Talk:Augustine of Canterbury

message: 604 AD is the first third of the SEVENTH century, not the 6th.
:First third refers to his birth date and 604 his death date. I have revised to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: you've got him and Bede both dying on 26th May. Perhaps you could double check that date in case one has become confused with the other? Fuficius Fango (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuficius Fango, the dates appear to be correct, e.g. per Farmer, The Oxford Dictionary of Saints – both died on 26 May. We all have to go some time. HTH Nortonius (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: a matter of centuries 

message: I tried to remove an erroneous bullet point however once I had made the simple edit the whole page code has gone totally crazy. I tried to revert but it won't do it. I am very sorry. Aetheling1125 20:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: something has gone seriously wrong!!

message: This needs reworking by someone familiar with Augustine's life - at the moment his death is listed under 'first efforts'
HyDeckar 15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs much work. It is on my list for a rewrite to GA. Be bold and start on it! I'll join you when I can. -- SECisek 15:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: rework

message: I've removed this cat as it seemed extremely anachronistic, yes the church of Enlgand and wider Anglicanism sees continuity with the pre-Reformation church in England and he was the first Archbishop of Canterbury, but I don't think it's meaningful to label him an Anglican in any currently understod form of the term.  David Underdown 09:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I was on automatic pilot when I added that category because he's mentioned in other Anglicanism-related articles. InkQuill 18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. We should perhaps ask the extent to which they were Christian in any currently understood form of the term. Too big a question for here, though. Fuficius Fango (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent Anglican? 

message: Calling Ethelbert "Bretwalda" seems a bit anachronistic if not downright historially incorrect, as the article on Bretwalda itself states. I've removed the reference, since it is unhelpful.
It is a title (the meaning being closer 'overlord' rather than 'Britain-ruler' as some places here say) ascribed to Ethelbert from early centuries. It certainly is not historically incorrect and hardly seems anachronistic. - April 2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.225.144 (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bretwalda 

message: Just some thoughts.
*I'd suggest that you start with a little more contextual background: maybe a paragraph on who the Anglo-Saxons were, why England needed converting (and the fact that Roman Britain had been Christianized), the existence of the Celtic Church, and so on.
*You might consider reversing the order of some of the material in the paragraph about Bertha and Liudhard.  I think the logical sequence for the reader (once you've established the context of A-S England and so on), is first, why does Gregory send a mission?  That probably starts with saying a little bit about Gregory (maybe the fair-haired "angels") and the missionary activity from Rome in other directions.  Then mention Kent as the target, which leads naturally to the other material.  I think Augustine can be mentioned near the end of this paragraph; he becomes the climax of the section's plot, so to speak.
*You might be a little less definite about 592 as the date of Ceawlin's eclipse -- see the articles on Ceawlin of Wessex and Æthelberht of Kent for more background.  At least make it "about 592" or something like that.
*I haven't checked all your sources, but one I did check seemed a little imprecise: you have "a group of forty other monks" in Augustine's party, but the source, Stenton, says "about forty companions"; they're implicitly described as all being monks earlier, but I don't think you should change "about forty" to "forty".
*This isn't strictly necessary, but you might want to change to the spelling "Æthelberht" -- that's what's used in the article on him.
*"There is no evidence that they tried to convert the pagans who were descendants of the tribes that had invaded after the end of the Roman Empire."  Who does "they" refer to?  I think it means the surviving Christians, but it could be clearer.
*"Augustine sent a report of his success to Gregory with questions concerning his work along with Laurence".  The "along with Laurence" is a bit clumsy; does this mean Laurence took the letter to Rome?  I also think you could go into more detail about the contents of the letter, which is quoted at great length by Bede if I remember rightly.  I don't have Bede to hand but it would be interesting to know if the letter is thought to be original.  You mention Gregory's instructions later; as I recall these came in the form of answers to Augustine's questions.  I'd suggest making the connect clear.
*Brechter's theory on the archdiocese having been seated at London at one time is new to me; quoted in Brooks, I take it, per your citation.  Does Brooks think this is a plausible idea? I haven't seen it elsewhere and it seems a bit far-fetched to me.
*I'll be happy to do a copyedit pass at some point, but I think it's probably best to leave that till you're comfortable with the contents.
I'll keep the article on my watchlist and will add other comments if I can think of any.  Mike Christie (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again for the suggestions, I corrected the forty monks one, and I will get to the others, I'm just right in the middle of putting Brooks' data into the ABCs so I'm going to stick with that for a bit longer and get that bit finished. I really really appreciate the time and great suggestions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I've found of any relevance is Higham's piece on Æthelberht in The Convert Kings. He has rather a lot on the Augustine's Oak meetings, if nothing else, so I'll have a read through it again and add whatever seems relevant. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Independent of what happened after Augustine, it almost certainly was the case that there was once an archbishop of London ... that is if episcopal structure was established in Roman Britain as in the rest of the Empire. Gregory the Great's intention was to found arcbhbishoprics at London and York, and this probably indicates he had information about the pre-invasion episcopal structure which like the rest of the empire would have had archbishoprics in provinical capitals, in this case the two old provincial capitals Britannia Superior and Britannia Inferior.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm understanding Brooks when he describes Brechter's theory (which I suspect exists somewhere in a German history journal), Brechter feels that Bede was mistaken in making Augustine archbishop at Canterbury, and that Augustine was archbishop at London. According to Brooks (this is on page 11-14 of The Early History of the Church of Canterbury) Brechter holds the view that it was only after Æthelbert's death and the pagan reaction that drove the bishops from Rochester and London that the archbishopric was established at Canterbury, because London had become untenable. The footnotes of the section are to (as I guessed) German language works: S. Brechter Die Quellen zur Angelsachsenmission Gregors des Grossens 24-6; S. Brechter "Zur Bekehrungsgeschichete der Angelsachesen" Settimane xiv 1967 191-215. Brooks says that nothing new has come to light to refute Brechter's theory since R. A. Markus' "Chronology of the Gregorian Mission" Journal of Ecclesiastical History xiv 1967 refuted Brechter's theory. We are SOOO far from my training and field it's not even funny, so I'm leaving it in the hands of experts, and relying on the big name scholars. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review comments 

message: I think it's ready for a good copyedit (i.e. rip it to shreds) and thinking about GAN. Anyone volunteer? Ealdgyth | Talk 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Okies

message: I am approaching this as someone who knows very little about the subject. I will give some high-level comments mainly on structure and content. There are copyediting and prose issues as well, but it is probably worthwhile to tackle the general problems before going into specifics. Before I start, one general point that you will see often in my comments is that there are at times new subjects that are suddenly introduced. Although wikilinks help, a clause or a few words of explanation would smooth the flow of reading for a person not familiar with the subject.
;Background to the mission
*This section seems a little long relative to the rest of the article. Unless there is a significant expansion planned for the rest of the article, I would recommend reducing this section. There are small details that do not add very much to the Augustine story, e.g., the origin of St Martin’s Church, the fair-haired slaves theory, the pope writing to various kings.
:: Cut some on St. Martin's. Explained a bit below why it's hard to cut to much here.
*Bede is suddenly introduced without explanation.
:: Explained he's a chronicler 
;Arrival and first efforts
*The mission turning back to Rome is not explained. Is there a significance to what happened?
::Other than it's covered in GREAT detail in some of my secondary sources? Not really. No one knows WHY the mission turned back, honestly. I'll defer to Mike on this one, should it be cut? 
*It says “…on the one hand… on the other hand…” but the two items mentioned do not seem to be in opposition as expected when this phrasing is used.
::Struck out, you are correct that there really isn't opposition there.
*Augustine established first at Canterbury. Since he was the originator, it might be good to give a reason why he chose the location.
:: Changed to show that Canterbury was AEthelbert's captial. Does that make enough sense? Later we discuss why Canterbury stayed the archbishopric when Gregory wanted it at London, but the simplest reason they went to Canterbury is that is where the king was.
*The Archbishop of Arles is suddenly introduced. Who is he? Was he based in Arles (in modern-day France) or in Kent? The existence of an Archbishop implies a significant Christian population existing on British soil. This then brings more questions to mind.
::Clarifiied that we don't know where or when Augustine was consecrated. Clarified that the Arles Archbishop was Frankish, thus hopefully making it clear he wasn't in Britain. If it isn't clear still, we'll break out the two-by-four for the clueless.
*It says "That Christmas…". But what year is that?
:: Clarified
*The king became a saint after his death, but the sentence may be in the wrong place. Did the king die shortly after Augustine's arrival?
:: AEthelberht died after Augustine, 12 years or so later in fact. It isn't really in the wrong place, because there really isn't a right place. I'd be okay with cutting it entirely, but I do think it gives a bit of context that the king as well as the archbishop was regarded as a saint after death. I'm very welcome to suggestions where it might work better.
*In the same paragraph, some information of the existence of Christians before Augustine's arrival is given. This info should go before the discussion of Augustine's arrival.
::I'm not sure where to put it though. There is NO evidence that the fact that there might have been Christians still around had any influence on Gregory sending the mission. As you can see above, we know very little about them, beyond some grave goods. I could move this down by the bit about the cult of St. Sixtus, or I can add it in around the discussion of Bertha and AEthelbert. Suggestions are welcome.
*Mellitus and Justus are suddenly introduced without explanation.
::Added in context, (and cut some verbiage! Whee!)
*The sentence "A theory by the historian S. Brechter…" is either a run-on sentence or is incomplete.
::Hopefully fixed it.
;Additional work
*After the first sentence describing the two episcopal sees, there is a sudden jump to after 1066 and a discussion of a cathedral. How are they linked? Also what cathedral is it? The description of the archeology seems out of place in the "Additional work" section. Is it meant to show that Augustine managed to build new churches?
::I moved around a bit to hopefully make it a bit clearer. Also cut the bit about St Martin's.
*If Aethelbert was only the King of Kent, how was he able to summon bishops outside his realm?
::Clarified, I hope.
*There is a sudden introduction of the tonsure.
::Tonsure is now mentioned in the Background section as one of the defining differences between Celtic and Roman Christianity.
;Further success
*Concerning "temples and usages" is that "temples and their use"? The "former… latter" construct does not work very well here.
::Reworked.
*Concerning the quote "whoever wishes…", who said that?
::Made explicit (Heh, that was one surviving bit from the 1911 EB)
I would recommend reading the article out loud. I think you will find some sentence structures that seem a bit complex or difficult to understand. Following the corrections, a good copyedit/prose check is needed. I give as an example, the sentence "As to why Pope Gregory…" could be made better as in "Nothing is mentioned in the sources on why Pope Gregory chose a monk to head the mission".
:: Will do this tonight, after the 13 year old boy goes to bed so I don't have to compete with the XBox360 ..... Ealdgyth | Talk 22:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressing a couple of points here, some of this is driven by the nature of the sources. We're in the Dark Ages here, where the sources drive the coverage, unfortunately. There is a lot more coverage of the fact that Augustine went to Kent and why, than coverage of what he did once he got there. Augustine himself is a very shadowy figure, not much is known about what he was like, given that most of what we know comes from monastic writers. The secondary sources cover the WHY of the missison a lot more than the WHAT of the mission, unfortunately. So that's why the background to the mission is covered in such detail. I'll try to cut it down a bit, but the fair haired slaves is an old legend about Gregory, that most folks will have dim memories of having learned in school (at least in the Commonwealth, I'm betting), thus the inclusion. Will work to make that more clear. Most of the rest of concerns above are very valid, and I'll try to address them sometime today. I'll tell Mike to hold up on the copyedit until I get to them. Thanks again! Ealdgyth | Talk 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from RHB 

message: I think I addressed everything above except for the references. Going to switch them over now. (blech!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There, switched over. Going to have Brighterorange run his script over the thing and I think we're in mop up mode. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit etc.

message: Are there plans to get this on the main page? --Secisek (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just watching the troubles that folks had with Oliver Typewriter Company and Ima Hogg, can I say hopefully never? Spending a day fighting vandalism isn't my idea of exciting... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh. Given how MANY history related articles there are, I think I'm safe for a while. (crosses her fingers) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Main page

message: Can you please explain how that site is a reliable source for the information? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the ref was called a forum, it redirected to another page which is not  a forum, and doesn't pose any obvious RS problems. I've changed the reference to this page, so it is more obviously not a questionable source. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, who is behind this site? What are their sources? I did do a format tweak on the new reference, but I'd be happier with a more reliable source, one that was either connected with a church or gave its sources or something. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking from the site, it seems to be the side project of an individual. Not the height of RS, but I guess I don't see a reason to remove the information. That site is regularly one of the top hits when I've googled various saints, and the info isn't what I would call spurious. Granted, a formally published resource would be better, but the only one I have that would cover this (Butler's Lives) doesn't give St Augustine's patronage. Next time I'm at the chancery, I'll try n find something better though. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It hasn't been a real great concern, but it took a lot of work to get Augie boy to Featured Article status, and I'm trying to keep him there. One of those things is maintaining the reliablity of the sources. I don't think it's a horrid source, but a better one would be nice! Thanks for understanding! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Patronage source

message: Seeing as how there is a link to the dab page for all St Augustines, is it really necessary that we include a link specifically to St Augustine of Hippo? Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cantuar and Hippo are (in my view) the most "senior" St Augustine's (and I don't think I'd be alone in that - an English church dedicated to St Augustine will almost certainly be one or the other), so why force a reader to click twice if we don't have to.  David Underdown (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rdr info at top

message: I've removed the information added as the source given is a generalist work and doesn't support the idea that at the time Augustine received a pallium, the pallium was something that tied him unabigiously to the papacy. At the time, the papacy wasn't what it was later in the middle ages, and the given source is a generalist work discussing the entire Middle ages and beyond, not the specifics of this time frame. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, can you the next time you add information to an FA or GA, please try to make the references fit the style used in the article? It's a pain to have to go around and fix others additions of sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pallium discussion 

message: The article currently states that St. Augustine was the prior of St. Anthony's Monastery and that at one point Pope Gregory was the abbot of the same. Though a source it cited, as far as I can tell this information is inaccurate. I have been unable to find the cited source to confirm it, but my own notes from Jeffery Richards' "Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great" indicates that Gregory was the abbot of St. Andrew's, not St. Anthony's (pg 212 of the 1980 edition). This is supported by the online Catholic Encyclopedia () as well as Gregory's own Wikia page (Pope Gregory I). I have thus far been unable to find any indication that St. Andrew's and St. Anthony's were different names for the same place. Can anyone else explain this, or should I go ahead and make the change to the article? Thought (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I double checked against the source, and it is indeed St. Andrew's. Have changed. NOt sure whether that's a typo from me or someone along the way changed it by mistake, but thanks for pointing that out! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now renamed San Gregorio Magno al Celio - it was Gregory's old family house, which went monastic when he did - way to go!  We had all this before, I'm sure I added the link. It's been like that since April at least.  I'd be inclined to do as the Romans do, with a "Sant Andrea", but up to you. Caelian Hill might be linked perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Monastery? 

message: I redrew the map as an SVG:
Is it good enough to replace the existing map? Marnanel (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG map 

message: Bede quotes in full a letter from Pope Gregory to Augustine, acknowledging that his talent for performing miracles is well-known, and warning him against the 'sin' of pride at being able to perform these miracles. The article, however, only refers to his reputation as a miracle-worker in the context of the exaggerated & fanciful later medieval hagiographies. I realise that, in this secular age, we pay no credence to reports of the supposedly miraculous; but is it worthwhile mentioning that part of the success of the Gregorian mission was, as Gregory's letter attests, due to Augustine's reputation as a supposed 'worker of miracles' within his own lifetime?Butcherscross (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it though? The best source for Wikipedia is what secondary sources say about something. To use just Bede for that would be getting into interpretation ourselves. Most modern historians don't give much credence to Gregory's belief there, so we can only discuss what the secondary historians say. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, Ealdgyth! I'm no expert. I assume the letter from Gregory itself is considered genuine, presumably being one of the letters recovered for Bede from the Vatican archives? If so, it struck me that it might be at least worth mentioning that Augustine's reputation as a supposed miracle-worker was not just an invention of later hagiographers, as the article currently implies, but was current during his lifetime. It does reflect on how he was perceived by the English he was trying to convert. But, as I say, I'm quite happy to back down on this one! Butcherscross (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the point of the last section where we discuss later vitae are that Bede's account is pretty factual compared to the later vitae from after the Norman Conquest. The later vitae contain no new facts beyond Bede, is the point. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, Ealdgyth, I'm happy to concede the point! As a side-issue, I'm currently re-reading Bede, and it struck me that the letter from Gregory seems to be scolding Augustine for his pride over his supposed miracle-worker reputation. If so, this would suggest an arrogant side to Augustine's character that would fit in well with his supposed lack of humility towards the Celtic Christians. I get the impression that, despite his achievements and piety, he wasn't actually a very nice guy! :-)  Butcherscross (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait til you hit Wilfrid, there's a "not so humble" guy! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputed miracles 

message: The footnote says:   ^ The name is in the halo, in a later hand. The figure is identified as a saint by his clerical tonsure.[1]  
Put me right about this...... I would have thought that the halo identified the subject as a saint, while the tonsure identified him as a cleric.  And that together they indicate that he was a cleric who became was/is a saint. 
Amandajm (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write the caption.. Johnbod did, I believe (I could be wrong, it was quite a while ago). I would imagine we could lose the second sentence and have no problems with the caption. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it wasn't for the tonsure it would probably be Christ, given the cross he's holding & his general appearance. I've clarified this. Also (on an OR note) by his holding the book using a cloth, which Christ doesn't do. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: In the picture

message: I've trimmed this
"Kent was probably chosen because it was near the Christian kingdoms in Gaul and because Æthelberht had married a Christian princess..."
as it is specualtive; there are a number of reasons why Kent was chosen, which are outlined in the Background section (not the least being, they were invited!) so saying it was "probably" because Kent was near to Gaul is a bit simplistic. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Kent? 

message: I notice that an addition I made, saying that the mission's landing place was at Ebbsfleet, in Thanet, has been deleted as the source given doesn't mention the location. That's fair enough, but is it not the case that is where they landed? And if so, shouldn't we mention it? I've re-arranged the information to take account of the source given; is that OK, do you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But neither the ODNB nor Fletcher's book state it's Ebbsfleet. We discuss the whole Ebbsfleet issue in the "Death and legacy" section ... which also mentions the cross that marks the supposed site. None of the main sources I used for the article mention the traditional landing site at Ebbsfleet in their narratives - only one book even mentions Thanet, quite honestly. Augustine's landing site isn't important to the various sources, and isn't covered in most of the sources, so I've weighted the article accordingly. Because it is something often mentioned, it is discussed in the article, just not in the main narrative. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! I hadn't seen that bit down there; and I didn't know it was on such shaky ground. So if you think it doesn't belong there, I can go with that; but do you think it's worth putting in a footnote/edit note, referring people to the Death and Legacy section? I'm thinking that the idea might be "common knowledge" to readers and editors of a certain age...Moonraker12 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  An explanatory footnote would be okay, but I'm of a "certain age" and didn't have a clue there was a tradition on his landing spot... of course, I'm also American... the traditional landing site can be sourced to the same source as given in the legacy section.. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landing at Ebbsfleet 

message: I removed the quotation because the lead summarizes the body of the article - the information is not in the body of the article nor is it really that important that an exact quote be there. THe information is summarized (without the quote) in the body of the article. The information that Gregory thought he was sending Augustine to the "end of the world" is really trivia and not needed in the article - much less in the lead! Kindly remove it - just because it had been there for a while, doesn't mean it needs to stay. It's undue weight (see WP:UNDUE)  by far in the lead and too trivial in the body. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the quote should not be in the lead but it does not seem to me trivia. It throws light on the view of England from Rome at that time and helps to explain why Augustine tried to turn back. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd agree with that statement if any of the secondary sources connected that quote with those events - unfortunately, I don't think they do at all. As it is, it's just a random quote without any secondary source coverage. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of quote from lead... 

message: As I noted, I added the born-died notation because the current configuration is awkward and has been a source of repeated confusion. To more than one reader, it is not clear what the parenthetical phrase refers to. (And WP:DOB refers to the privacy information of living people, not to the form of parenthetical birth-death date information; clarity appears rather more important than protecting Augustine from identity theft.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: DOB clearly says to use born only if the person is living. If it's unclear, the solution is to remove the rather rough "birth date" approximation, rather than clutter the lead more. But I don't think it's nearly as unclear as you think it is... what are you basing this on? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit just prior to mine, as well as a similar edit from two months ago, both stemming from confusion over how the birth date is presented. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry - I put the wrong shortcut in. The relevant MOS part is MOS:DOB - I was only half awake and put in "WP" instead of "MOS". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth-Death 

message: The affected text:  "Other distinguishing characteristics were its calculation of the date of Easter and ...".
I recently made a change to it (added ", i.e. on the day of Passover,"), and that change was removed a few minutes later:
*21:42, 27 November 2015 99.255.62.18  (Mention how Easter was "calculated".)
*21:58, 27 November 2015 Ealdgyth      (exact date not relevant)
I claim that it is relevant.
The actual difference supports the earlier claim that it "developed in isolation from Rome".
Specifically, this church still celebrated Passover, as was taught to their predecessors, who almost certainly got it from the original Apostles or their direct successors.
Meanwhile, the Roman Church had banned the celebration of Passover as heresy and instituted Easter at the Council of Nicaea.
Reporting this significant difference between the two churches simply as "its caclulation" is far too mild and weaselly for something that is explicit heresy.
(unsigned comment
:Phooey! That is not how the main sources treat the issue, which is marginal in a bio of Augustine. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter date controversy 

message: I'm just going to suggest this then leave it to others more interested to follow up on, but weren't certain Pagan winter solstice customs (Yule logs, boughs of holly, the solstice feast, and.....?) incorporated as part of Christmas celebration by Saint Augustine to ease the conversion of northern Pagans?  That would be an interesting note on his legacy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.54.141 (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be covered in the first paragraph in "Further sucess". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporation of Pagan traditions in Christmas celebration? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Augustine of Canterbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325002312/http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=469595&sort=4&search=all&criteria=st%20augustines%20cross&rational=q&recordsperpage=10 to http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=469595&sort=4&search=all&criteria=st%20augustines%20cross&rational=q&recordsperpage=10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @InternetArchiveBot (CarboniADV (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Augustine of Canterbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928010901/http://www.kings-school.co.uk/document_1.aspx?id=1%3A31887&id=1%3A31658&id=1%3A31637 to http://www.kings-school.co.uk/document_1.aspx?id=1%3A31887&id=1%3A31658&id=1%3A31637
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My addition of Bede's story about Augustine of Canterbury's healing of a blind man when the British bishops couldn't. You dismiss it because 'a miracle is not a fact'. Such a historiographical approach fails to engage with the understanding of other cultures of what is important, and thus offers an incomplete understanding of history. I was careful to record it as what Bede said, not as a fact. Such an approach offers a deeper understanding of the people of the time without asserting that the event happened.
This is an equally valid criticism of Hindley; the fact that that historian downplays the role of a miracle in determining Augustine's authority can well be argued as reflecting his post-Enlightenment beliefs, and so detracts from gaining a full understanding of the perspective of the people of the time. So we should include the story as I have, with it ascribed clearly to Bede but not offered as more than that. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're arguing for is interpreting Bede. That's what historians do in secondary sources. Here on wikipedia we just collate secondary sources. To include this story and make that interpretation is going to need a secondary source of high quality, something by an academic - like Hindley. Otherwise, it's OR to include it. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Here on wikipedia we just collate secondary sources.' Really? You surprise me. Surely we are seeking to offer an overview of ALL the sources? You got a source for your statement about 'collating secondary sources'? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:PRIMARY, which says, among other things, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so".  This is part of WP:NOR, which is policy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting link; thank you. However that raises the question of whether Bede is a primary or secondary source here! Does he not constitute a secondary source in that he is writing a century after the events - for which he is the only available source, I think - happened? After all he is hardly a primary source, given that its definition is: 'Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable secondary sources means modern scholarship; what counts varies by topic, since an article about wrestling won't have much scholarship about it, but in Bede's case there are thousands of high-quality sources from the last few decades that discuss Bede's work and his biases.  Even where an ancient source has the highest reputation for reliability, we use modern secondary sources -- Polybius is an example; his writings are invaluable for articles on the Punic Wars, but we cite modern scholars who use Polybius. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for a helpful and well sourced reply. I disagree with your conclusion, but I understand how you reach it. There's an interesting piece of research for someone: 'The persistence of anti-miracle assumptions from the Enlightenment dominating the appraisal of the Venerable Bede'... ;) Until someone does that spadework, I guess your approach will remain unrevised! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Miracles are not facts' and 'the secondary source here (Hindley) does not connect the healing with the other incident - and to just use Bede would be OR here' 

message: The Benedictine reform is subsequent, he was not a Benedictine and the monks of the Roman monastery where he was prior were not Benedictines, they were linked to the monasticism of Saint Martin of Tours.--Trebbia (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert; I reverted because I didn't understand why you removed it when it appeared to be supported.  Pinging , the primary author of the article, for her opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Trebbia is right. Mike mentioned that Augustine's monastery in Rome is Benedictine, but the article on San Gregorio Magno al Celio says that it passed to the Benedictines in 1575. This monastery was established by Gregory the Great and Marylin Dunn in the Cambridge History of Christianity vol 2 p. 684 says that it has been traditionally believed that Benedict's Rule was used in the monastery and sent to England with Augustine, but it was shown in the 1950s that the Rule was not known in Rome until the eighth century. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not fussed either way, honestly. The only thing it does is hopefully keep out the folks who insist on adding little postnominals into the article... Ealdgyth (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In Italy after the destruction of the abbey of Monte Cassino in 577 by the Lombards there were no more Benedictine monks left, some oriental hermitic monasteries survived. Montecassino was rebuilt starting from 718 and the pure rule of St Benedict was reintroduced, other monasteries in Italy and then in the Carolingian Empire had become the mixed rule of St Columbanus and St Benedict, the general reform and the birth of the Benedictine Order it took place in 817 with the capitular of Aachen with Benedict of Aniane and the emperor Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne.--Trebbia (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustine was not a Benedictine 

message: You need to update this section to accord with modern archaeology and the fact that Celtic Y chromosome DNA in southeastern English men is so common, as much as 50%. You don't get that if the Saxons succeeded in a war of extermination. The archaeology shows relatively peaceful coexistence. It's also true that Irish and Scots missionaries came to Europe during Augustine's mission, bringing documents that survived the persecution; only the first of Diocletian's edicts applied to Britain and was weakly enforced according to the relevant Wikipedia article. What's more, Augustine's mission was only to the Saxons, not the British, Irish or Scots who were already Christian. So let's not make more of this than it was. mmm - yeah, Bede:
https://api.research-repository.uwa.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/14262962/Grimmer._Bede_and_the_Augustine_s_Oak_Conferences_Implications_for_Anglo_British_Ecclesiastical_Interaction_in_Early_Anglo_Saxon_England.pdf
100.15.127.199 (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brito-Saxon relations 

message: We do not need to enumerate all the locations where the lead image is used and how it might be identified in those various locations - it's too much detail for the footnote, so I've removed it again. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration