Talk:Dubricius

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Saints Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars 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.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography 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 King Arthur This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics 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.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Seems unlikely that he was born in 465 and died in 612... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that if his death date is taken to be 612, you would have to move the speculative birth date up as well. I doubt as well that he lived to the age of 147. Alekjds ^talk 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Arthurian scholar Norma Lorre Goodrich ..." Oh, really? Goodrich's so-called "scholarship" has been soundly discredited by real scholars. Goodrich's versions of the Arthurian mythos are creative and imaginative, but surely they have nothing to do with scholarship. Can anyone cite any peer-reviewed work by Goodrich about Merlin, or are her fairy-tales being presented as actual academic studies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, she's more than a bit off the wall, but there's no reason to get angry at the guy fopr referencing her. Besides, she's made one or two good point behind all the fluff. -G.T.N. 02:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that level of impoliteness is not appropriate. But the anon is right; Goodrich's works are not reliable sources, and therefore cannot be used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read Goodrich's book and her dramatic rebuttals of all the false information on Merlin/St Dubricius (one and the same person) are sure to raise the ire of academicia that have been repeating the same old claptrap for hundreds of years. Norma provides intensive references and she provides all the evidence on both sides of the story. Then she systematically goes and demolishes all the false information by showing the contradictions in these sources. She should be lauded and praised for showing that the Lady Of the Lake was a masterful healer and would never even consider murdering her teacher, master and friend Merlin/Dubricius. She exposed all the medieval slander and hatred of women and resultant slander against the Magnificent Lady Of The Lake. Sorry I strongly disagree with you. Of course "real" scholars would attempt to discredit her when she exposes them for repeating all the slander that has occurred for many centuries against the Lady Of the Lake and even Merlin aka St Dubricius. She points out the hatred that existed against educated, extremely intelligent and masterful women from 300 AD up to almost the present age, and may I suggest this is persisting in the belittling of Goodrich. 76.171.150.240 (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Dr Raymond Schep.[reply]

Is this really the guy's common name? Generally English only favors Latin for the classical era and would now tend to call this guy Dyfrig... — LlywelynII 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Cath. Enc. calls him "Dubric".

Google says... (+saint -wikipedia -wiki)

...well, that's annoying. Because the scholarly works always cite his Latin name, you get

Dubricius 17k

Dyfrig 42k

Dubric 104k

on the general web but

326 & 597

215 & 201

288 & 251

for books and scholar. Weirdly, his ngram is very strong for Dubricius in the 1700s but now uses Dubric 4x more. Unless there's some unrelated meaning of Dubric... — LlywelynII 21:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guess there is. Nevermind... [Will refocus the lede, though.] — LlywelynII 21:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the Welsh saints are referred to in modern English by their vernacular modern Welsh names (exceptions are generally those with much larger cults). This is what is current best academic practice in medieval hagiographical studies see the edn of the Liber Landavensis vita here: https://saints.wales/theedition/. See also the index of Seintiau Cymru Sancti Cambrenses:Astudiaethau ar Seintiau Cymru Studies in the Saints of Wales ed. David Parsons and Paul Russell, (Aberystwyth, 2022) p. 383. Modern dedications to Dyfrig also use his modern Welsh name :St Dyfrig's Church, Treforest [1]https://www.churchinwales.org.uk/en/structure/church/4523/ Trinihid (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]