Talk:Saint Patrick/Archive 1

Birth date
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

If you read the article, there is a huge disparity on the dates that he lived. The short answer, we don't know. -Calebfig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.242.57 (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

I wonder is there any point in pointing out that Christians in the post-Roman Empire British Isles did not consider themselves to be members of a 'Celtic' church as opposed to a Roman one. The differences amounted to following customs which had become obsolete on the continent, such as their method of calculating the date for Easter. All sorts of decisions had to be made locally in those days, instead of being made in Rome, as they are for Roman Catholics today. The Churches in Ireland and Wales at that time acted no more independently than the churches in France and Spain. And, of course, the entire western Church was still teaching what we would now call the Orthodox faith at that time. Nennius (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Nennius

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 [vicus] of Bannavem Taburniae..." I'll check to make a footnote in the entry. --Wetman 11:17, 9 Feb 2005 (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 Wikipedia, 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?

There is some evidence that Patrick was sent to Ireland to convert the people to Christianity and, given the practices of the church in those times, it is likely that he was responsible for killing or driving underground many Pagans, whose teachers/priests would have been Druids. Since Druidism was a purely verbal tradition, there were no books to burn, however the same result was achieved by eliminating the Druids as they carried all the history, teachings, rituals, etc., in their memories. It was incredibly difficult to become a Druid, requiring decades of study.206.72.67.207 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The real issue is the presence of legitimate references to Patrick pursuing the killing of pagans. In Patrick's writings (Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus & his Declaration) he decried such violence, in the Letter even condemning violence against unbaptized heathens (though violence against Christians was naturally worse).  The story of ordering followers to kill Druids has been attributed to 4 different Patricks, muddying the waters even further.


 * Given all that, I'd say there's a pretty high standard of proof to call St. Patrick a murderer. As the introductor of Catholicism, he certainly ushered in the beginning of the end of pagan society, but that's a very different accusation from that of mass murder.


 * If you can cite a reliable source, please add to the article, but I put the emphasis on reliable. Blogs, neo-pagan websites and forums are not appropriate references for this kind of claim.  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The assumption that Chrisitanity was always spread by violence is a misconception. At times, when there was a strong political force (like the Roman empire) tied to the church, it was. But history is clear that there was no such power during the time of Pallidus/Patrick. History is much more complex than a simple "church bad"/"druid good" account. If anything, in the period, Christians still faced persecution in many areas. 99.43.32.160 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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. 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 (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. 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 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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))

Patrick was born during the Romano British period so todays boundaries wouldn't have existed as England didn't then. You only have to ask where did Pen-y-Ghent in the Yorkshire dales get its name from. I'd go along with that he was born near Bewcastle in what is now Cumbria (Cumbria gets it's name from the same as Wales - Cymru), if you also add that Patrick on his way home was ship wrecked on the coast (there is an old ruined chapel at Heysham in Lancashire called St Patricks and it is said that it is near to where Patrick came ashore. As patrick travelled north home he would have travelled along a Roman road called High Street (Windermere/Ambleside to Penrith) near to this ancient road in Cumbria is Patterdale with its St Patricks Well. --Pandaplodder 19:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

categories

 * would that qualify for 2 "death year" categories? I don't know wikipedia's position on unreliable death dates. (clem 20:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC))

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)


 * It should also be noted that while Patrick is revered as a Saint he was never formally cannonized.Tanktimus (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Very few of the saints of the early church were formally canonised. "Saint" just meant "holy" and was used for anyone considered a holy man, so "Holy Patrick" would just have been a mark of respect.Wmck (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2012 (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.


 * I agree that at least one of the dates of birth and death in the article is probably wrong. According to the dates are 415 and 493, so he died at a more reasonable age of 78 years. Lino Mastrodomenico 19:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The dates you quote match what Liam de Paor guesses in Saint Patrick's World and other reliable sources are more or less happy with a death date in the 490s. I didn't find a single recent history that accepted the early (461 AD) death date. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cadwallader

The following two sentences from the article form an oxymoron:

"Uncritical acceptance of the Annals of Ulster (see below) would imply that he lived from 373 to 493, and ministered in northern Ireland from 433 onwards. As the annals did not actually commence until the fifth century, earlier dates recorded in them may be unreliable."

The "fifth century" spanned the years 401 to 500. Therefore St. Patrick lived through more than half of the fifth century, when the Annals of Ulster are said to have commenced. Presumably, Patrick himself was available for the annalist to obtain accurate information concerning his age, and therefore his birth year. Someone has either misquoted the commencement date of the Annals of Ulster or doesn't understand that the fifth century was 401-500, not 501-600.

Cadwallader 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

SJ 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The page now states:

"Patrick, arch-apostle, or archbishop and apostle of the Irish, rested on the 16th of the Kalends of April in the 120th year of his age, in the 60th year after he had come to Ireland to baptize the Irish."

If this is true, then his death year is correct. However, the birth year is off by about 70 years. I don't know if this is correct, but I've changed it for the time being. Feel free to delete it though.

SJ 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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) 13:16, 17 March 2006


 * 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)

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. --Pandaplodder 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

British Isles come from a corruption of Pretannic Isles which is the very first reference to the Islands anywhere. --Pandaplodder 19:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This used to be a good article
If a bit on the slight side. However, someone keeps adding unverified stuff about him been called Succatt as a child, and various other bits. I'm way too tired at the moment to edit them all out, and the same must be done with the majority of the 'references' as far too many of them churn out the same old mistakes. We really need to do more for our patron saint. Is mise, a weary Irish historian, Fergananim 00:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure it is unverified, as you put it. At any rate he was not called 'Patricius' as a child :) Hakluyt bean 16:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistancies
From the "Early Life" heading: "In doing so he became the first Christian missionary in Ireland."

From the "Mission" heading: "Patrick was not the first Christian missionary to Ireland, as men such as"

Which is it? --t3 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

From the Summary: "Two authentic letters from him survive, from..."

From "In "In his own words": "Two Latin letters survive which are generally accepted to have been written by Patrick." --Thinkbrown (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate correction to Birth section?
Hi, was just looking up to see where Saint Patrick is thought to have been born and see that this isn't known for sure. The paragraph starts by saying that he was born 'somewhere on the west coast of Great Britain', yet it goes on to say that he may have been born near Boulogne. Should the sentence not therefore read 'somewhere on the west coast of Great Britain or north coast of France'? By the way, I'm staying clear of this 'Britain' vs. 'Brittania' vs. Great Britain' debate!:) Kind regards, Pconlon 10:37, 3 August 2006

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Catholic online.

"St. Patrick Apostle of Ireland, was born at Kilpatrick, near Dumbarton, in Scotland, in the year 387; He died at Saul, Downpatrick, Ireland, 17 March, 493".

Slanj IrnBru2you (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Irish
Can we not just be honest and mention that Saint Patrick was a famous Northern Irish person? Those of you of little faith, check this: List of Northern Irish people El Gringo 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * County Antrim is mentioned.--Wetman 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So was Nigeria :-)

If you want to be honest, he did achieve fame in Norden Ireland, but St Paddy was actually another famous born in Scotland person. If anyone knows best, I'm sure the Catholic encyclopedia and Catholics Online know better than anyone, including wiki. IrnBru2you (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing some work
I don't see any reason why this can't be at least a good article, if not a featured one. I'm boldy refactoring and taking a swipe at adding formal citations. The references appear to all be there, but putting them in footnotes style will, I think, help the article's chances. Any other suggestions would be welcome. In particular, if there's any information that looks suspicious to anyone, slapping a on it would be very helpful.

Please forgive any Americanisms; I'm consciously trying to keep this in British English, as I think that's appropriate for the subject, but I'm sure I'll slip up now and again. -- Vary | Talk 00:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Death - Two Patricks controversy
From the Article "A lecture entitled "The Two Patricks", published in 1942 by T. F. O'Rahilly, caused enormous controversy by proposing that there had been two "Patricks", Palladius and Patrick," However, I have, while researching the history of Scottish religions, found earlier referances to the differenciation of Patrick and Palladius. The earliest I have is dated 1826. Cite book | last = Low | first = The Rev. Alexander | title = The history of Scotland ... to the middle of the ninth century | publisher = Bell and Bradfute, Edinburgh | date = 1826 | pages = Page 58 Rincewind42 14:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * O'Rahilly's point was not that Palladius and Patricius were different people, which was never doubted so far as I know, but that many of the Patricius references in the annals were referring to Palladius. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the statement that 'most historians' subscribe to the two Patricks theory or some variation is a bit sweeping. There is still a great deal of diagreement over Palladius/Patrick, even in recent scholarship. Koch, for example, appears to consider them to have been two people. I think Dumville also rejects O'Rahilly's theory. The same goes for any supposed agreement on Patrick's dates - there is much discussion and little concurrence about them. Hope this is useful. fluoronaut 08:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did Patrick return to Ireland?
When he was in Ireland, he must have grown to greatly love the people there, because when he got home he couldn't put the Irish out of his mind, and finally gave in and returned to Ireland, convinced that it was Christ speaking within him, ordering him to go back.

Cahill, Thomas, How the Irish Saved Civilization. (New York: Anchor Books, 1995), pp. 105-106

Spunkiel 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We could just see what Patrick wrote himself: the article quotes his account of why went back. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Míliuc moccu Bóin
Given the similarities between the Druidic religion, with its human sacrifice and worship of Belus, to the Phoenician Canaanite religion of Baal, it is interesting that St. Patrick was sold as a slave to a Druidic warlord named Miliucc (Milchu) which could plausibly be a Semitic name — Melech / Moloch meaning "king". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.44.73 (talk • contribs).


 * Could be, but unless there's some sort of reliable source that connects these things, they don't belong in the article. I removed the mention of Míliuc moccu Bóin you added: Patrick's surviving writings give no such name (Tirechan does, but...). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced material removed from article
The following material, which duplicates things elsewhere, which are referenced, was removed by me.


 * Start

Birth
According to his Confessio, Patrick was born in vico banavem taburniae, somewhere along the west coast of Great Britain or north coast of France. Vico means 'little settlement' or 'village'. Bannavem is the placename. Taburniae is a suffix meaning 'of the Taburnia', probably relating to a tribal group. However, it has been argued that the correct spelling should be Bannaventa Burniae possibly meaning the 'Promontory Hill of the Burnia'. The place has never been identified with certainty. Suggested sites include Dumbarton in Dunbartonshire, Kirkpatrick in Dumfries and Galloway, Urswick and Birdoswald (Latin: Banna) in Cumbria, Banwen in West Glamorgan, Banwell in Somerset and Norton (Latin: Bannaventa) in Northamptonshire. A further claim is made for Boulogne-sur-Mer, then a part of Armorica.

Early life
Although Patrick came from a Christian family, he was not particularly religious before his capture with "many thousands of people" by raiders and sold as a slave in Ireland. He was a sheperd for 6 years. Patrick's enslavement, however, markedly strengthened his faith. In his confession of faith Patrick writes how, "In that strange land (Ireland) the Lord opened my unbelieving eyes."

He escaped, as legend has it, under the direction of an angel, and after a number of adventures returned home to his parents. One night he heard voices begging him to return to Ireland. Great Britain at this time was undergoing turmoil following the withdrawal of Roman troops in 407 and Roman central authority in 410. Populations were on the move on the European continent, and the recently converted Christian Britain was being colonised by pagan Anglo-Saxons.
 * End

If there are things here which belong in the article, they should be referenced when returned to it, and ideally placed in a logical position in the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why dont you do some research then instead of deleting large chunks of the article. What a negative style of editing. G-Man  * 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are a few links Saint Patrick's confessio St Patrick's Life


 * You're missing the point with that reference. The Declaration is quoted at length (in Patrick in his own words) already, which shows how little of the article you read. If it were simply a case of adding a reference to it, I'd have done that. But the problematic stuff is not a quotation, or a paraphrase, of his letters. It's all the other stuff and the fact that what's worth having is already there.
 * There are a whole list of possible sites of "Banna Venta Berniae", but no refs for who said so. De Paor glosses it [near Carlisle], and Thomas beats the drum for Birdoswald, but who says Boulogne or Northants? That doesn't seem like the conventional wisdom, and France surely doesn't deserve a mention.
 * The Early Life paragraph is largely duplicated in the section Patrick in his own words, but there the citations are quoted from a printed version. The relevance of the Roman departure and the Anglo-Saxons isn't clear given that Patrick's life can't be reliably dated, so that we have no idea if the Romans were still holding Britannia (Koch's recent suggestion of a mid-/late-4th century date) or had long gone (if Patrick died in the 490s as seems the general view). Why you insist on adding stuff that's 80% duplicated, for the easily referencable things, and 20% unreferenced speculation, is a mystery to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why change what seems to be a perfectly logical structure (lead, background, autobiography, biography,...) to one that duplicates stuff and jumps around (lead, early life [all in autobiography], background, autobiography [we had this before], biography,...]]? Any book on Patrick would start by setting the scene, which the article did, but no longer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Link to: http://web.ncf.ca/er719/patrick.html

This link is added in good faith to direct the reader to additional resources not contained within this article which are relevant as they include folklore, stories, songs and illustrations relating directly to the saint and the perception of the saint through time. The web page is relevant to the article to which it is attached. There is NO advertizing. The article focuses upon the life of the saint but does not contain primary documents relating to the life of the saint nor the folklore and tradition which has grown up around the saint over time- this is essential information for a reader interested in the saint and it is contained on the linked pages. Please restore. Note also- If you remove a link perhaps it is best to discuss (yes I negleted to but two wrongs dont make a right. Thanks for the note on my talk page -should have gone here.)Anamanam 20:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the lead so that Patrick's life comes first, followed by the dating stuff. Hopefully this will be more popular. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to "clever propoganda" used by a monastery to get Patrick recognized as a patron saint of Ireland. At the very least, this could use more substance than a bald assertion. 208.178.18.134 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day
He is mostly known in the United States for this holiday, which is much more a celebration of the Irish people than of the saint himself. It has its own article but could a little be said here? It is coming up next month, BTW. Steve Dufour 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed some of the earliest Parades were Irish Protestant, so presumably the emphasis was on Irishness rather than (Catholic) Sainthood. Hakluyt bean 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Maewyn Succat
Apparently his name, maybe that should be filtered in. He isn't Patricius until consecrated as a bishop aged 40 or so. Hakluyt bean 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The only name Patrick uses for himself is Patricius ("Ego Patricius, peccator rusticissimus"). His other names come from Tirechán and they are mentioned in the section on his and Muirchú's writings. They aren't glossed there, but probably should be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting bit in an article by O’Brien in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1887 (p. 725) where he equates Sucat with Palladius (ie: they are the same name in different languages.) Have not come across a refutation yet, which of course doesn't mean there isn't one! fluoronaut 09:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this tidbit, as it's apparently been unsourced for a year. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured?
Aside from maybe a few pics, what's left to get this featured? I'm surprised at the number of references here... there's more here than for WWII! Colonel Marksman 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lots. It needs copyediting to make the prose less dull and lumpen. The Patrick in legend section needs expanding, and referencing. To match the Early Traditions, there should be something on later ones. The Sainthood and Remembrance section needs work. And the article should probably say that the Slemish claims aren't believed by historians (or so it seems from the ones I read). We don't mention the competing claims over his place of burial. And so on. Plenty still to do! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I also think we could put the dating/identification controversy in one section, so that the info can be referred to without reiteration in later sections.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In legend section: now improved, as Angus McLellan asked, expanded in the first item on snakes, with complete citations there. More yet needed, certainly, in the other sections, particularly the last on speaking with ancient ancestors. Pandelver (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have an OL picture of Croagh Patrick? I think that would make a great picture for the page. Certainly much better than the shamrock. Could bring this page closer to being featured.--206.188.67.28 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a few at Croagh Patrick, and as usual the Geograph British Isles project has some good stuff under a cc-by-sa license here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Where was St Patrick from?
Well, it was from either Britain or France, some scholars say either Scotland or Wales. The doubt should be woven into the text of the subject. Gaul is not affirmed? Manopingo 01:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a well-established academic consensus that he was from somewhere on/near the west coast of Britain. Arguments can be made for a dozen different places in what are now Wales, England, and Scotland, but none are more convincing than any of the others. Never say never, of course, but it's difficult to imagine new, specific evidence for the location of Patrick's home coming to light at this stage. Dppowell 02:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * People in Banwen, Wales think he comes from there: BBC. This doesn't make it necessarily true, but I'm not aware of other claims by other communities.  Would seem to be interesting enough for the article. At any rate he would appear to have been a British (Welsh) speaker.  Hakluyt bean 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm Italian American and I was told by my mother that Patrick was of Italian ethnic descent. I wonder whether there's any evidence as to where his bloodline came from, i.e. was he British or a descendant of Roman colonialism and thus Italian.  72.78.3.201 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article states that St Patrick is a Welshman, and gives no evidence for this. In fact, in the notes, the only two possible locations for his birth are near Carlisle (making it England or Scotland), or Birdoswald - which is well argued for, and is the generally given location. Here are the notes on his location from the Wikipedia article itself:

^ This location is not certain, and a variety of interpretations have been made. De Paor glosses it as "[probably near Carlisle]" and Thomas argues at length for the area of Birdoswald, twenty miles (32 km) east of Carlisle on Hadrians Wall. See De Paor, pp. 88 & 96; Thomas, pp. 310–314.

So why does the article state he's a Welshman? Is it due to folklore (of which there is much?). This is stated as fact in the article. However, the weight of probability is that he was English, but could this be changed to simply 'British' to convey the ambiguity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallacky (talk • contribs) 11:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Since a majority of the population of Britain in 390AD, when Patrick was reputedly born in the main article, were Celtic or Roman please explain to me why the weight of probabilty is that St. Patrick was English when the peoples that eventually became the English were still part of the Low Countries, Germany and Denmark on the European mainland. Additionally, if you agree that he was born near Carlisle this remained part of a kingdom of the Celts called Rheged until annexation by the kingdom of Northumbria between 650AD and 730AD. There appears to be no ambiguity but please correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.196 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Increased vandalism
I was about to ask why the heck everyone is vandalizing this article all of a sudden, but then I remembered the date. I'm a little slow, sometimes. :) Dppowell 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I semi-protected the page. The vandalism appeared to be IPs mostly. IrishGuy talk 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Patrick was a pirate
I really don't think that is fact... could someone check on this? RedKlonoa 12:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Vandalism that was missed I think. Interestingly enough, there may be a smidgeon of truth in the idea, but I'm not aware of a source to WP:ATTribute the claim to, so it will have to stay out. Charles-Edwards's Early Christian Ireland (pp. 228–229), after discussing the raid by the "soldiers of Coroticus", and whether they would have been a fian, remarks: "Such bands probably participated, as we have seen, in Irish raids on Roman Britain. Moreover, their existence would help to explain Patrick's extreme sensitivity on the nature of the oath he took when he was accepted, after he had escaped from his master, as a member of an Irish ship's crew sailing for Britain." That is, or so I assume, Charles-Edwards' way of saying thatt Patrick signed up with Irish slave raiders and pirates to get away from Ireland. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms?
I've heard many people talk about extreme and brutal methods used by St. Patrick to convert, hinted at in the article but not expounded upon. Perhaps a good criticisms section should be in order? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.45.20 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

The "talk" of "many people" is not an authoritative source upon which to base encyclopaedic analysis. Do you have verifiable sources? If so, write the section and cite your sources. If not, the "talk" will remain just that.

New idea:

There is a severe lack of irrefutable evidence that St. Patrick was an honorable and noble "saint". There are multiple discrepancies regarding even his birth place. The unpopular idea that he is not responsible for driving snakes from Ireland, but was instead a bigot commissioned by the catholic church during its despicable smear campaigns against competing religions, is one that seems to be more in line with the other ridiculous behaviors exhibited by the church in that time. If you want the truth of it, here is what I have to say about "Saint" Patrick: St. Patrick was an evil man. The Catholic church commissioned him to drive all the pagans out of Ireland in exchange for sainthood. Since all non-Christians were considered to be under the influence of Satan, and Satan was a serpent in the garden of Eden, all the pagans were referred to as "serpents", and he was asked to remove them from "god's country". This deceptive term was also used in order to provide preventative measures against a potential revolt because people who were native to Ireland, many of whom had converted to Christianity from fear of persecution, wouldn't have been happy about a foreigner driving out their coutrymen.

Of course, this is idea is generally viewed with skepticism because no one wants to believe they are celebrating the life of a man who was helping to create a legacy that provides proof of the disgusting origins of the most popular religion on the planet. Everyone would just rather get wasted and say they're Irish for a day.

But lets say the traditional idea of who and what Saint Patrick was is true. Since when in recorded history have snakes ever proven to be a nuisance severe enough to warrant their alleged removal from an entire country? They eat small rodents and the like, and, as a species, are not a danger to people. Every educated person knows that the lack of snakes in Ireland is due more to its geography and not some bigot with a tin whistle.

All progressive thought requires debate and discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nohate81 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a fascinating interpretation of "progressive thought."

I'm likely just humoring a troll, but the fallacious reasoning cries out for justice. First of all, the "lack of irrefutable evidence" that St. Patrick was a good person; this is an example of trying to prove a negative. Rather than presenting evidence that Patrick had done something bad, the editor requires irrefutable proof of goodness to dispute his opinion. That's like saying "You're a thief unless you can absolutely prove otherwise."


 * Second, as for the complicated conspiracy regarding snakes representing the pagans Patrick was persecuting, that's just factually incorrect. The legend of St. Patrick driving out the snakes came long after his death, and is likely a remnant of an origin story about why Ireland doesn't have snakes but the mainland does, and at most was a reference to his supplanting the Druidic order with Catholicism.  It had nothing to do with a secret Vatican plot.


 * All of the above is just for my own satisfaction. Reliable references will be the final arbitrator, and if after looking through them I find legitimate sources, I will tip my hat to this silliness.  If they are spurious, however, woe be unto the snakes=pagans claim!  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Focluth Wood
Could someone who knows check out this newish article, which certainly needs a going over for spelling and style, but I suspect rather more. Johnbod 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Edited ruthlessly and redirected to Foclut. Dppowell 23:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the stuff! Thanks Johnbod 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another editor has, for reasons which utterly escape me, questioned the article's notability (despite the use of a third-party, published reference) and slapped an expert tag on it. I'd welcome more editors into the discussion at Talk:Foclut. Dppowell 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate is wrong.
The article has him being born in 500 A.D., and his death either 461 A.D. or 493 A.D.? I'm surprised I'm the only one to have noticed this. Sources I quickly turned up say anywhere from 373 A.D. to 390 A.D. for his birth year.


 * Agreed that it looks silly, I will change it. Btw, is there verifiable evidence that he died on March 17 ?? Viewfinder 19:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin
In west Dumbartonshire, Scotland there is a place named Old Kilpatrick (Kil being gaelic for saint) there there is a small monument commemorating Patrick's Well. I don't know if this is where he was born or if he lived there, but it shows that he must have been in Scotland at one point - allthough there is also a more visisble well (ie. not buried) in northern Ireland.


 * A Kil-so-and-so place name doesn't mean that so-and-so ever set foot in the place. To take one example, Martin of Tours was never in Kilmartin. Perhaps a mention would be appropriate, but no more than that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GA pass
Well done! Everything needing sourcing is sourced. Alientraveller 14:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Localities named in honour of Saint Patrick
The last edit made me wonder whether section is really necessary. The MOS discourages lists in any case, and there must be hundreds of municipalities/churches/schools named for St. Patrick. Any objections to its removal? Dppowell 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No objection here. It has the potential to be an almost endless list with no real encyclopedic value. IrishGuy talk 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, going to be bold and take it out. Anyone who disagrees may, obviously, feel free to put it back and comment here. Dppowell 22:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Lorica
Under "Lorica_(incantation)" the Lorica widely attributed to St. Patrick is alluded to and this link is given: http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/patrick.htm

There is also a legend surrounding it that St. Patrick and his men prayed this lorica when they heard a druid group would be laying in wait for them on their journey, and that instead of St. Patrick and his men, the druids saw a doe and twenty deer walk by. Whether it's true or not, it's popular enough to get a mention. I'd rather ask someone else to approve it and add it, though, as it may have been present before and then omitted. Thanks. --Spesek (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can this be considered a reliable source?
I have this book: Thomas D'Arcy McGee. A Popular History of Ireland. It is a very detailed book with things that cannot be found in any articles on Ireland here on Wiki. For instance, for St. Patrick, it has a version of his biography that is much different than that in the article here in almost every detail. The problem is that there are no sources in the book, so I don't know whether to believe the author or to include some things from his book here. Lantonov (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's no more, and no less, reliable than any other rather old popular history where a subject touching on nationalism and religious belief is concerned. The reason the article is currently missing much of what McGee has to say is that while there is an "Early traditions" section on Muirchu and Tírechán's hagiographies there's no "Later traditions" section treating things like the Tripartite Life of Saint Patrick (Bethu Phátraic). The Tripartite Life was once, but is no longer, taken seriously as a source for Patrick's life. It's still worthy of inclusion as it speaks to how Patrick was seen in later times and how his reputation was used by prelates and kings and chroniclers for their own ends. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not (and cannot) push any nationalistic POV (I am far from this region in the opposite end of Europe totally unrelated to Irish history) or religious POV (although Christian, I am Orthodox, neither Catholic, nor Protestant). Thus, I read this book without any bias in either side. What strikes me in the book is not any bias (well, maybe there is such in the chapter on the activities of St. Patric in Catholic education and establishment of the Irish church) but facts themselves. It does not write about any duality (or triality, or whatever) in St. Patrick but gives concrete dates, names, places, that are missing here, or are totally different. So I wonder whether the facts themselves are accurate, and where are they taken from. And it is not only for St. Patrick, there are many facts about Irish rulers who are completely missing in Wiki as well. I can't find them with search, for instance: Dermid, Flan, Thorlogh, Murkertach. For others, there are very brief articles in Wiki while in the history there are whole big chapters. As I see from his article the author is journalist, politician, etc. but not historian. He was not an extremist and probably that is why he was killed by members of the Fenian movement (this from the article Thomas D'Arcy McGee). Lantonov (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * McGee's people and places come ultimately from hagiographers writing at least 150 years after Patrick died, in the cases of Muirchu moccu Machtheni and Tírechán, or 400 years in the case of the Tripartite Life. Modern historians tend to be rather skeptical of the value of these hagiographies as sources for Patrick's life while nineteenth century historians appear to have placed more confidence in them. The only place in Ireland which Patrick mentions in his letters is Foclut and we're reliant on Tírechán for its location. McGee didn't make this stuff up, but it's certainly not in line with current academic skepticism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. As I understand, McGee would not be considered reliable enough to be cited in the encyclopedia for St. Patrick. Would he be reliable for other persons or events, for instance, Irish rulers: Nialls, Brians, etc. ? Lantonov (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's the same problem of the sources McGee used being considered less than entirely reliable. Modern histories are based on work on primary source material begun by Kuno Meyer, Whitley Stokes and the like, but their work post-dates McGee's lifetime. Things like the Cogadh Gaedhil re Gallaibh were thought to describe the events of Viking Age Ireland, whereas nowadays there's a very considerable degree of skepticism regarding them, more or less as the Cogadh article says: "The main purpose of the chronicle seems to be to eulogize Brian Boru". The saga within the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland has the same purpose, except that it's Cerball mac Dúnlainge who is the hero of the piece, while the Song of Carroll's Sword presents Cellachán Caisil as a greater king than Brian.
 * A significant problem with using things like McGee's book is the obsolete names, so that you end up with articles on Melaghlin on the one hand and Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid on the other (same person, but until recently Melaghlin was an article rather than a redirect) and on Turgesius and Thorgest (again, same person). In the same vein, it may be a surprise to learn that that McGee's Malachy II is Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, Brian's brother Mahon is Mathgamain mac Cennétig, Nial IV is Niall Glúndub and the Eugenians are the Eóganachta in modern histories. We probably have articles on many of the personages in McGee's history which will be quite impossible to find under the names he uses because almost nobody has used them in the last hundred years and more. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer and sorry to have wasted your time. You seem to be an expert in Irish history and I am just starting to read about it. --Lantonov (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Patrick the English
Well at least he may have been, maybe from around Whitehaven or Workington? Maybe alang the southern coast of Solway? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Welsh they say. There's a plaque in the village of Banwen saying it's his place of birth, there's also a convincing story behind it too. Should look it up 84.65.38.20 (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please there were NO "English" in the British Isles at the time of Patrick's birth, the people who would become the English where still in the low countries and Denmark. Why are the English so keen to stake a place in the antiquity of these Islands, You're relatively new comers compared to the native Cymry and Gaels. So Patrick was a native Briton who would have spoke a form of early Welsh (as well as Latin.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.41.14 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL Don't make me laugh Native britons haha the celts are just a bunch of immigrants from spain arriving around 600 bc murdering and pillaging the native NATIVE Beaker people, I love how you miss out that bit in celtic country schools.109.154.8.185 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

date of birth?
I heard that they weren't sure if he was born on the 16th or the 18th, so they took the average. Is there any merit to that story? Kingturtle (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Muirchú moccu Mactheni's life of Patrick (late C7th), Patrick died on March 17, and this is his feast day in the Félire Óengusso (c. 800). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Icons
Would I be correct in saying that icons created by man for the purpose of worship be called idols?

Mika&#39;el (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that this has anything to do with improving the St Patrick article, but I think not. As I understand it, icons are usually 'portraits' of Christian saints, who are not worshipped by Christians but merely venerated. (The distinction between veneration and worship is left as an exercise for Mgiacchetti!) These portraits may serve as mental aids to veneration and prayers directed at or via the saint, but are not (or should not be) the direct object of it. An idol, on the other hand, is a representation of a god or goddess which, by mental transference (or by the actual incarnation of said god/dess within it) itself becomes the object of worship.

I think it could be argued that a crucifix (i.e. a representation of Christ on the cross) is an idol, whereas a plain Christian cross is merely a symbol.

There are also icons of Jesus Christ, which complicate the issue, and whose status as idols or otherwise would presumably depend on how they were actually being used.

Being a Pagan, I'm no authority, and doubtless Christian theologians could explicate this interesting (though I suspect deliberately provocative) question, but - as said - this is not really the place.87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Croagh Patrick
What do people think about including a picture of croagh patrick, as it is closely connected to the stories about Saint Patrick and makes for a nice picture. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.67.28 (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It also seems more relavant than the photo from Co. Antrim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.67.28 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Patrick in Pop Culture
I think this page could also benefit from a brief section on representations of St. Patrick in contemporary culture, fiction, his influence, ect. 206.188.67.28 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Last Sentence in 1st Paragraph in "Patrick in Legend"
Legend also credits Patrick with teaching the Irish about the concept of the Trinity by showing people the shamrock, a 3-leaved clover, using it to highlight the Catholic belief of 'three divine persons in the one God' (as opposed to the Arian belief that was popular in Patrick's time).

I am confused as to why someone put the here. Arianism flourished from the 200s to the 700s. Patrick lived during this time. Is someone objecting to the "popular in Patrick's time" portion? Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Birth/Death dates
I added estimated birth/death dates for the convenience of the annual St.Patrick's day visitors to this page. I'm hoping that the dates will remain until March 18th at least! Bushcutter (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed it slightly, as it wasn't sourced. I had options of c. 385-461 (LH); c.389-c.461 (Butler's); and c.390-460 (Woodhead). I went with Woodhead, as it seems the most readily identifiable as a RS--it is a tertiary source published by Cambridge University Press.
 * Why aren't the birth/death dates kept in the article year-round? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles-Williams
Which book by Thomas Charles-Williams is being used here?--Cúchullain t/ c 19:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates, again
Every so often someone, sometimes me, comes along and remove the astonishingly precise - 17 March 461 or 17 March 493 makes no difference - dates given for Patrick's death and/or birth. Well, why not? The ODNB is no more specific than "fl. 5th cent.". I cannot see how it helps readers to add dates here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not NPOV: Very heavy on Christian propaganda
The current article is not remotely NPOV, and reads like pro-Christian propaganda of his life. I'd clean it up myself, but I'd probably be accused of "vandalism" by people that mistake a Christian propaganda for "neutrality". So instead I'll try to start a discussion: how do we determine what is considered "neutral" in this case? Because I think that the Church needs to be considered a [i]highly[/i] biased source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.234.253.9 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Verifiability would be the relevant policy to consider when judging sources. While not every source mentioned in a footnote meets the standards set out there, most do. As for the much-abused term "NPOV", this, as Neutral point of view explains, means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable source". No doubt there will be reliable sources which express views which are not represented here (I can think right away of Koch's argument for a C4th floruit for Saint Patrick), but that will remain the case until someone goes and reads these unrepresented works and tries their hand at adding those views. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Angusmcellan. NPOV is a tag easily thrown around on Wikipedia. This has been discussed here on the talkpage. While there might be contenious information about St. Patrick, an editor would have to find verifiable citations and then suggest them on the talkpage for them to take and hold. Otherwise, pot shots without citations will be removed. Morenooso (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Angusmcellan and Morenooso . This is an article about an individual known only for his activities as a Christian evangelist, who wrote only from a strong Christian point of view, and there is a riot of mediaeval hagiography about him, later but still notable in its own right. I'd even suggest that it's appropriate to include (as we do) some details from the current Catholic representation of him, and for this latter, current Catholic literature is primary and usable here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Patricks Bell
Sometime last year after the staircase fell down in the Natural History Museum in Dublin, the museum was closed and the top curator was invited on to the Late Late Show. He brought one or two special exhibits to talk about and the special one was a very crushed looking but sparkling polished golden bell they called Patricks Bell and they said it was an actual bell of St Patrick. On the article it says that in the Annals of Ulster an excursion into Patricks grave or tomb is detailed and something they found there was a bell. I assume they kept the bell and that is the one that the museum has today. It's not mentioned in the article. That bell and the two letters are the only actual physical evidence I remember hearing of that exist of Patrick (no expert here obviously) but would be interesting to know about the bell. I hope I haven't mixed the facts of this up but I recall looking for it at the time on this article as well. ~ R.T.G 20:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a drawing of the 11th century shrine which that bell is contained in at Domnall Ua Lochlainn (he who had the shrine made) and at Margaret Stokes (she who did the drawing), but not one of the bell that I can think of. Another bell which tradition associated with Patrick is the bell of Saint Caillín (Clog na Rígh, Fenagh bell, picture here). This was, and presumably still is, in the museum at Longford Cathedral. So both of these artefacts should be mentioned here somewhere. The Fenagh bell was originally a cup, converted into a bell about a generation after the shrine was made for the one currently in Dublin. Your memory may be deceiving you in one respect. The Dublin bell is a functional and rather crude iron object rather than a gold one (b&w picture about halfway down this page). Perhaps he brought something else along too? The Ardagh or Derrynaflan chalices are of gold, and no doubt there are many other possibilities lurking in the museum. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. Oops. Reading further [Hilary Richardson, "Visual arts and society", in the RIA history, volume 1, p. 697]  St Patrick's bell is actually bronze-coated. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be right. That bell looks very familiar. They were showing three or four of their prized exhibits on the TV while planning or beginning the renovations. It was prossibly another exhibit which was crushed looking. That would make it a shrine to Patrick rather than his very own. Is it still worth mentioning on this article? Surely the next Patrick-related national treasure after his letters. ~ R.T.G 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No... I searched RTE (should have done that first)... http://www.rte.ie/about/pressreleases/2008/0314/latelatemarch2008.html one of the exhibits was the shrine but another was "a bronze-iron coated bell that is thought to have been used by St. Patrick and buried in his tomb." I will search for the programme to watch again but it's probably not still available at this stage. ~ R.T.G 14:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No it's too late to watch again as it was in March 2008 rather than 2009 and Late Late Shows are only available for 9 or 10 months. Couldn't find it on Youtube either. ~ R.T.G 14:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bad luck! The Late Late show used to be on over here, some years back, but for some unfathomable reason we get far more Australian and American tat than we ever see Irish programmes.
 * But yes, it should be here. The Fenagh bell should be here too, and the now-lost horn of Saint Patrick which Gerald the Welshman mentions could be included as well. The entry in the Annals of Ulster which describes the relics of Patrick is already in the article. As it says, it is not from the Chronicle of Ireland, and was probably added in the 11th century, but that still makes the tradition linking Patrick with the bell a thousand years old or more. Other ancient representations and relics include the Cross of SS Patrick & Columba (aka South Cross) at Kells. There are no free pictures on Flickr: this one, which I quite like, as well as being not-free-enough, is of the "wrong" face I think. I'm not sure how old that would be. No older than the C9th certainly and perhaps C10th, which is a good age and rather closer in time to the real Patrick than a piece of Victorian stained glass. There's a huge amount missing from the article still. Apart from all these relics and so on, there's nothing at all on the Tripartite Life or later medieval traditions. The article could easily be several times bigger than it is now. It really only scratches the surface. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a start to it using the source you provided. ~ R.T.G 09:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)