Talk:Edmund the Martyr/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: That's here. Interesting stuff. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: The Blackwell Enyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England says 869. No contest. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Dates

message: 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)
thread_title: Link

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cross of St. Edmund 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: made a start with historical link--Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 13:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  development of the page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'll be reviewing the article today, standby for comments.  The Rambling Man 12:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religious denomination 

message: 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)
thread_title:  St Edmund's Crown 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  edits awaiting protection dispute end 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the way forward 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]

message: 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. 
"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)
thread_title: Paragraph for Review

message: 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)
thread_title: Overall Review

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in the Lead 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in the Saint Banner 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in Life 

message: 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)
thread_title: Apologies for pushing this to the top of the page

message: "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?"
"..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.”
"...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)
thread_title: Case against Edmund as Patron

message: "St Edmund the Martyr - Original Patron Saint of England?"

: 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)
thread_title: Case For Edmund

message: 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)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: 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)
thread_title: BL link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citations in Lead

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  martydom 

message: I've added the template  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)
replies: text: It isn't a repeated discussion, it is because the dispute still hasn't been resolved. EdChampion (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated discussion

message: 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)
thread_title: EdChampion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Interesting article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Good article status 

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

message: Ed, you wrote above that you "have never once claimed St. Edmund to be the current Patron Saint of England – as you well know." and then you start an edit war in the article to maintain that he is "Edmund is seen as the patron saint of England". You have said I don't understand and you are correct, I don't. You also seem to suggest that Edmund is not the patron saint of Suffolk, which he is. Now, try to explain once more for me what you are getting at here. Please be polite. -- Secisek (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, in my quick edit to the article I forgot to change "the patron" to "a patron". St. Edmund is patron of the Diocese of East Anglia (of which Suffolk is part). The county council itself does not have the power to assign patrons. EdChampion (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And "a patron" is is more accurate for all since St. Edmund is not the only patron of kings wolves etc. a quick google proves that.
They do and they did, but never mind that for the moment. Ed, give me, right here and right now, what you consider to be the strongest source that would back the following statement: "Source X also lists Edmund as a Roman Catholic patron of England." -- Secisek (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: They may claim it but doesn't make it valid as point out by Lima. This answer has already been given to Wassupwestcoat plus all the references in the archive not to mention history etc. A point I made a long time ago there is no record of any saintly patronage being removed is doesn't happen. Yes new ones come along and are made princial patron but the others still exist. It's called tradition. EdChampion (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You could pick pretty much pick anyone of them, but both Catholic sources of Butler's and the Pontifical Institute state St. Edmund is a patron of EnglandEdChampion (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It's in the archives! And I forgot to add the indirect references to other patrons by the two popes given above. EdChampion (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: We could try Salih, A Companion to Middle English Hagiography, if anyone can get a look at that. She mentions a forthcoming (as of <2006) work, Bale (ed.), St Edmund, King and Martyr. If Ed is relying on Googling, he should bear in mind that a reference to Edmund as "patron of the English [nation]" need not mean "patron of England". The "English [nation]" referred to may be this kind of thing. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Patron saint

message: For those interested in this article, it is time to move forward. WP:Verifiability, WP:Original Research,and Wikipedia:Consensus are policy. Consensus is not a synonym for unanimity. Text without reliable attribution will be deleted. Wikipedia:Gaming the system, although a guideline, will not be tolerated.  Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move forward