Talk:List of saints

Could someone who knows the procedure describe how someone gets to be canonised?

And perhaps standardise their nomenclature before we get too many more?

Good idea, Malcolm. This is what I suggested to MichaelTinkler a couple of days ago:

Regarding names: I'm personally inclined to naming pages with the saint's name, and location or other description to distinguish between eg Augustine of Hippo and Augustine of Canterbury. Problem is that other Wikipedians may have already made a link to Saint XXX - that's how I found Saint Columba, for instance. It shouldn't be a *huge* problem, though.

The current Wikipedia pages with Saint at the start probably should be changed to just their name (and location if necessary) - must watch out for the backlinks too.

-- Claudine[?]

Well, I'll probably be adding saints from time to time from the old encyclopedia, so I'll try to name them as you suggest -- Malcolm Farmer

---

I've removed Saint from those people in the list who had them before their name. I think the title of this page would imply that all the individuals listed are considered saints. 8-> If their canonicity is in doubt, this should be stated in the individual saint's biography. -- Claudine[?]

---

Suggest we move the list of saints to a "Saints/Listing of saints" page and keep the "Saints" page itelf for definition, description.

Ok, done...

---

Uhhh sorry to break up the party, but the eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian churches recognise a completely different list of saints than the Catholic Church and the Anglicans have their own take on the subject too, I believe. Are we fgoing to lump them all together here?

Anyone know if Butlers Lives of the Saints is out of copyright yet?

---

this is just aiming at listing wikipedia-relevant saints, I thought, not an exclusive list. The canonization process, will, of necessity, be western since the Orthodox don't really have much of a process. If you mean the TITLE Hosios, that's just language, and means Saint. Feel free to add any Orthodox or Ethiopian saints, and to revise any current listings. Don't remove sainthood from anyone just because another group doesn't 'recognize' it, just mention the fact in a freestanding paragraph or sentence. This is part of why I favor calling people by their names rather than by the title 'saint,' by the way. --MichaelTinkler

---

Using the table we can say which church recognises a particular saint and which doesn't.

---

looks good. Can we use "semi" besides yes and no in the mythical column? (for ones like Josaphat, who IIRC actually came from a garbled account of Buddha)

---

I have some nomenclature and category questions. First, for saints who are New Testament figures, such as the Apostles and Evangelists, would it be safe to assume they're in both the Catholic and Orthodox columns? I'm thinking yes.

Second, how should we handle saints with multiple apellations? For example, Eastern Orthodoxy refers to John the Baptist both by that title, and also as John the Forerunner. I think the author of the Gospel of John is called both John the Evangelist and John the Theologian. And then there's Mary, the Virgin Mary, the Holy Virgin Mary, Holy Mother of God and Queen of the Universe Mary, and on and on. A related problem comes with someone like Dionysius the Areopagite[?]. He's remembered as a first-century saint in the Orthodox Church, and there are at least a couple different writings attributed to him. But many scholars think the works in question weren't written until the fourth or fifth century, and therefore refer to their author as Pseudo-Dionysius or Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.

Is there any reason not to link the biblical saints to their respective entries that got started from the list of Bible characters, or to include the full tradition of these saints on their respecive pages? The only reason not to I can think of is that Protestants would typically accept the Biblical accounts of what these people said and did, but not necessarily the full tradition of how and when they died, or even what they did that's not recorded in Scripture. Maybe just specify which parts are biblical and which parts of the story are extrabiblical?

--Wesley

---

About the alphabetical order of the saints, this is not consistent. An inconsistent alphabetical ordering could result in saint a being added who is already in the table. I nearly did this with St Nicholas.

I suggest that they all be ordered, by Christian name (a.k.a First name), because most saints are known by that name. I've moved St Nicholas (or Myra) to Nicholas's place and find the Thomas More, could be moved to Thomas's place.

Also the table information of newly added saints may need to be checked by those in the know. Karl Palmen

---

I agree about the alphabetical ordering by first name; where these are the same, then we can go by the last name or attribute modifier ("of Mytown" or "the Great", etc.) This is about the only bit of information that every one of them has. I'll try to work on this as I can, but please don't wait for me. ;-) --Wesley

---

I've done this. Look at the cases of Thomas and Gregory. Karl Palmen

---

There are a lot of saints, here is a list gleaned from a web page. I'm sure I read that there are over three hundred (300) St Stephen's alone? Rjstott A

St. Adelaide St. Agatha St. Agnes St. Agnes of Montepulciano St. Aiden St. Albert Great St. Aloysius Gonzaga St. Alphonsus Liguori St. Alphonsus Rodriguez St. Ambrose Bl. Andre Bessette St. Andrew St. Andrew Dung-Lac and Companions St. Andrew Fournet St. Andrew Kim Taegon and St. Paul Chong Hasang St. Angela Merici Bl. Anne of Bartholomew Annunciation of Lord St. Anselm St. Anthony Claret St. Anthony Mary Zaccaria Bl. Anthony Neyrot St. Anthony of Egypt St. Anthony of Padua St. Antoninus St. Anysia St. Apollonia and Martyrs of Alexandria Assumption of Blessed Virgin Mary St. Athanasius St. Augustine St. Augustine of Canterbury

B

St. Barbatus St. Barnabas St. Bartholomew St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen St. Bathildis Venerable Bede Beheading of John Baptist St. Benedict St. Benedict Joseph Labre St. Berard and Companions St. Bernadette St. Bernard St. Bernardine of Siena St. Bertilla Bl. Bertrand St. Bibiana St. Blaise St. Bonaventure St. Boniface St. Boris and Gleb St. Botvid St. Bridget of Sweden St. Brigid of Ireland St. Bruno

C

St. Caesarius of Nazianzen St. Cajetan St. Callistus I St. Canute St. Casimir St. Catherine Laboure St. Catherine of Alexandria Bl. Catherine of Augustine St. Catherine of Ricci St. Catherine of Siena St. Cecilia St. Celestine V St. Chaeremon and Ischyrion Chair of Peter St. Charbel St. Charles Borromeo Bl. Charles Good St. Charles Lwanga and Companions Bl. Christina Christmas, Birthday of Jesus St. Clare St. Colette St. Columban Bl. Contardo Ferrini St. Cornelius and Cyprian St. Cosmas and Damian St. Cuthbert St. Cyril and Methodius St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Cyril of Jerusalem

D

Bl. Damien of Molokai St. David I of Scotland St. Denis and Companions St. Deogratias Bl. Didacus St. Dominic St. Dominic of Silos St. Dominic Savio

E

St. Eanswida St. Edmund St. Edmund Campion St. Edward Eleven Martyrs of Almeria, Spain St. Elizabeth Bichier St. Elizabeth of Hungary St. Elizabeth of Portugal St. Emily de Vialar St. Ephrem St. Eucherius Bl. Eugene de Mazenod Bl. Eugene III St. Eulogius of Spain St. Euphrasia St. Eusebius St. Evaristus

F

St. Fabian and Sebastian St. Faustinus and Jovita St. Felicity and Her Seven Sons St. Felix and Cyprian St. Felix II St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen St. Fina (Seraphina) First Martyrs of Church of Rome St. Flannan St. Flora of Beaulieu St. Foillan St. Frances of Rome St. Frances Xavier Cabrini Bl. Francis Anthony of Lucera St. Francis Caracciolo St. Francis de Sales St. Francis of Assisi St. Francis of Paola Bl. Francois de Montmorency Laval Bl. Frederic Janssoone St. Frederick

G

St. Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows St. Genevieve St. George St. Gerard of Brogne St. Germaine of Pibrac St. Gertrude St. Gildas St. Giles Bl. Giles Mary St. Godfrey Bl. Gregory Barbarigo St. Gregory Great St. Gregory VII

H

St. Henry II Bl. Henry of Treviso St. Hilarion St. Hilary of Poitiers The Holy Innocents St. Hugh of Grenoble

I

St. Ignatius of Antioch St. Ignatius of Laconi St. Irenaeus St. Isaac Jogues, John de Brebeuf St. Isidore Farmer St. Isidore of Seville

J

Bl. James Duckett St. James Greater St. James Intercisus St. Jane Frances de Chantal St. Jane Valois St. Januarius St. Jerome St. Jerome Emiliani St. Joachim and Anne Bl. Joan Delanoune St. Joan of Arc Bl. Joan of Toulouse St. John Almsgiver St. John Apostle St. John Baptist de la Salle St. John Baptist Rossi St. John Berchmans St. John Bosco St. John Capistrano St. John Chrysostom St. John Climacus St. John Damascene Bl. John Duckett and Ralph Corby St. John DuLau and September Martyrs St. John Eudes St. John Fisher St. John Francis Regis St. John Gaulbert St. John I St. John Joseph of Cross St. John Kanty St. John Leonardi St. John Neumann St. John of Cross St. John of Egypt St. John of God Bl. John of Rieti St. John of Sahagun St. John Roberts St. John Vianney St. Jonas and Barachisius St. Josaphat St. Joseph St. Joseph Barsabbas St. Joseph Cafasso St. Joseph Calasanz St. Joseph Cupertino St. Joseph Moscati St. Joseph Worker Bl. Juan Diego St. Judith of Prussia St. Julian and Basilissa St. Julie Billiart Bl. Junipero Serra St. Justin

K

Bl. Kateri Tekakwitha Bl. Katharine Drexel St. Kenneth

L

St. Lawrence Bl. Lawrence Humphrey and other Martyrs St. Lawrence Justinian St. Lawrence O'Toole St. Lawrence of Brindisi St. Lawrence Ruiz and Companions St. Leo Great St. Leo IV Bl. Lidwina St. Louis of France Bl. Louis of Thuringia St. Lucy St. Ludger St. Luke

M

St. Macrina St. Macrina St. Marcellinus and Peter St. Margaret Mary St. Margaret of Scotland Bl. Margaret Pole St. Marguerite Bourgeoys St. Marguerite D'Youville St. Maria Goretti Bl. Marie Rose Durocher Bl. Marie-Leonie Paradis St. Mark Evangelist St. Martha St. Martin de Porres St. Martin I St. Martin of Tours The Martyrs of Orange The Martyrs of Vietnam and Companions St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi St. Mary Magdalene Bl. Mary of Incarnation Mary, Mother of God Mary, Our Queen St. Matilda St. Matthew St. Matthias St. Maximilian Kolbe St. Maximinius St. Meletius St. Methodius I St. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael Bl. Michelina Bl. Miguel Augustin Pro St. Monica St. Montanus, Lucius and Companions

N

St. Narcissus St. Nereus, Achilleus and Pancras St. Nersus St. Nicholas Bl. Nicholas Albergati St. Nicholas of Tolentino St. Nino St. Norbert Bl. Notker

O

St. Olympias St. Onesimus St. Otto Our Lady of Guadalupe Our Lady of Holy Rosary Our Lady of Lourdes Our Lady of Mount Carmel Our Lady of Sorrows

P

St. Pacificus St. Pammachius St. Pantaleon St. Paschal Baylon St. Paul Chong Hasang St. Paul Hermit St. Paul Miki and Companions St. Paul of Cross St. Paulinus of Nola St. Pelagius St. Perpetua and Felicity St. Peter and Paul St. Peter Canisius St. Peter Chanel St. Peter Chrysologus St. Peter Claver St. Peter Damian St. Peter Julian Eymard St. Philip and James St. Philip Neri St. Pius V St. Pius X St. Polycarp St. Pontian and Hippolytus St. Porcarius and Companions St. Porphyry

R

St. Radbertus St. Raymond of Penyafort Bl. Richard Gwyn St. Richard of Chichester St. Rita of Cascia St. Robert Bellarmine Bl. Roger Dickenson, Ralph Milner, St. Romanus and Lupicinus St. Romuald St. Rose of Lima St. Rose of Viterbo St. Rose Philippine Duchesne Bl. Rose Venerini

S

St. Sabas St. Scholastica St. Serapion St. Sergius Seven Founders of the Servite Order St. Simeon St. Simon and Jude St. Simplicius St. Sixtus II and Companions St. Soter and Caius St. Stanislaus St. Stephen St. Stephen Harding St. Stephen of Hungary St. Sylvester I

T

St. Teresa of Avila St. Thecla St. Theodore Tiro St. Theodosius St. Theophane Venard St. Theresa of Child Jesus St. Thomas St. St. Thomas Becket St. Thomas of Villanova St. Thorfinn St. Timothy and Titus Bl. Timothy Giaccardo Bl. Torello St. Turibius of Mongrovejo St. Tutilo

U

St. Ubald Bl. Urban V

V

St. Vincent de Paul St. Vincent Ferrer St. Vincent of Saragossa

W

St. Waldetrudis St. William St. William of Monte Vergine St. William of York St. Willibrord

Z

St. Zachary St. Zita

-- I've trimmed this list by removing other festivals that got included somehow, and a couple that we have entries on. Calistus I may be pope Calixtus I, I think. Some of thse are Bl. rather than St., which I suppose means they're not fully canonized as yet? -- Malcolm Farmer

---

In the Roman Catholic tradition, I think that "Blessed" means they've gone through Beatification, but are still one step away from being fully canonized saints. But I could be wrong. The above list still has a few entries that duplicate what we already have. It also includes some groups, like the "Holy Innocents" and "St. Apollonia and Martyrs of Alexandria". I wouldn't disput their sainthood, I'm just not sure whether we need to handle those entries any differently. Would "Holy Innocents" be alphabetized under the "H" or "I"? Also, aren't all the "Our Lady... " entries just different titles for the Virgin Mary? I would rather have just one entry per saint, and have that saint's page list all the different names and titles by which they're known. There could even be redirect pages from the other titles.

On an unrelated note, what the heck does the "mythological" column mean?? What's the criteria for checking it?? Given the context and without any definition, it almost suggests a "mythological" branch of Christianity with its own set of saints. --Wesley

---

trim & reorganise however you see fit: Be bold in updating pages!

On the "mythical" aspect, there's a large grey area here. St George was a real person, but the dragon story is mythical: St. Christopher never existed, Josaphat was a holy man in another religion, Uncumber and Wilgefortis were completely mythical, IIRC; and though there may have been a St. Ursula, the ten thousand virgin martyrs associated with her are mythical (some authors attributing them to a misreading of an abbreviation) So a "mythical" column would seem to be in order, even if the criteria are for inclusion are vague. --Malcolm Farmer

Wesley, I think it just means that they are people whose sainthood seems to be linked only tradition, but for whom there is no concrete proof. JHK

No proof that they existed, no proof that they are recognized as saints, or no proof that they actually did everything in the stories about them? This seems to be a somewhat arbitrary standard that can't quite be considered NPOV. The one that really brought up the question in my mind was Michael and the other prominent angels, who I believe are recognized as saints in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Most of them are mentioned in the Bible, all of them are believed to have done great things on behalf of us humans, but there would be understandable difficulty in trying to establish their existence independently of Scripture. That doesn't make them any less real to the traditions that honor them as saints. For humans whose existence may be in doubt, and simple checkmark may not do justice to the surrounding debate. Perhaps a general disclaimer at the top saying that not every person may be independently confirmed, with details of any doubts on the individual saint's page? --Wesley

The mythical column was my idea. When I made the table, I specifically added the column to record saints who have been officially declared mythical by some church which formerly recognised them as real. That is an objectively verifiable criterion and so perfectly NPOV. Using it, St Michael does not fall into the mythical category since he is still deemed real by all churches which recognise him. However St Christopher does fall into the mythical category since he is/was a Catholic saint who is mythical according to the Catholic Church. Therefore he should have an entry in the Catholic column and in the mythical column. Perhaps there are saints in other churches who fall into the same category. Of course there are other ways of laying out the table. For instance, the mythical column could be removed and instead of putting Yes or No into the cell, we could put Yes, No or Mythical, or we could use the cell to record dates between which the person was recognised by the church concerned as a real saint. -- Derek Ross

Ah. That makes perfect sense. If it's objectively verifiable as you say, then I agree the designation is NPOV. I'll have to see whether the Orthodox consider any saints mythical. I still think any detailed information about when a saint was considered real and when their status changed to mythical, should be reserved for that saint's page. I like the conciseness of the current table format, which will be increasingly valuable as the list grows. I'm going to add your definition to the top of the page, under the guidelines for alphabetizing, so that everyone can apply that criteria when adding entries and so that the column doesn't create any undue confusion to readers. Thanks for your explanation! --Wesley

Could someone add the story of St. Christopher and why he was declared mythical? I went back to the list after reading talk and he isn't there. --rmhermen

---

I remember reading somewhere (unfortunately some time ago) that, although he is one of the most famous saints around, Saint Nicholas of Myra is not really a saint at all? Is there some official list somewhere?--branko

I don't think there's one official list anywhere, at least not in Eastern Orthodoxy, simply because some saints are more widely known than others. However, Nicholas of Myra has long been one of the most widely revered saints in both the East and West. You can find lots of information about him from the links at Dmoz: http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=saint+nicholas+of+myra. --Wesley

---

Anglicans and saints

Anglican attitudes to saints range from devotions similar to Catholic practices to rejection of the idea of sainthood. Mainstream Anglicans commmemorate saints inherited from Catholic and Orthodox traditions as well as significant post-Reformation individuals. As there is no procedure for canonization in Anglicanism, commemoration of modern individuals is more a matter of consensus and varies in different areas.

The Book of Common Prayer prescribes principal holy days for 20-odd saints, which I have added to the grid if necessary. I have also checked the 'Anglican' column for those saints who are listed in the calendar of the Anglican Church of Australia - the most convenient source for me. I may add more names as time permits.

--ClaudineChionh

Thanks for the updates, Claudine! Sounds like if any more Biblical figures are added, it would be safe to check the Anglican column as well, right? Also, I noticed that in the Anglican column, Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzus were checked, but Gregory of Nyssa was not. If I'm not mistaken, those three were the Three Holy Hierarchs, good friends, and Basil and one of the Gregory's were brothers. Wouldn't all three be recognized? Unless I'm confusing Gregory's again, of course. Anyway, thanks. Wesley

Hi Wesley! Biblical figures definitely belong in the Anglican column. As for Gregory of Nyssa, he's not listed in the Australian prayer book, but that's no more authoritative than any other Anglican's opinion. My knowledge of that era is poor, but it sounds as if he should be held in the same regard as the other two. I could try to ask someone with better knowledge of Anglican-Orthodox relations. ClaudineChionh

---

Ok, I finally figured out who the Ethiopian Orthodox are. They're part of what might be called "Oriental Orthodox" or "monophysite", and they're in communion with the Coptic Orthodox[?], Jacobites in Syria, the Indian Orthodox Church (or Thomas Christians) and the Armenian Orthodox Church. They didn't split until 451 A.D., so all biblical saints and most pre-451 saints should be checked in their column. I just went through and think I got most of these, but I probably missed some.

A couple of the names might be misleading. Joseph in this list is probably intended to mean the step-father of Jesus, but it links to Joseph the son of Jacob way back when. Saint David is the patron saint of Wales, but is this the same prophet David that wrote many of the Psalms, etc.? If so, he should be checked across the board, but if not, well, his article should say who he is.

That's all my nits for now. :-) Wesley

The Welsh Saint David aka Dewi lived in the 6th century. I've added Wales to his name in the table. (BTW, his Wikipedia page is pretty sparse - there's something for somebody's to-do list.) It's not common to think of Old Testament figures as 'saints', is it? --ClaudineChionh

Thanks for the clarification on David. The Orthodox do look at a number of Old Testament figures as saints, more or less; although many times they're called "prophets", they seem to be treated similarly. The ancestors of Christ are remembered together just a few Sundays before Christmas, for instance, and some people may adopt Ruth as their church name, adopting Holy Foremother Ruth (from the biblical Book of Ruth) as their patron saint. David and Moses (from the OT) are both very highly regarded; I would assume St. Moses the Black was named after the Bible's Moses. (I remember a 6th century A.D. story about a monastery on Mt. Sinai, perhaps St. Catherine's, about a young man showing up to help serve a large contingent of visiting priests. He disappeared afterwards, and the abbot said it had been Moses himself.) It's taught that when Christ rose from the dead, he also rescued from Hell/Hades/Sheol (not sure exactly) all the righteous who had died, including Adam and Eve. I know I've seen icons depicting Jonah and the Fish, the Three Youths, the Hospitality of Abraham, Creation, and many other Old Testament people and events. Wesley

---

I just noticed that St. Denys doesn't have a "Yes" in any column. The spelling seems French, so I think it's probably a Catholic. I found a reference to Denys the Carthusian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04734a.htm) in the online New Catholic Encyclopedia; he was born in the 15th century. I also ran across a reference to another saint being at the St. Denys Monastery in about the ninth century, so I'm thinking there are at least two saints by this name. Anyone want to clear it up? Wesley

More than two. Dionysisus the Areopagite, Denis the Carthusian, and Denis (bip. of Paris). The spelling is wrong - no one in English since 1915 has used both an -e- and a -y-! I'd go with Denis.

I changed it to 'Denis', thinking it will ultimately point to 'Denis of Paris' or some such. Dionysius the Areopagite and Denis the Carthusian can have separate entries. I think there's already an article on Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite[?] or something similarly named; not sure how best to handle that in connection with this. More suggestions? :-) Wesley

---

St. Chris was de-emphasisized by the catholic church (had his feast day taken out of the liturgical calander) because all that exists is a magical realist story of carrying the infant jesus over a dangerous river. Nice beautiful little story but entirely mythological. And still one of the best saints there ever was.

Ive got questions about st. jude the obscure Two16 04:13 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure Simon of Trent needs to be listed here, as he appears to be a former saint rather than a saint that anyone venerates today. Was St. Christopher made an ex-saint the same way Simon of Trent was, i.e. by actually forbidding that he be venerated at all? Wesley

I think he should be included, because he was venerated a saint for nearly four hundred years. A rather silly parallel is that we don't take people off list of entertainers[?] when they're dead because dead people aren't entertaining. But I'm not absolutely certain, so remove if you're not convinced.

That's a very poor analogy. "Saint" is not an occupation or activity in the sense that "entertainer" is. Someone is a saint because a particular church calls them that. The primary Christian denominations that recognize or canonize saints are the ones listed. The only place to put Simon would be in a new "former saint" column; if the info about the Roman Catholics banning his veneration is correct, and no other group calls him a saint, then as far as anyone on earth can tell, he's not a saint as the word is being used in this article.

Personally, I think the table format of this entry isn't particularly helpful. Plus, I wonder if the list should be merged with the one in patron saint Martin

Do you understand the process of canonization, and the difference between Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism? (no offense intended.) It is crucial to make those distinctions here. For instance, the Romans call Barlaam of Calabria a saint, the Easterns call Gregory Palamas a saint; these two were completely at odds with one other theologically and philosophically, and simply to list them both as saints would be very misleading. I think the Easterns may have gone so far as to anathematize Barlaam, I forget. In any case, the Patron saint concept is clearly Roman Catholic, so it wouldn't be appropriate to merge Eastern Orthodox saints into that mold or way of thinking about them. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, my patron saint is simply the saint that was "given" to me to pray for me when I was chrismated into the church. Wesley

I know nothing about the Orthodox process, I know some stuff about the Catholic process. AFAIK, the Anglicans don't have a formal process.

The thing is, while I can see that the question of which church deemed which person to be a saint is of interest to some, I feel that it's rather irrelevant to most people. To my mind, the purpose of a list of saints should be for people who ask questions like: "what was the name of that saint who slew the dragon?", so a portion of the list might read:

• John Climacus -- abbot on Mt. Sinai who wrote The Ladder of Divine Ascent
• John of Damascus -- had his right hand cut off and miraculously restored
• Saint George -- patron saint of England who slew a dragon
• Simon of Trent -- ex-saint who was the subject of a blood libel

The information about who considers them a saint is important, and should be retained in the relevant entries, but I don't think it should go here. Martin

Putting someone's name on the list here, without qualification, is a statement that this or that person is a saint, as a statement of fact. Wikipedia should not make this claim, as wikipedia itself doesn't and probably shouldn't recognize the concept of sainthood, except as something that lots of Christians believe. The information about who considers which person a saint is vital. And it is perfectly neutral to say which church considers which person a saint; this makes it clear that Wikipedia is simply reporting on what various churches have decided through their various processes.

The summary of each person's life can also be subjective. For instance, I think St. John of Damascus is significant primarily because he defended icons during a period of iconoclasm. The miraculous restoration of his hand is incidental, and is itself important because it was a sign of God's favor of St. John's theology of icons; his hand was cut off to prevent him writing and to punish him for what he had written. So which details get included in such a brief summary depends on your own point of view.

I suppose we could add summaries, but we shouldn't remove the tabular information from this page. Wesley 16:57 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

You raise a valid point - wikipedia should not be making statements about who does or does not have the ear of the Christian god (or whatever it is that saints do in whatever the reader's brand of xtianity is). However, I believe that would be best dealt with in a couple of paragraphs of introduction. Creating this complicated tabular structure to try to maintain unimpeachable NPOV is massive overkill.

Let me ask you a question: what is the purpose of this article? How do you expect it to be used? What questions that readers have will be answered by this article? Martin

If you're not familiar with what a saint is, please read the saint article so that you can make more informed edits. A "List of saints" article should answer the question "Who are the saints?", just as a List of famous Canadians article should answer the question "Who are famous Canadians?" The answer to that question should be qualified with which church or churches recognize a person's sainthood; that's part of the answer to that question. Ex-saints need not be listed here if no one considers them a saint; probably future saints also need not be listed even if they are 90% of the way through the canonization process (another article you should probably read). The tabular format, alphabetized as it is, was the most clear and compact way we could come up with at the time to present this information; if you'd like to suggest another format, go right ahead. Come to think of it, other useful information that might even fit in the table would be "When is this saint's feast day?" (so you can wish someone a happy Name Day and pray for them if you know who their patron saint is, or so you can include their troparion[?] in your daily prayers). Of course, feast days would have to include two or more dates, since Western and Eastern calendars of saints often differ, and even in different Orthdox jurisdictions the dates can sometimes vary as well. Wesley 17:36 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Aha - this would seem to be the root of the problem. You have a dramatically different idea of what the purpose of this page (and other similar ones) should be. I see it as a navigation page, so it would answer questions like:

• "Where can I find an article about Saint George?"
• "Where can I find an article about the saint who killed the dragon?"
• "Where can I find an article about the patron saint of England?"

But I can see that the approach I've proposed wouldn't answer the question you want to answer here - it wouldn't answer "Who are the saints?". I'm not sure how best to resolve that. Martin

You're right, these are different goals. It seems to me the questions you're proposing would be better answered by searching existing articles by keyword. To make this entry answer those questions, you would basically just load each line with keywords next to the link. I think the search engine wikipedia has already does this adequately. Hmm. Perhaps this is also behind the debate about List of Christians? Wesley 18:10 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I guess it's the same debate as that between DMOZ and Google on the wider web. I think that a good human-maintained category system can complement a search engine, but obviously that's a matter of debate. Martin

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a category system or a search engine. I also think you'll find it very difficult to do this sort of categorization from a Neutral Point of View. Perhaps you're wanting to build a human-maintained encyclopedia index? Wesley 19:40 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but that's not an argument to get rid of the wikipedia search engine, so I'm not clear why it'd be an argument to get rid of the wikipedia category system?

Yeah, there are difficulties with NPOV, but I'm not convinced it's any worse than global warming... Martin

I haven't followed the evolution of the global warming topic, so that doesn't really say anything to me. In general, when a statement of fact is controversial, the standard way of NPOV'ing the statement is by saying that X asserts it is true, but Y disagrees, and concisely present reasons for both. The format you're proposing makes that difficult to do, though not necessarily impossible. Do you have another way to address NPOV concerns? Wesley 21:09 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to expect a summary, any summary, to be as rigorously NPOV as a full article. Such summaries have to represent instead a consensus point of view or a middle point of view. That doesn't just apply to lists - it applies whenever articles on one subject touch on a seperate subject. When September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Timeline summarises the important events on the day of the attack, it violates NPOV because some people consider the pennsylvanian crash to be relatively unimportant. But this isn't a problem because the full article is available at the click of a mouse, and the full article does not violate NPOV. I think readers will understand this. Martin

Ok, fine. Add summaries. Don't expect them to stay brief. And whatever you do, don't delete existing info about who is canonized by whom. Wesley 21:42 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I'll add it to my to-do list... (un)fortunately, you've half-convinced me of the merits of the status quo, so I won't be in any rush... Martin

Question: Where would saints ( or the equivelent term )for non-christian religions go? For example: Bhuddism, Voudon, Eclesiastica Gnostica Catholica, Doaism, etc

If there's an equivalent term, perhaps we should use that. Something like List of bhodisattvas[?] for instance (or whatever the correct spelling is, I think I messed that up.) Wesley 15:37 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)