Saint George was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Saint George is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
"Reportedly" is used about a dozen times too many. This article reads like a 10th-grade research paper.
The alleged legendary aspects of the reported history of George apparently are not recorded in this probable entry. Why not? Saint George as it currently stands suppresses all the miraculous elements that were the actual basis for the historical George cult, so popular and widespread in medieval times. The alleged entry reportedly reports only those selected elements of the George legend that might pass for actual history. Some might possibly allege that this is misleading, and not up to Wikipedia's NPOV standards. Wetman 08:31, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What if the dragon is just a synonim for like an army or something?
And the folks just used it to shorten the 'Hey dude George defated the huge army of the someguys in combat!' to 'hey George killed a dragon!Hehe COOL!'
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Andy
Actually, many hold the view that the said ‘dragon’ was indeed a metaphor for Islamic hordes. St. George was a Christian Saint because he (the arm under his control) slaughtered the Islamic Dragon so to speak. I also agree that the word 'reportedly' is used too often.
Islam did not make an appearance on the world's stage until the 7th Century, AD, while St. George lived in the 3rd Century, or thereabouts. Thus, unless you refer to the fact that the Crusading armies took St. George as one of their chief patrons, there is no way that he "slaughtered any Islamic hordes." --TheTriumvir05:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One theory of St. George,which explains why he is so widely revered, is that he is Horus and the Romans turned him into a saint to appease the followers of Horus. Horus slays a dragon, Seth. One very good representation of this is in the Louvre Museum, a carving of Horus riding a horse and slaying a dragon: http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/horus-horseback This article starts with a reference to a book written by a Sun newspaper journalist which is not peer reviewed. As such, the suggested history of George does not meet Wikipedia standards and should be removed unless historical sources can be found. The article should be rewritten with appropriate references to historical sources which are contemporaneous, not to a jingoistic "hooray Henry" boys' book.Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Reportedly" is used too much. Let´s make it better? Any additional information is either welcome.
For some really indepth study of St George and the convoluted history of his cult. I found a great source in Christopher Walter's book "The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Traditions"— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
There is no evidence of a historical person corresponding to St. George. I have added "according to legend" to reflect this. This reflects a NPOV which must be maintained in this article. Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article.
Historians have argued the exact details of the birth of Saint George for over a century, although the approximate date of his death is subject to little debate.[1][2] The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia takes the position that there seems to be no ground for doubting the historical existence of Saint George, but that little faith can be placed in some of the fanciful stories about him.[3]
The work of the BollandistsDaniel Papebroch, Jean Bolland, and Godfrey Henschen in the 17th century was one of the first pieces of scholarly research to establish the historicity of the saint's existence via their publications in Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca and paved the way for other scholars to dismiss the medieval legends.[4][5]Pope Gelasius stated that George was among those saints "whose names are justly reverenced among men, but whose actions are known only to God."[6]
Apart from what seems to begin with 5th-century folklore, most reference books relate that there are no contemporary or
other historical documents relating to St George. There are no modern reference encyclopedias or other historical works which refer to St. George other than as a legendary character and you cannot impose your view on this page on the basis of religious writings. If you revert this again I will ask that this be referred to arbitrationBurdenedwithtruth (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"According to tradition" is the NPOV thing to say for the unelaborated details of his life (no dragons) - "according to legend" goes too far the other way. You might give some thought to what sort of early sources might actually have had a possibility of surviving from this period. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Mills, Charles (2012), The History of Chivalry, Longman, Rees, p. 9.
^Spenser, Edmund (1998), Fierce Wars and Faithful Loves, Cannon Press, p. 196, ISBN978-1-885767-39-4.
^Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "George, Saint". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 11 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 737. In the canon of Pope Gelasius (494) George is mentioned in a list of those 'whose names are justly reverenced among men, but whose acts are known only to God'
Edward Gibbon was of the opinion that the original man on whom the legend was based was not quite so holy. He states, quite confidently, that during the Arian controversy, when the Arians had the upper hand in the battle to define the doctrine of the church, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was sticking to his anti-arian guns and making waves. He was thrown out by the powers that be and replaced by the Arian George of Cappadocia who Gibbon portrays as a money-grabbing, power hungry thug. Although he was unpopular with everyone it was the pagan residents of the city who rose up against him when they were encouraged by hearing that they had a pagan emperor in Julian the Apostate (as he is now known). Being killed by pagans meant that he was a martyr and his behaviour while alive was forgotten.
All of this may of course be rubbish - Gibbon may be a great and influential historian but his word is not gospel truth. So does anyone know if this version has any sources to back it up or was it nonsense which has been debunked over the last two centuries. --Spondoolicks21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Athanasius was replaced by a Gregory of Cappadocia who does not have his own article yet. Gibbon had apparently confused the two Cappadocians. User:Dimadick
I was surprised by the fact that Gibbon's account isn't mentioned at all. I thought he based his account on that by Ammianus? Jimg (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that Gibbon's account should be sumarized and included. Whether or not there are questions surrounding his conclusions, he is/was a highly influential historian and his account has been widely read. I am tempted to add a short section. Jimg (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please add such a section. I came to this page looking for information on Gibbon's account, and I suspect others will come too. If it's a settled question, it'd be good to refute Gibbon's libel. If it's still contended, it's all the more pertinent to an article on St. George. Amulekii (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
St. George is also honored in the Muslim world under the name Al-Khidr.
On the topic of Muslim-related content, the article includes this: "One Muslim legend recounts that George lived among a group of Muslims who had been in direct contact with the last disciples of Jesus." This sounds odd. If what is meant is the original, first disciples of Jesus, they would have been over 600 years old by the time Muhammad was born. Can anyone clarify what the author meant here? Greenbough (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It most likely means that the disciples took lots of vitamins and got to live very very long... kidding. Just looks incorrect, so I flagged it and will delete later unless someone clarifies it. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could "superdude99" explain why my contribution regarding Ken Livingstone's refusal to allow a St. George's celebration in London has been deleted twice. This has been widely reported in the British press (both The Times and The Telegraph have given details) and I have written to the Mayor himself about it, not that he ever bothered to reply. It seems to me to be both a relevant and accurate addition.
Mr Ken Livingstone, is a member of si-pac a communist secret society,one of this societies aims is to undermine the Christian and Muslem faiths by any means possible, He (Ken) hates muslims and St George is highly venerated in Palistine and amoungst the Coptic peoples of Eygpt. He would no doubt rather flay himself than see the people he dispises so much enjop their patron Saints day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.3.64 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph is portraying the Mayor of London in a biased light.
"In recent years demands" - who is demanding?
"have been turned down by the London Mayor" - I appreciate that you have tried contacting the Mayor to find an answer but without knowing the full story it is a far stretch to say that he personally turned it down. And if he did then I would suggest finding a reference of him doing so.
So I have amended the paragraph to remove both the reference to St Patrick (what conclusion is to be drawn from London celebrating one particular patron saint to another?) and to the current mayor (due to the reasons provided above). The only factual and relevant information that we can include here is that London does not currently celebrate this crazy saints day. --NHawes12:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is London supposed to celebrate St. George's Day? The day isn't a public holiday anywhere in theUK- surely it would be up to the government in Westminster to declare the day a Bank Holiday and then let various municipalities hold some sort of celebration if they wanted to. The idea of Ken Livingstone, or any London mayor, having a big parade going along by the Thames on a working week day is ridiculous. And how would we even celebrate St. George's day? Are there any traditions associated with the day? Is there a history of celebrations? Or is this just some silly attempt by hysterical journalists to create a story and blabber on about "politcally correct" attacks on British values?
I have the gravest doubt regarding the text here: "On June 2 1893, Pope Leo XIII demoted St George as Patron Saint for the English, relegating him to the secondary rank of 'national protector' and replaced him with St Peter as the Patron Saint of England. The change was solemnly announced by Cardinal Herbert Vaughan in the Brompton Oratory. This papal pronouncement served to exclude the Catholic Church in England from a day which is part of English tradition". I can't find any external verification for it. JohnHarris10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the section about what actually happened during his life.
Palestine was the Roman name for Judea as of 135AD. The Jews never used the name Palestine until it was invoked by the British in 1917. In 1964 the Arabs west of the Jordan river became the 'Palestinians' thanks to the KGB giving the notion to Arafat.
So St George would have been a Judean, not an Israeli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.24.87 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "now in Palestine- Israel" to Israel only. It says "now in ...", and now it's in Israel. What it was on ancient times, and what some would want it to be in the future, is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.251.117 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saint George is the patron of Catalonia as you can read in the article.
The feast in Catalonia is to be the national day of lovers (like Valentine's day) but, recently, is being forgotten because of the international celebration of the 14th of February and because the same 23 of April is the UNESCO International day of Book and copyright. On that, it should be added that also Inca Garcilaso de la Vega and Josep Pla died that same day, although the last one died on 1981 and not on 1616 like Shakespeare, Cervantes and the first one.
In Catalonia, the legend tells that from the blood of the dragon grew a red rose which he gave to the princess, and that's why in Catalonia men give red roses to women. People give books to each other because of the International day of Book, but not because of Saint George's day. And, if I am not wrong, we do not say he cut the dragon's head off but he sticked his lancein his heart.
Wasn't there also another George who was matryed trying to aid Paul's escape from Damascus? I'm pretty sure that there were other St. George's in antiquity, as well as others more recent than the current one. If there are, I'll be happy to make a dismabiguation. Let me know on my talk page...--V. Joe07:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction looked very small in comparison to most other articles, so I added a bit.
I've also added a line that says "The flag of Saint George is now probably most visible when flown by supporters of England sporting teams." but I'm fairly sure that will be controversial. Maybe it shouldn't be there, but I think it's true. Kayman1uk09:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm going to continue summarising edits here even if no-one else wants to any more. Given that George seems to have an astonishingly wide range of patronage, it's worth drawing attention to that diverse group in the intro.
Given that there is a main page dedicated to George and the Dragon, the amount of space dedicated to analysis of the story/myth/allegory here seemed excessive. I've thinned out that section considerably.
I accept that a significant amount of effort was put into this section by several people, and I would encourage them to merge their work into the relevant page, rather than lose it.
The approach I took to eliminating sentences was essentially (and completely subjectively) to keep what I thought were the most common/accessible references e.g. I kept Greek myths over Germanic and Indian ones, simply because the Greek ones tend to have filtered through into the English language a bit more. Let's discuss. Kayman1uk12:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
removing the Germanic and Vedic myths kinda misses the point; they showed that the dragon slaying myth is a pan-Indo-European tradition. The best way to illustrate that is to give examples from all branches of the family. --Krsont12:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point but I think including further examples just expands the analysis of the myth on a page that should be about George. I'll have a go at incorporating your "pan-Indo-European" tradition comment, mention Germanic and Vedic myths (without being specific) and remove one of the greek ones to prevent the section growing again. Hope that sounds reasonable. Kayman1uk15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone written down on this section and I qoute "And he smells like a big ball of poo."
As many countries and cities have George as patron saint, I deleted the three that were mentioned in the lead, for NPOV. --Matthead21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see St George is given as the patron saint of Greece. Can you explain? As the Greek flag uses the Cross of St Andrew, who I assume is their patron saint. I was informed that this St Andrew is the same one as Scotland uses.Bettybutt (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was part of a list unattached to prose, likely put there to attact search-engines. I don't think this qualifies as confirmation. I'm skeptical on the name with this lack of refs. I'll keep looking.
There is no name given to the dragon anywhere on the web or in any of the books in Google books. There are lots of mirrored versions copying this article on the web and it looks like the only people naming this dragon is whoever first claimed its name was Stihdjia on this page. In essence this wikipedia article is inventing a name instead of encyclopedicly reporting a name. There is no source claiming this name anywhere, so asserting the name is Stihdjia is as frivilous as naming it Godzilla.--Wowaconia20:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
St. George was born in Cappadocia and died in Lydda
That's incorrect. The various hagiographic sources place the birthplace of George at Cappadocia, and his martyrdom and burial at Lydda (with the exception of Eusebius which places with the martyrdom at Nicomedia, without explicitly naming George). I suppose you have better sources than the exant hagiographic material. JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.150 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the unsourced, unwikified personal essay that was anonymously entered. Much of it is already in the article, and the potted hisory notes are irrelevant to George and treated in their own Wikipedia articles. Please look at the [deleted text here] and see whether there is anything that can be given a source and added back to the article. --Wetman18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that St George is the patron saint of Canada; I thought that he was some French dude, but I may be wrong. Any ideas? Poojean16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not russian, but I know that "St George killing the dragoon" is featured on Moscow's emblem (very similar to the icon from Novgorod added in the article). The latter is itself featured in the Russian Federation's one, as St George is Patron Saint of both Russia and its capital city.
In the Serbian Orthodox Church St. George is a Patron Saint of many families and has many churches and monastaries named after him.
Serbia should be mentioned in this article.
Dear Jordan,
Today is the Slava of Saint George in Serbia, by the Orthodox church calendar. Can you please make the Serbia at least a link in the first paragraph? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.242.134 (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the following QA from the Humanities Reference Desk. Please note in particular the concerns over the contention that St. George was 'replaced' as the patron saint of England by the Pope in 1893. A citation request was put against this assertion, though no response has been forthcoming to date. Does anyone have a legitimate source here? I intend to leave this for a day or two, and if nothing is forthcoming I think it best if I remove the point altogether. Clio the Muse22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, contrary to the point made in the Wikipedia piece on England and St. George, traces of the cult date right back to Anglo-Saxon times. He appears as early as the ninth century in rituals at Durham, and in a tenth century martyrology. There is evidence, moreover, of pre-Conquest foundations dedicated to St. George: at Fordingham in Dorset, at Thetford, Southwark and Doncaster. So he was already familiar to the English well before the Crusades, though it is not until the reign of Edward III that emerges as the most important national saint, replacing Edward the Confessor It is probably more accurate to say that the cult was identified specifically with the monarchy, rather than England as a whole. Edward I was the first king to display St. George's banner alongside those of Edmund the Martyr and St. Edward.
By the reign of Edward III he had definately emerged as a 'god of battles', in much the same fashion as Saintiago Matamoros in Spain. In 1351 it was written "The English nation...call upon Saint George, as being their special patron, especially in war." In this regard he was certainly more appealing than the unwarlike Confessor or St. Edmund, who had been defeated and subsequently killed by the Danes. But with the succession of Richard II George once again slipped down the ranks. Richard had little of his grandfather's warlike ambitions, and returned to the veneration of the two native saints. George was called back to national prominence during the Wars of the Roses, when his name was invoked by both sides in the contest. It was also at this time that his cult spread across the nation at large. Almost a hundred wall paintings featuring the saint date from the fifteenth century, almost always showing him in combat with the dragon. He also survives in pilgrim badges. His secular importance was finally confirmed by the English Reformation; for he alone survived the suppression of the cult of saints, which not even the Virgin herself had been able to do.
Now, I have a question. I see that a claim is made in the Wikipedia page that St. George was 'demoted' by Pope Leo XIII in 1893 as the patron saint of England and replaced by Saint Peter! I had no idea that Popes were ever in the business of promoting and demoting national saints. Besides, nobody seems to have told the English! A citation request has been put against this statement; but these things, as I am sure many of you are aware, can hang around forever and a day. I need to know if this is true or not, or if it is just a subtle piece of vandalism? Clio the Muse02:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curious. I've never heard of this, Clio. Saint Peter#Patronage makes no mention of it, and googling produces only one source - our article. I suspect it's either vandalism, or a genuine mistake on the part of the editor who posted this. -- JackofOz02:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the Pope's business who he has as England's patron saint, just as it's the Pope's business who he has as saints at all. I could understand if such a thing happened, and I have often heard it claimed, since George is fairly mythological and the emphasis lately (in the Catholic Church sense of 'lately') has been on people who pretty definitely existed. You can, of course, have anyone you like as your patron saint, and declare anyone you like to be a saint, but how many people will follow you? If the government wanted to declare someone as a patron saint of England, they could. Quite what this would mean, I don't know. To be honest, your comment is really quite odd Duncan. Skittle23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, quite right, Skittle: that saints 'made' by the church can also be 'unmade', if that makes sense. But I do not believe that the Vatican has ever sanctioned, or created, national saints: saints who were intended to be identified with a given country. Patron saints are created for historical and political reasons; so it was with James and Spain; and so it was with George and England. Even now, living in a secular world, English people, whether Catholic, Protestant or of no religion at all, understand the significance and symbolism of St. George and England. I confess that I myself have become more and more aware over the last few years of a growing sense of 'Englishness', brought on in part by Scottish and Welsh devolution: the English flag is ever more evident and people now celebrate St. George's Day with an a new enthusiasm; I do, and so do my friends. The Pope may demote or promote all the saints he wishes; but he could not end the link between George and England. So once again I pose my question: where does the contention about Leo XIII come from? I now believe this to be quite spurious. Clio the Muse00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean. It's just that, since the whole deal of 'official' saints and patron saints is a Catholic thing, to say it's none of the Pope's business is really quite odd. That George is popularly considered the patron saint of England is, of course, unaffected and people are free to make their mascots what they want. Who the English have as their 'mascot' patron saint by no means has to match anything any church says, but what the Catholic Church says about these things is the church's business. I have often heard that many saints were 'removed' in the last century or so for being mythological, and that some were restored. However, I have never seen any authoritive evidence that this was the case. So it wouldn't surprise me, but it seems unsupported. Skittle12:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic Encyclopedia calls him patron of England in the very first sentence of its article on Saint George,[2] while the Catholic Community Forum lists England as one of the beneficiaries of George's extensive patronage.[3] While not spealing ex cathedra, they are generally reliable sources in doctrinary matters. --Lambiam17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Duncan has it in mind that "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England" - Article thirty-seven of the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563, which still have the force of law so far as the Church of England is concerned. Lambiam has raised a real doubt as to whether Pope Leo XIII did downgrade George from the Roman Catholic point of view. The Catholic Encyclopedia postdates Leo. I see someone has added the {{Fact}} template to that statement in the Saint George article, to challenge it, and I hope someone will get to the bottom of this for us. Xn400:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other part of the equation is that Pope John Paul II is supposed to have restored St George as patron saint in 2000. Does anyone remember anything about this in the media at that time? I certainly don't, and I think it's something that would have been widely reported in the anglophone world. Google produces nothing about it. The edit that's sparked this discussion is this one, from almost a year ago. Amazing that this hasn't been challenged till now. The anonymous editor only ever made a handful of WP edits - all in September 2006 - then got pissed off by something, and has never come back. -- JackofOz13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not wish this issue to pass by default, and I do not personally believe that the citation request will ever be answered. We are now in a position where people could claim that St. Peter is the patron saint of England because the Pope and Wikipedia say so; and as we know both are infallible! So, how should I proceed? Would it be best to put this whole discussion on the article's talk page with an introductory comment, leaving it for a day or so for a possible response, and then making the changes? Clio the Muse23:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
San Giorgio (St.George) is also the patron saint of the italian city of Ferrara, where the former 10th century cathedral and the splendid new 12th century basilique cathedral were built and named after Him.
Image:SVH06 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Oh yeah, cower in anonymity. That's a pointless and malicious thing to say. This page isn't for a debates on the merits of religion. Go to yahoo answers for that. Amulekii (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources put his birth place as Coventry (mostly English ballads), however others put it as Cappadocia (notably, The Golden Legend), where his father came from.
I've edited to include the ambiguity over his birthplace, as there is probably at least as much weight toward it being Cappadocia than Coventry, and the Golden Legend is quite a notable version of the St George legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.174 (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks sources for the information provided. Diocletian is mentioned as the factor behind Georges death, which is unproven. There are no hard facts as to when George lived, and where he was born, or even what his actual name was. This article should be labled as such. Nathraq (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St. George is also the name of a 250-year-old church in Sottrum, Germany. The Althaus, or town hall, has historical information that cites this George as the same dragon-killing Christian man who saved a princess. Inside the stone church there is a wooden knight depicting St. George and, on the wall, there are mother-of-pearl laden wooden statues of George and the dragon. Sottrum, founded in 1290, should also be listed as one of St. George's sites. (There are two others in the Lower Saxony area.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sultanarose (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St. George is also the name of a 800-year-old church in Sottrum, Germany. The Althaus, or town hall, has historical information that cites this George as the same dragon-killing Christian man who saved a princess. Inside the stone church there is a wooden knight depicting St. George and, on the wall, there are mother-of-pearl laden wooden statues of George and the dragon. Sottrum, founded in 1205, should also be listed as one of St. George's sites. (There are two others in the Lower Saxony area.) This Sopttrum story, however has one difference. The dragon interfered when the church was being built. St. George slayed him. So, perhaps he saved a church and a princess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sultanarose (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This title has been returned to Saint George, as the title that the normally well-prepared Wikipedia reader will search. The attempted title "George of Lydda" knowingly inserts a spurious air of historicity, to give this legendary archetype an underserved aura of historical reality. --Wetman (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how reliable this is, but in Scanderbeg: From Ottoman Captive to Albanian Hero, it sates: "Scanderbeg himself vouchsafed a vision that had come to him: St. George, the Christian warrior and the patron saint of Albania, had personally presented him with a flaming sword to destroy the enemies of true religion." This was probably taken from Marin Barleti, an Albanian clergyman who wrote a biography about Scanderbeg. --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If George made it into his "late 20s" before his promotion and the events of 302 AD, how could he be born any later than 276? The date of death seems so certain, how could 285 be remotely plausible as a birth-year? 63.88.67.230 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All sections of this article are coming to be supported by citations, with the exception of the "biography", which is replete with details, even dates, to give it verisimilitude. This is not the miracle-filled account from Legenda Aurea. Where is it from? I have not peppered the text with demands for facts and citations, as I find that behavior distasteful. But anyone who can support any "historical" detail with a citation would improve this ambitious but weak section. --Wetman (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that section needs help. And I need a little time to research it and get references. There are plenty of items published, so it will be a question of getting the most "established" sources together as references, and perhaps rework some of the text. I will try that in a few days. History2007 (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few refs, but elsewhere this article has many statements and assertions, and many church names that are not verifiable. Unless there are good suggestions otherwise, I will clean up a few of the "I guess it might be true" unsupported items in a day or two. Cheers History2007 (talk)
I waited and there was no objection. So I will wait a little more, then remove the totally unreferenced items from this article. I am actually amazed how much unreferenced material there is here. It seems that if someone typed "Beethoven used to have a picture of Saint George on his wall whenever he composed" with no reference, there would have been no objection to it being in the article. Obviously that cannot continue. So, having said that, I will clean up the unsourced material later today. Cheers History2007 (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cannot be considered a historic individual" seems a bit strong, particularly given that there are all sorts of historic claims made about him later in the article. If the Catholic Encyclopedia says there is no ground for doubting his historic existence, then I doubt that a bald claim of non-historicity can be NPOV. The citation for his non-historicity is merely that he was omitted from another encyclopedia, which scarcely seems overwhelming. I would suggest altering to something like, "His historicity is disputed" or "There is ongoing debate about whether there was a real George behind the accumulated legends."
Also, there seems to be a contradiction in this section between, "St George is not commerated in any early vita or acta" and "synthesised from early and late hagiographical sources". Are there early hagiographical sources or not?
I've also noticed that the no early acta claim is contradicted by the "Sources" section, unless "early" is intended to mean before 5th century. It seems to me that "Life and legend" section requires substantial editting.
It says "St. George to be considered, as suggested by Gibbon, Vetter, and others, a legendary double of the disreputable bishop, George of Cappadocia,"
Now its really irrelevant what it concludes, even ignoring whether its a biased source, for what it does most definitely state is that these scholars, including 'others', did take this view, so it can be the cite for that.
But, it does actually state that although it rejects the above identification, "it is not improbable that the apocryphal Acts have borrowed some incidents from the story of the Arian bishop". (The 'apocryphal acts' are the Acta Sanctii Georgii, on which later accounts of his life is based). In other words the Catholic encyclopedia argues that its plausible for "some incidents" to derive from George of Cappodocia (the Arian bishop in question).
His most important work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ....is known principally for the quality and ....its use of primary sources
and later
In this insistence upon the importance of primary sources, Gibbon is considered by many to be one of the first modern historians
and
In accuracy, thoroughness, lucidity, and comprehensive grasp of a vast subject, the 'History' is unsurpassable
I still agree with Back2Back2Back's revert of most of those edits. That "important text" is just one reference, and it can not be marketed beyond a reference. I kept that reference, but a few other things that were added were WP:OR elaborations beyond that. There are many more references, and the work of the Bollandists is highly respected scholarly work that relates to the historicity of the saint's existence. The way it was with the elaboration of Gibbons, it dominated the lead, which it could not have based on that single view. The dragon story is clearly legend, as almost all sources agree. But there is absolutely no uniform and universal agreement that St. George was a legend or based on the Arian Bishop, and that single view can not dominate the lead, although it should be mentioned in life and legend, as I added it. And of course, Gibbon's latest editor said that the theory had nothing to be said for it... well, I agree with the editor too. History2007 (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Gibbon is 'just one reference' is like dismissing Eusebius or Jerome as merely 'just one reference'. He's not 'just' one reference, he's one unsurpassabl[y] accura[te], thorough[], comprehensive[ly] lucid[] reference that's known principally for [its] quality and [...] its use of primary sources; that's a little more than a mere randomly chosen reference.
Neither is he the only reference. Ralph Waldo Emerson, quoted in Robert D. Richardson, and Barry Moser, Emerson (1996), page 520:
George of Cappadocia....supply the army with bacon....embraced Arianism....promoted...to the episcopal throne of Alexandria....When Julian came, George was dragged to prison, the prison was burst open by a mob, and George was lynched....became in good time Saint George of England....
As has often been agreed in other articles, Gibbon is too outdated and biased to be used as a main source in this way. There is over 200 years of subsequent scholarship, which should be used in preference. The same goes for the Catholic Encyclopedia. Gibbon's superb prose may merit quoting, though it does not seem much in evidence here, but inevitably few of his wider conclusions represent the current state of scholarship. You will not find the major articles on the historical periods he covers using him in this way. See WP:V etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to claim that a source is invalidated by being more than 200 years old, we'd best delete all direct references to the Bible from Wikipedia, as well as all quotes from Jerome, Eusebius, and the Acta Sanctii Georgii themselves. If you check wikipedia:Reliable Sources there's definitely no date criteria.
Here's a fuller quote by Stephens, in the Dictionary of National Biography - a similarly respected work, still updated (and this quote is still there, even in the 2004 edition) - about the view of Gibbon's book
The criticisms upon his book...are nearly unanimous. In accuracy, thoroughness, lucidity, and comprehensive grasp of a vast subject, the 'History' is unsurpassable. It is the one English history which may be regarded as definitive. ...Whatever its shortcomings the book is ... historically unimpeachable
The fact that its a nearly unanimous view, and the text is called 'definitive', really should be viewed as indicating the worth of the text, and the ability to cite from it in the article. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have been around here much if you are unaware of the position on using the bible directly as a source, likewise other works from antiquity. I take a more moderate position on this than many, who regard use of all "primary" sources (as defined by historians, not the WP definition, a distinction many miss) as wrong, unless bolstered by modern scholarly references. I see you have raised the matter at the RS Noticeboard. Let's see what response you get.
Johnbod is, of course, completely correct in both his posts here. And he is taking a moderate viewpoint. I think he is even being too nice to Gibbons and the edits here.
What the disputed edit has done is base the lead, and hence the entire article's premise, on Gibbons. That can not be done because it creates a starting impression based on what might be suitable as the views of the "I have a crush on Gibbons society" whose members are few and far between these days. Those are not neutral, modern, or competing scholarly Wikipedia views. Even Gibbon's own editor said that his theory was not worthy. So what is the fuss here?
Members of the "Gibbons admiration society" are not, within Wiki-policies entitled to tilt an entire article towards his viewpoint within the lead. The discussion on the RS Noticeboard effectively said that he is dated, dated, dated. Period.
By the way Anthony, I do not see you as a vandal, since you mentioned that. The other day, I thought the expansion you made to the Ecce Homo (church) article I had started some time ago, and had not worked on for a while was pretty good. But this edit is different.
The Saint's name is Greek. It is Georgios and not 'George'. No remark is made on this.
The name of the Saint's father is Greek and he was a Greek serving Roman army, not a
Roman. His name was Gerontios and not 'Geronizio'. No Remark is made on this.
The name of the Saint's mother is Greek: Polychronia. So we have three individuals
all with Greek names. What a coincidence but no worth commenting according to the
authors of this article. His mother was from Palaestine (another Greek name)-
not Palestine. The Palaestinians are originaly from Crete in Greece. In many modern historical articles (including wikipedia articles) the historical person's biography
has no reference to his ethnic origin. They avoid it. Especially if it's Greek. Even if his name is Greek and his parents' name's are Greek then they will avoid it even more. You really have to dig in such articles to see what is the ethnic origin of those persons. And even then you dont find it because it isn't there. I guess it is more important to mention the ethic background of someone that met Saint George rather
than mention the ethnic background of the Saint himself. But what are they going to say? That the patron Saint of all those countries is Greek? Noway. They're going to be
unclear by saying: "a roman soldier according to tradition" (but not mentioning his Greek origin), "mother from Palestine" (rather than a Palestinian or a Greek woman with a Greek name from the area of Palestine in which the Greek colonies (and not English or Bulgarian) were multiple. On top of that do not mention Greek Orthodox tradition or Greece in the list of countries. And there you have it. Instead they mention Bulgaria. The Bulgarians were made Christians by the Byzantine Greeks. And then they mention India and Brazil! Next thing they're going to mention China as the fellow commentator said before me. Or as the other fellow asked above about his origins but noone answered to him.Kassos (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these points are now included in the article; I would also support Georgios being included at the start of the lead, after his English name; regardless of historicity, this was almost certainly considered to be his original name. --xensyriaT00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although Genoa's flag is St. George's Cross, its patron Saint is St. John the Baptist. I know it's weird but consider also that Genoa's Cathedral is dedicated to St. Lawrence and the Virgin Mary was adopted as Queen in the Middle Ages. 92.60.35.2 (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for Latin forms of "Geronzio" and "Policronia", St. George's parents
This really is an unprecedented level of harassment directed at contributors trying to improve the quality of an embarassingly deficient article, I must say...! Let's try hard to envision what a "good article" would look like. Would a complete, high class article not, sooner or later, have to include all the relevant info from all the relevant sources - such as what most of them call his parents names? Do we have to fight tooth-and-nail to avoid resembling anything like what all the real-world sources out there have on this subject? What a joke ROFLOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.41.97 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added that reference. All you needed was one ref. It was less effort than the debates. Now, please provide refs for Anastasius and Theobaste so they can remain in the article, else they have to go. History2007 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As is the section on patronage is dominating the article now and MOST of the entries are reference free. And many of the entries are churches that need to go to the Church page. I suggest moving it to a new page called Patronages of Saint George, for this article is about the saint, not geography. Unless there are good reasons not to, I will do that later. History2007 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for the split. There is a lot of it, but it is all at the bottom where it belongs. Given his legendary character, the remarkably widespread veneration of St George is the most notable thing about him. The mere churches, especially the Lebanese ones, should be removed - most are no doubt already on the list at St George's Church, though some are important historic buildings, others not. Otherwise it is not worth damaging the article just to make it GA-worthy, if that is the plan. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My plan was not making it GA-worthy, for I don't pay attention to ratings. I was just tired of looking at my watch list at all those churches getting added with no references. And the article does seem long. But your point about patronage being a key issue is valid. So do you have a better solution? As is, it is just so much patronage, many not noteworthy. Maybe needs a trim. History2007 (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well churches can be removed to the dedicated article without compunction, unless really important - is there a sentence/note directing people there? - that might restrain new additions here. Otherwise its just one of those articles which attracts additions, whilst dozens of figures of equal status hardly get touched. An occasional visit to prune & tidy is how I handle these - I did a couple of sections here. The infobox patronage is certainly way too long - most could go in "other" in the text. I suppose a patronage article is a possibility - do we have any others? Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe we can try this:
Move most churches, but keep a few key ones in a church section, with a note in the comments that no more to be added here. I actually built a Saint George church gallery that has many more churches, so somehow that may be referenced etc.
Keep key patronages, but move football club issues etc. all to a new patronage article, again adding a comment that others should be added there.
Fine. I need a few days to think about how to do it anyway. If you have suggestions as to what patronages to keep or move, please provide them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are no more comments, I will start doing that little by little. The article, image placement etc. all look unkempt as well, and could do with some spring cleaning. I will try that as well. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The British Eddas written by L.A Waddell convincingly argues that St George is none other than King Arthur and Thor and Indara of the Indo-Aryans. Ar-thur is synonymous with Herr-Thor. In-Dara synonymous with K(in)g Dar..ie lord Thor ie Ar-thor. Goer or Geir is the name of his hammer which he always carried(mace, or spear) an epithet of Thor of ancient times used everywhere from German folk lore to the Hittites and Sumerians. Gar is Proto Indo-european for mace/weapon. The Eddas appears to be the best surviving story of George/Thor, it is uncorrupted as happened to the Greek/Latin/Hindu/Egyptian versions of George/Thor. In essence George/Thor was an indo-european coloniser of Asian Minor he fought and defeated the Chaldean's ,led by queen Frigge/El who was head of the Serpent cult. When he slew her with his mace(Goer) the myth of George slaying the reptilian dragon was born. Bas Reliefs and ancient seals abound in Asia Minor containing pictures of George/Thor slaying Snakes/Dragons/crocodiles. George carried a red cross in his one hand, the symbol of his Sun religion. The Sun Cross predates christianity by thousands of years. It is unfortunately the cross and George's latter depiction on a horse with a lance which has confused historians into thinking he is recently post christian which he most certainly is not and is probably the first recorded figure in human history, hence his fame in vastly differing places. Christian missionaries in the 1st millenium are well documented as destroying all "pagan" references to George (books and stone carvings). Fortunately there are some that have survived and his story can be rebuilt. The Phoenician version of George dating to around 800BC has him on a horse with a Lance and his cross. Even this version is 2000 years after his existance around 3300BC. Its believe to have been brought to Britain by the Phoenicians which is why we have that version of him.--92.4.47.139 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many people may not know what 'Patronages of Saint George' means, and therefore it'd be nice if somebody went and gave the readers a brief definition next to the phrase. makeswell (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering whether a picture of Pistrucci's St. George and the Dragon design should be included in some section. Especially seeing as it has been on the British coins since c.1816 [albeit now only on non-circulating issues].
It is also probably the most widely recognised picture of St. George for the British population. (esp. for the middle-aged generations due to the festival of britain crown in 1951).
I feel coin designs are relevant. Many nations depict their core/historical values on coins. any thoughts?? Wuku (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some icons such as the one shown here or this bulgarian Orthodox or this Ethiopian church mural a small person is shown riding behind St. George. It is almost certainly not meant to be a child but follows a convention of using size to indicate importance - note the maiden at bottom left. Who is this person? And why is the saint almost invariably depicted riding from left to right? — RHaworth(talk·contribs)14:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a definite answer to the left to right question. But it was interesting to note that also here about 80% are left to right. I could guess that he holds the spear in the right hand, and that makes the depiction easier from left to right - but that would be a guess. He holds the sword in the RH also in the statues. So I guess he is a right handed saint.
Now, there are a few references for the "pillion rider" (who sometimes carries coffee or red wine!) but the final answer may be that:
There is no clear explanation for this common addition to St. George. David Talbot Rice, one of the great writers on Byzantine painting, noted that this figure only begins to appear from the 14th century
Since the definition of 'pagan' is:
"a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions."
To use it to denote the roman belief system of the time is quite inappropriate and confusing I would say.
When for instance it says: "every Christian soldier in the army should be arrested and every other soldier should offer a sacrifice to the Pagan gods" it leaves me in confusion what is meant with 'pagan gods'.
(and don't understand why the word pagan is capitalized either, but that's another matter).
And the various other times the word 'pagan' is used it also is unclear as to the exact information that is meant to be relayed.
Wwhat (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on the capitalization - I changed that and added a link. Now a reader who clicks on a pagan will get a definition: "blanket term, typically used to refer to polytheistic religious traditions." That is a pretty clear definition, except polytheistic perhaps, but that is an issue for the other page- I will check that, but I am not sure how to do any better, given that in most scholarly literature the Romans of the time are called pagans any way. But I changed the link to Hellenistic religion anyway to be super clear. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I thank you for your (History2007) care and consideration of my remarks I do think that to say "in most scholarly literature the Romans of the time are called pagans" is a bit of an odd argument, simply because there is a strong religious tendency amongst writers or because a mistake is common does not mean it is advisable to continue it.
The word pagan is actually popularized by the early Christians I understand and therefore obviously highly polarized, and since we (the western public using Wikipedia in English) are from a long history of Christian influence we must be careful when approaching such a subject when we are trying to be neutral about it.
And as your own link to 'pagan' on Wikipedia clearly indicates the meaning is loaded by its adopting by (early) Christians for their purpose of defining non-Christians and its use as a pejorative term.
I also don't see why in my originally quoted example the words have to be 'pagan gods' when obviously it's the roman gods that are meant, it's not like they could pick any non-christian god, right? (see the confusion?)
However I'm too unsure about the whole thing and consider my view of it as perhaps personal, and maybe it is clear to most, and therefore I leave it to others to decide what is best in the end. Wwhat (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article should mention the Sao George cult in Brasil - and his identification with the Yoruba Orisha ¨Ogun¨ see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orisha> and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogoun> and I quote from the second article ¨ He [Ogun/Ogoun] is also prominently represented as Saint George in the syncretic traditions of contemporary Brazil.¨ At least a mention of the brasilian manifestation with a link is merrited.
(Billallenallen (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Section 'Life of Saint George' includes text:
'A rather intriguing, alternative take on his early life is that he was born and raised in the "inner city living" metropolis of Newton O'er the Heath, more commonly known by the locals as, Newton Heath. Although this can neither be confirmed, nor denied, it is widely accepted he is in fact of "Newie" decent.'
My guess is that this is rubbish and should be removed.
HLCMad (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently reads
"The grateful citizens abandon their ancestral paganism and convert to Christianity."
while the 'Saint George and the Dragon' article reads
"The princess and Saint George led the dragon back to the city of Silene, where it terrified the people at its approach. But Saint George called out to them, saying that if they consented to become Christians and be baptised, he would slay the dragon before them.".
I think "The citizens were forced to convert to Christianity." would be more accurate. Qube0 (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the adjective "grateful" from the text. From reading the original source text, neither point of view is presented clearly, it is not said that force was used and it was not explicitly said that they were grateful. However, the actions of the people after that point seem to indicate sincerity and gratefulness, but especially since it is a primary source, we are not permitted to draw conclusions like that, it is considered original research. So I have left the wording neutral. Elizium23 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence (on-line) to support the statement that St. George is the patron saint of Tamworth. There is a big St. George festival in Tamworth, Staffordshire, but all the references I can find to that say that the celebration is in honor of George being the patron of England. If someone has a better reference than I could find, that would be great. If it's not Tamworth, Staffordshire, I'd like to know which Tamworth (disambiguation) he is the patron of. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read from a travel guide (not the most reliable source!) that Saint George is no longer an official saint, because he really never existed. I googled a lot, but did not find anything concrete to prove or disprove this. 193.166.223.5 (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until the Holy Office says he is not travel guides do not matter. He is still on the saints calendar. As a side note, dropping him as a saint will be very expensive for the Vatican, with all the festival changes, etc. that will cut into donations. So do not bet on it. History2007 (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has been demoted a lot in recent decades, as the article sort of covers. I think at one point they tried to drop him altogether but had to backtrack after protests. I'm not sure the article is fully up to date on this. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was common for the Romans to allow pagans to continue worshiping their own deities. This would explain the widespread appearance of St. George as a patron saint and makes more sense than the story of an historical soldier. I have added a paragraph to the section about St.George and the dragon: There is some evidence linking the legend back to very old Egyptian and Phoenician sources in a late antique statue of Horus fighting a "dragon". This ties the legendary George and to some extent, the historical George, to various ancient sources using mythological and linguistic arguments. In Egyptian mythology, the god Setekh murdered his brother Osiris. Horus, the son of Osiris, avenged his father's death by killing Setekh. This iconography of the horseman with spear overcoming evil was widespread throughout the Christian period.[33] (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly more significant is Imperial imagery such as the Barberini ivory, or Perseus and Andromeda - all discussed at length here. Don't get too excited by the possibility of religious continuity - there is actually a long gap between anybody being very interested in Horus & the emergence of the George images. Many such parallels are much more about visual continuity, and sometimes the actual re-purposing of pagan images, where Christians can sometimes be caught in the act, as in the case of the statue at Caesarea Philippi that you can read about here, and various engraved gems later treated as images of Christian figures. The para should be adjusted considerably, but then so should much of the article, the lead for a start. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In Islamic cultures" Slayed a dragon at the beginning of the 20th century?
The "In Islamic Cultures" section ends with the rather strange statement "He is said to have killed a dragon near the sea in Beirut and at the beginning of the 20th century". I think someone aught to explain how exactly Saint George managed to travel almost two thousand years into the future. Seriously, though, someone should either correct that date or remove/fix that sentence (as it kind of comes out of nowhere and doesn't make sense). Pro-Apocalyptic (talk)
You didn't quote the entire sentence. Your fragment ends with a comma. It reads "He is said to have killed a dragon near the sea in Beirut and at the beginning of the 20th century, Muslim women used to visit his shrine in the area to pray for him.". Inserting another comma after "Beirut" should suffice. Elizium23 (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section was misplaced to begin with. There appears to be a tradition linking St. George to Beirut, but this is by no means universal. There appear to have been numerous shrines all over the Holy Land in the medieval period, and the one in Beirut would seem to be one of these. With proper references, it will be enough to mention it in this context, but it certainly doesn't get a separate h2 section.
In fact, there are so many shrines that it may not be possible to make such a list a sub-topic of Patronages of Saint George, let alone this article. Extremely notable shrines can be mentioned in context in prose, but clearly people are coming here to tout their local shrines, which is bound to break the article.
Take it to Patronages of Saint George, and if it gets out of hand there create "List of shrines to Saint George" as a sub-page. --dab(𒁳)14:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added on Dec. 13, 2016, the text from the beginning of this subsection through "and perished immediately" is not appropriate in its present form for Wikipedia. It contains only a single footnote, and portions of it are directly copied from that source. It does not read like encyclopedic text, but rather as a passage from a scriptural or heroic source. It should be deleted, and then possibly some judiciously selected information from the source might be added back in encyclopedic form to the Muslim section. DonFB (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 8 external links on Saint George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change this:
George is venerated by Jews, Christians and Muslims because of his composite personality combining several Biblical, Quranic and other ancient mythical heroes.
The whole section is inaccurate - This is an article about St George and not Elijah the prophet. He does not have a composite personality for most Christians and Muslims and in particular George is not venerated by Jews at allViddy300 (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC). Please change to:[reply]
George is venerated by some Christians and Muslims because of his composite personality combining several Biblical, Quranic and other ancient mythical heroes. Viddy300 (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change:
William Dalrymple, reviewing the literature in 1999, tells us that [[J. E.
Hanauer]] in his 1907 book Folklore of the Holy Land: Muslim, Christian and Jewish "mentioned a shrine in the village of Beit Jala, beside Bethlehem, which at the time was frequented by Christians who regarded it as the birthplace of St. George and by Jews who regarded it as the burial place of the Prophet Elias.
William Dalrymple, reviewing the literature in 1999, tells us that J. E. Hanauer in his 1907 book Folklore of the Holy Land: Muslim, Christian and Jewish mentioned a shrine in the village of Beit Jala, beside Bethlehem, which at the time was frequented by Christians who regarded it as the birthplace of St. George and by some Jews who regarded it as the burial place of the Prophet Elijah.
Comments
(a) the prophet's name is 'Elijah'
(b) it is not a direct quote
(c) I have checked the reference and it has nothing to do with St George. It is correct that there is a shrine that some treated at that time as the birth of the prophet Elijah - though it had no official status in any religion so it is misleading to say 'Jews regarded it' (some Jews perhaps).
The whole section on St George and Elijah needs to be edited down to a note that at some times St George was treated as connected with Elijah, rather than including all this material about Elijah as though it obviously applies to St George. Viddy300 (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, George and Mithras, divinity of the Moon and for the Romans is associated with Sol Invictus divinity of the Sun and the invincible sun of the truth of reality and justice and the birth of Jesus and George the Christ and the reincarnation of Saint Nicholas in Santa Claus and Nicola and the bad spirit the soul of the devil demon of children's gifts incarnations George there are sources of St. George who created Christianity there are sources on the internet of all kinds. -- Uhioj (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed and in England the 1222 Synod of Oxford declared Saint George's Day a feast day in the kingdom of England.[citation needed], (Although this is in conflict with the article at St George's Day.) from the article text, since it's disputed and in conflict with sourced content at the Saint George's Day article. I don't have immediate access to the sources used in that article, but if somebody who does could check and rework this fragment as appropriate that would be appreciated. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The opening section of the article contains not a single citation and is quite unclear in which claims it makes are historically verifiable, and which are part of unsupported legends. This badly needs a fix.
I agree with the OP. These claims need citations or should be removed. (It is not clear why Johnbod mentions WP:LEAD - what does Johnbod want the OP to see there?) In general, I don't think the lead is the appropriate place to discuss an article subject's parents anyway: this does not seem like lead material. Doctormatt (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That it is perfectly normal not to have citations in the lead (of course). Reporting tradition is inevitable in this area, and the article is clear that is what they are. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is normal to not have citations in the lead as long as the information is cited in the body of the article. The parents' names (and other information) are not mentioned again in the article, and are therefore completely uncited. Reporting tradition is fine, but it still needs to be cited: who says this is the tradition? This information needs citations. Doctormatt (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for St George being the patron saint of Ukraine, as stated in the article? The best I could find was this page from the website of Ukrainian Greek Catholic church that described him as the patron of Western Ukraine:
[7]
At the Orthodox Wiki the article on George is entitled "George the Trophy-bearer", though this is not explained in the text, and is absent from the Greek version of the page. I've been able to find no explanation of this anywhere, in fact. I assume that in Greek it would be «Γεώργιος ο Τροπαιούχος». In a poem by Ελλη Παιονίδου (Elli Paionidou), she refers to «Αϊ Γιώργη τον Μαντατοφόρο» (St George the Messenger), but again I can find no explanation of this (it might be significant that the newsletters of various churches dedicated to George are called "Messenger").
Update: The Greek Wiki glosses «Τροπαιούχος» as «στρατιωτικός» (roughly, "soldier"). That's clear enough, and it seems that the article at the English "Orthodox Wiki" has mistranslated the term «Τροπαιούχος». I'm still left floundering with regard to «Αϊ Γιώργη τον Μαντατοφόρο», though. --Bibliosporias (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can find a source for the claim that Dacian killed Saint George, but only as a primary source, from a translation of the text itself. Does anyone have a good secondary source that they can find? Tooncool64 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Dalrymple, who reviewed the literature in 1999, tells us that J. E. Hanauer in his 1907 book Folklore of the Holy Land: Muslim, Christian and Jewish "mentioned a shrine in the village of Beit Jala, beside Bethlehem, which at the time was frequented by Christians who regarded it as the birthplace of George and some Jews who regarded it as the burial place of the Prophet Elias. According to Hanauer, in his day the monastery was "a sort of madhouse. Deranged persons of all the three faiths are taken thither and chained in the court of the chapel, where they are kept for forty days on bread and water, the Eastern Orthodox priest at the head of the establishment now and then reading the Gospel over them, or administering a whipping as the case demands." In the 1920s, according to Tawfiq Canaan's Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine, nothing seemed to have changed, and all three communities were still visiting the shrine and praying together."
Dalrymple himself visited the place in 1995. "I asked around in the Christian Quarter in Jerusalem, and discovered that the place was very much alive. With all the greatest shrines in the Christian world to choose from, it seemed that when the local Arab Christians had a problem – an illness, or something more complicated – they preferred to seek the intercession of George in his grubby little shrine at Beit Jala rather than praying at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem or the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem." He asked the priest at the shrine "Do you get many Muslims coming here?" The priest replied, "We get hundreds! Almost as many as the Christian pilgrims. Often, when I come in here, I find Muslims all over the floor, in the aisles, up and down."
The last paragraph of St. George and the dragon includes "The name Ascalon was used by Winston Churchill for his personal aircraft ... according to records at Bletchley Park.". Until November 2019 there doesn't appear to have been a supporting citation of BP. The citation added by MoreMaps[1] doesn't mention Bletchley Park. Searching Ascalon and LV633 (mentioned by the IWM[2] and various other webpages in addition to Avro York#VIP service) at BP's archives[3] for doesn't lead to the plane being mentioned. Should the BP mention be kept? Mcljlm (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
