Talk:Saint Patrick: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:13, 4 May 2006 editRobdurbar (talk \| contribs)11,477 edits →Great Britain: island← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:13, 4 May 2006 edit undoRobdurbar (talk \| contribs)11,477 edits →Great Britain: expandNext edit →
Line 117:		Line 117:
	:::No need to be disingenuous. The Roman province is accepted as both ''Britain'' and ''Britannia''. In this case, either one would work, whereas ''Great Britain'' would be wildly inaccurate. ] 07:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)		:::No need to be disingenuous. The Roman province is accepted as both ''Britain'' and ''Britannia''. In this case, either one would work, whereas ''Great Britain'' would be wildly inaccurate. ] 07:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Please, Irish Guy, read ]; it is an island, not a country. --] 08:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)		:Please, Irish Guy, read ] or ]; it is an island, not a country. --] 08:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:13, 4 May 2006

Saints Unassessed

	Saints portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Saint Patrick received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Celtic Language?

It says in the article that after St. Patrick was captured he began to learn "the Celtic language." It is commonly agreed among Irish historians that the Irish are not actually Celtic (e.g. the Irish learned the Celtic style of art from communication with the European mainland, etc.). So did they speak the Celt language? I defer to an expert on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.226.16.47 (talk • contribs)

To be more precise, what the article means is that he learned "a Goidelic language" or "the Old Irish language". Patrick would have already spoken a Brythonic language and some Latin. Depending on exactly where he came from in Britain, he might have known a Goidelic language as well. Celtic languages and Insular Celtic languages explain how Goidelic and Brythonic may have been related to each other and to other Celtic languages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

St. Patrick: Fact and Fiction

What are the sources for the following statments?

1 - "born Patricius Magonus Sucatus"
2 - " seems to have studied at the monastery of Lérins on the Côte d'Azur from 412 to 415 ...He spent the next 15 years at Auxerre were he became a disciple of Saint Germanus of Auxerre and was ordained possibly about 417."
3 - "Saint Germanus consecrated Patrick bishop about 431, and sent him to Ireland to succeed Saint Palladius, the first bishop, who had died earlier that year. "
4 - "There was some contact with the pope. Patrick visited Rome in 442 and 444. "
5 - "Popular devotion to Patrick began in France, long before Sucat received the noble title of Patricius"

These and other statments seriously mar what is otherwise a fairly good and reasonably well written article. Also the chronology implicit in them is all over the place. The fact of the matter is that no one know for sure what the dates of Patrick's life are; those of 461 (arriving in Ireland) and 491 (death) are estimates arrived at only after decades of discussion. Will whoever rewrote this article please show the basis for including these statments. Thank you. Fergananim

I've re-revised the article again in line with what I wrote above, for the simple reason that Pcassidy reverted back to his version again without citing sources for statments I take issue with. I dislike doing this unilaterally because it is against the spirit of wikipedia, but it seems I have to draw attention to this in some manner other than being polite. Fergananim, 18:52 pm, 18th April 2005.

I did? Where? I just checked through my edits and all I can find is reverts of blatant vandalism and one weird edit (documented below). I also reverted "confession" -> "confessio" in the last two weeks or so - is this what you are referring to? - Pete C 18:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Pete, glad to hear from you. The basic issues I have with the article as you wrote it - forgive me if I have mistaken you for another editor - are outlined above. I have no problem whatsoever with them being included in an article concerning Pat, so long as they are placed under some heading along the lines of "Speculations about St. Patrick". Because we know so very little about Patrick I really feel it is vital to seperate facts, speculation and hagiography. And - I mean no offense - much of what I have outlined above falls under the latter two categorys. Thank you for your time. Ferganaim, 22:08, 15th April 2005.

OOokay. You have me confused with someone else, I suspect. I've no comments really re. the points of contention above, as I didn't add them. - Pete C 22:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, cheers. Sorry for that! Ferganaim

Most theories place St.Patrick's birthplace in Wales. - Peter

(The above anonymously contributed without reading even the Misplaced Pages article. No consensus will ever be reached on precisely where in Romanized Britain the location vico banavem taburniae was sited. Wales is among the possibilities. --Wetman 02:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

Not NPOV

This article presents a great deal of speculative and controversial information as plain fact. For example, I don't believe it's remotely possible to say authoritatively that "His father was Calpornius, a deacon, son of Potitus, who was Romano-British".

The Confessio, listed in the External links, begins "I, Patrick, a sinner, a most simple countryman, the least of all the faithful and most contemptible to many, had for father the deacon Calpurnius, son of the late Potitus, a priest, of the settlement of Bannavem Taburniae..." I'll check to make a footnote in the entry. --Wetman 11:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... the article currently starts with

Saint Patrick (circa 373 - March 17, 461) is the patron saint of Ireland. He was born around 385 in Caledonia, probably at Kilpatrick.

(emphasis added)

The last two external links give 387 to 390 as the date of birth... which of these three is correct? (I don't think "circa 373" and "around 385" are the same thing.) Lupo 14:07, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

387 to 390 sounds like circa 385 to me, so lets pick that. -- Derek Ross

Re: Dalriada According to my sources, the Irish kingdom in Co. Antrim was called Dal Riada. Irish seafarers (called Scotti) carried colonizers from that county to establish the kingdom of Dalriada in Argyll in northern Britain, in what would later become Scotland. -- Larry Gross

Big disparity with the birth dates - why is it now "circa 420s"? -- Ian Schorr

Baptist vs. Catholic POV stuff

Whatever did 192.31.106.34 do to the page tonight? Deleted legit links and added a major Baptist spin on a reasonably NPOV article? What's up with *that*?? Discussion of trans-vs-con- substantiation don't really belong in a biog. such as this. It reads like a Baptist sermon (which I'm familiar with). Recommend reversion. I've already rv'd the deleted links - that's just vandalism! Pcassidy 22:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, large chunks were C&P'd from; http://www.calvaryroadbaptist.org/Article%20-%20St.%20Patrick%20A%20Baptist.htm and various other sites. Pcassidy 22:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I reverted it as it was basically a POV rant about how Patrick was a Baptist and all the Catholics are wrong, nyaah nyaah. Biased, preachy, irrelevant. I'm neither Catholic nor Baptist, BTW Pcassidy 14:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought Baptists were a Protestant group that originated many centuries later. What's going on? Michael Hardy 03:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They argue that in fact they predate Martin Luther and Protestantism and were an underground church.GordyB 10:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is currently a reference to 'Catholic Celtic church', this is extremely POV. The current Catholic church may consider Patrick a Catholic but that doesn't explain why the Pope gave the go-ahead to the Normans to invade Ireland and 'Catholicise' Ireland. The Monks of Iona refused to recognise the Catholic church as being the same as the Celtic church. Even in England the Synod of Whitby came about because the Roman church did not like the Celtic one.

As discussed above many other churches consider the Celtic church to be ancestral to their own e.g. the Anglicans / Espiscopolians (since the church was native to Britain and Ireland and not part of the see of Rome). The Celtic cross is used by the Church of England as a symbol and native Saints e.g. Aidan are seen as Anglican saints.

I think endorsement of one point of view is a bad idea and this article needs a section to discuss the different claims about St Patrick. He is somebody who is popular in Ireland with Protestants as well as Catholics.GordyB 15:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Could someone please clean this article up? Specifically: one way or the other, could someone with sources and citations please clear up whether or not St. Patrick killed pagans.(Anon.)

"NPOV", so abused at Misplaced Pages, actually means "Neutral point-of-view." --Wetman 15:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I too would *really* like to see this cleared up. I have read that St. Patrick was responsible for the death of many pagans, and even accounts accusing him and his followers of burning pagan books and shrines. However, I do not recall any of the sources as being particularly authoritative. Given, searching online doesn't turn up a whole lot along these lines either, but that is the nature of search - so many people like St. Patrick that of course all the high ranking links will be positive. Thoughts?

Patron saints of Ireland

If there is no opposition, I would like to add that saint Patrick is the patron saint of Ireland, along with saint Brigit and saint Columba, as it is given as fact in patron saint. Gene.arboit 19:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

External links

I removed the following as essentially duplicating content in other links. ] says where links should be used, it sems to me as if there are rather too many all saying much the same thing.

Just zis Guy, you know? / AfD? 00:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Age?

Browsing this topic quickly I noticed the date of birth and date of death given at the top, which puts St. Patrick at an age of 106 upon his death. This isn't commented on anywhere in the body of the article, which seems a bit strange for such a remarkable age.

Citations for birth and death dates would be nice given their relative unbelievability. Catholic.org gives his birth as 387 and his death as 461, dates I am much more inclined to believe.

Great Britain

I have a thing with editing out the term 'Britain', except when referred to for etymological or terminological reasons. Call it a compulsion, a pain in the neck, or whatever, there's a very good reason for it, and I always make sure that every time I edit away that word, I am doing something constructive, no matter how minor. Whereas 'Great Britain' clearly refers to an island, the meaning of which is unambiguous, 'Britain' is shorthand for the island (Great Britain), the archipelago to which it belongs (British Isles), or the country to which it belongs (United Kingdom). Thus, 'Britain' is either sloppy, misleading, or both sloppy and misleading. Bastin8 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no country of Great Britain in the time of Saint Patrick. In this context it would be referring to the Roman province considered Britain, therefore Britain is the correct wording here. IrishGuy 23:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no country of Great Britain now, either; Great Britain is an island. Furthermore, the Roman province was called 'Britannia', not 'Britain'. If you mean the Roman province, write 'Britannia', not 'Britain'; 'Britain' doesn't actually mean too much by itself (hence the content of the article on Britain), so its use should be avoided if one is to ensure encyclopaedic accuracy and precision. Bastin8 00:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to be disingenuous. The Roman province is accepted as both Britain and Britannia. In this case, either one would work, whereas Great Britain would be wildly inaccurate. IrishGuy 07:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, Irish Guy, read Great Britain or British Isles (terminology); it is an island, not a country. --Robdurbar 08:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories: