"==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. 

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.   (Talk) 

Are you kidding?  Please identify your source in claiming that ""is commonly agreed among Irish historians that the Irish are not actually Celtic.""  Recent research has revealed that the Celts did not displace pre-celtic peoples but Celts did come to Ireland and the predominant culture remained celtic until English colonization.  Second, Gaeilge is a celtic language of the Q-celtic branch of the Celtic language family, thus the Irish of Patrick's day spoke a celtic language and it is assumed that Patrick learned said language.  Ergo, he learned a celtic language (though, as noted above, he probably already spoke a P-celtic brythonic language prior to his enslavement.

I have seen broken dates for specific invasions of the British Isles from mainland europe during the collapse of the Roman empire, these not only include Picts, Scots, Irish, Angles and Saxons and more bizzarely English! I will have to dig the book out with dates.  

St. Patrick: Fact and Fiction

I have removed 'was captured by Niall Noigiallach' as it is an obvious error. I will try to come back some time in the future and help with citation and new material.

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. 

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. , 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? - (talk) 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. , 22:08