep the text the way it is now, which is also the way it is commonly presented in the mainstream media. Saint Henry is a difficult subject to tackle, as the existence of the person is not sure at all, and he may actually have been several persons laid out together as one, engulfed in political propaganda of days long after the actual events. --Drieakko 16:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)