Talk:Saint David/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism removed

I am removing the sentence "St David is the bomb" from the text as there are no known instances of St David exploding. That and the statement is POV. Shearluck 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

contradiction

There's a contradiction of dates in this article. Quoting:

He lived during the 5th century A.D. (date of death march 1st probably 601).

"Fifth century" properly applies to the years from 401 to 500. If David had died in AD 601, he would have been considered a figure of the sixth century.

Could one of the Cymru recheck these dates? I'll eventually get around to this, but I never seem to have enough time, & I'm not sure if the sources I have at hand could resolve this problem to my satisfaction. -- llywrch 18:42 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Second International has "ab. 500-600", so i am changing it accordingly. --Jerzy(t) 11:31, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

What is the basis for the reference to Pelagianism in Rhygyfarch's time? I thought Pelagianism was a 4th-6th century teaching, long ignored by 1050.

((Pachiaammos))

---

According to the "New Advent" Catholic Encyclopedia:- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04640b.htm

"a tenth-century manuscript Of the "Annales Cambriae", which assigns his death to A.D. 601. Many other writers, from Geoffrey of Monmouth down to Father Richard Stanton, hold that he died about 544, but their opinion is based solely on data given in various late "lives" of St. David"

Maxx 15:31, 2004 Nov 10 (GMT)

Canonised by Calixtus II or not?

In his book Twice to St. David's (1995), David James writes that "the cult of David was recognised by Pope Calixtus II; strictly a recognition and not a canonisation of the founder [David]." What's going on here? aliceinlampyland 18:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

More grist for the mill... The Catholic Encyclopaedia (1914? - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04640b.htm) states "St. David was canonized by Pope Callistus II in the year 1120", but by the time of the writing of the text at http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=220 this had been watered down to "his cult was approved in 1120 by Pope Callistus II". It would be interesting to know more about the history of canonisation in the church. Was there a formal process in the twelfth century in the same way as there is today? --Casper Gutman 09:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Virgin Birth

Over at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-w-std.html they claim that St David was conceived when a saintly woman, Non, was raped by chieftan named Sant. Anyone have any ideas on what's up in that area? User:Wat Tyler

Not sure about the "virgin birth" heading above - I've never seen anyone claim that about St David (though I'm no expert!). As for the claim Wat relates above, it doesn't seem to disagree in any big way with the article as it stands. Sandde vs. Sant is pretty close, and I fancy "conceived through violence" in the article is a nice way of avoiding the word "rape". I wouldn't avoid the issue myself, if that's what the story is it should be related clearly. --Casper Gutman 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the article, as it now stands, does not mention much of the legend of David's conception, birth, and lineage. I feel that this needs to be changed, since St. Non is important in her own right, and since Welsh hagiography in general places great importance on the lineage of saints. St. David is said to be descended from the line of Cunedda and the line of Brychan, both of which are listed in the Triads as 'Saintly Lineages of the Island of Britain'. Moreover, it seems strange to not include even a passing mention of the (rather strange) tale of David's conception. And yes, it clearly says in both the Welsh and Latin Lives of St. David that Non was raped.Dignifiedrice (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Herbs

We say that his monastic rule prescribed the eating of only bread with salt and herbs. Sorry to make such a fuss about something so minor, but I am a little worried about what is meant by ‘herbs’. Today we mostly use the word to refer to aromatic (and/or medicinal) herbs like thyme and sage. I suspect here that it may have been intended to refer more broadly to ‘greens’. It would be a bit odd to allow fenugreek leaves while banning spinach (and leeks). —Ian Spackman 16:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Stigmata?

The (nineteenth-century) image used to illustrate the article appears to show a stigmatized right hand. Is this right? If so so it would predate any claim made on our current Stigmata page by several centuries. —Ian Spackman 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a jewel on his glove. Walgamanus 08:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: now I can see it. —Ian Spackman 12:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Patronage

St david is also the patron Saint of oylegate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.196.174 (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous insertion of British Isles

Hi, an editor has gratuitously inserted the term British Isles into this article. It is not required, and is really a thinly disguised excuse to insert a term that many disagree with, in an unnecessary manner. Recent discussions around guidelines at WP:BISLES shows this editor to accuse any editor correcting usage of the term British Isles to have a political agenda. I'd appreciate someone else having a look at this. --HighKing (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've had a look at this. It is not gratuitous insertion of the term British Isles, it is insertion of material that adds to the information delivered by the article. We all know you don't like the term British Isles and that's the only reason you seek not to have it in this article. LemonMonday (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for any regular editor on what they think. Anyone? --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor of this article, but it certainly doesn't look gratuitous or unnecessary to me. Since St Patrick was not a native of Ireland, it seems perfectly reasonable to replace Great Britain in this article with a term that includes Ireland. And, like it or not, "British Isles" remains the normal term for that purpose outside Ireland. That said, the fact it's not favoured in Ireland obviously makes it problematic. Sadly, there isn't any good alternative. How about we change it to the slightly unwieldy, but presumably acceptable, "Great Britain and Ireland"? garik (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Garik, thank you for responding. I called the edit gratuitous because the article didn't even mention Patrick before the edit - and the sole purpose of the inclusion of Patrick appears to merely insert the term "British Isles" into an article. By consensus on Wikipedia, British Isles is a geographic term, and guidelines were drawn up at a task force WP:BISLES - using British Isles in an article about patron saints of countries is incorrect - country names should be used instead. But first ask, does the article require mentioning Patrick at all - I think it does not. The article was fine when it just talked about British saints. If the consensus is to mention non-British saints because it shows how common it is that a patron saint often comes from outside the country, then why not include European saints such as Joseph, patron saint of Belgium, or Denis (born in Italy) patron saint of France, etc. If the consensus is to keep Patrick, it is probably better to stick with country names since they are patron saints of countries and not geographical regions, so I would recommend using "UK and Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not find the use of the term British Isles in this respect to be gratuitous.

The unique location (geographical and strategic) within Europe of the geographical entity known as the British Isles, as well as the historical association and interaction of the main constituent islands of Great Britain and Ireland unequivocally lends itself to usage in many non-geographical respects, and comparison and contrast between each of the element-states of the British Isles is therefore quite valid and need not necessarily be inferred as determining any political unity, or disunity, or aspiration towards such unity or disunity between each, any or all of those individual elements.

Having said that, it would be appropriate to emphasise the uniqueness of St David in the terms stated by the inclusion in the section of Saint Maughold, the Patron Saint of the Isle of Man, who was also not a native of the land of his patronage, and may serve to ameliorate the issue which has been raised. --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) in the context of this article alone the insertion is not gratuitous and given that Patrick came from the St David's area has some additional value. Including Maughold sounds a good idea. However it should be noted that in a wider context, the insertion is gratuitous with a small group of editors inserting British Isles at the least excuse on many pages. --Snowded TALK 09:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This (probably rare) insertion of British Isles into an article is entirely valid; it adds to the overall context. How it can be regarded as gratuitous is beyond me. You state "However it should be noted that in a wider context, the insertion is gratuitous with a small group of editors inserting British Isles at the least excuse on many pages.". Please provide evidence of this. Conversely, if you want evidence of the deletion of British Isles at the least excuse on many pages, see this - Contributions by HighKing. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My view is a plague on both your houses, insertions and deletions based on a token word rather than the context of the article. Maybe I should have said pathetic rather than gratuitous. --Snowded TALK 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Name

The article says "Saint David (c. 500–589) (Welsh: Dewi Sant)", but my Welsh teacher says that Dewi is a diminutive and the proper translation of David in Welsh is "Dafydd". Change needed? Deipnosophista (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Patron Saint - when and by whom?

When was David named "Patron Saint of Wales" and by whom? Was it more recent that we might think?

The Church in Wales and Church of England have a difficulty with the whole concept of patron saints; as Protestants we cannot accept that dead saints can "advocate in heaven of a nation, place, craft, activity, class, or person", but can put his name on churches and so forth.

The article ought to say whether it is a longstanding attribution or something the Church of England or the Church in Wales declared, or by popular acclamation, or whether it is just a Romish thing.

Does anyone have a source on that?

Howard Alexander (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Farmer (Oxford Dictionary of Saints), David was regarded as patron saint of Wales since the 12th century. His cult, however, is older and started in Pembrokeshire. The oldest recorded evidence comes from Ireland (c. 730). The cult was approved by Callistus II in 1120. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dewi

Why should Dewi redirect here? Dewi is a common forename in Wales so why should it redirect to "Dewi Sant". George, Patrick and Andrew all link to the forename not the saint. I propose to create an article for the forename "Dewi". Who is with me? IJA (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. AJRG (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How he died

He may have died in a battle but is not certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.114.206 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean to say venerated by Western rite Orthodox?

If he is an Orthodox saint, he's an Orthodox saint - the distinction makes no sense and does not follow normal usage of the idea of rites in the Orthodox Church. Is this to imply that there is no formal commemoration within any of the Eastern Rite calendars? That is not the same thing and quite possibly not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.195.198 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Saint Piran

Consensus on Wikipedia grants Saint Piran the status of a national patron saint, albeit marginally. Saint Piran's Flag is the recognised flag of Cornwall, one of the Celtic nations, and St Piran's Day is widely recognised as the national day. AJRG (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please show where that consensus is recorded - as I understand it, its not 100% agreed that he is Patron Saint of Cornwall --Snowded ^TALK 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the articles I quoted, but the easiest answer is to quote the Welsh Wicipedia which lists Dewi Sant as Nawddsant Cymru (Patron Saint of Wales) and Sant Piran as Nawddsant Cernyw (Patron Saint of Cornwall). AJRG (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For other English Wikipedia examples, see Mount St. Piran and Piran (disambiguation). AJRG (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On this basis I've added back Saint Piran, and also added Saint Maughold as suggested by JohnArmagh earlier and supported by Snowded. AJRG (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not a national saint. Its far from clear that there is any recognition that it is widely recognised as a national day. Please get agreement here before making further changes.--Snowded ^TALK 22:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"There are claims that the patron saint of Cornwall is Saint Michael or Saint Petroc, but Saint Piran is by far the most popular of the three and his emblem is internationally recognised as the flag of Cornwall." Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 17 For examples of what children in schools are being taught, try [1] and [2]. I've given evidence of consensus on Wikipedia - whereas you haven't yet cited any reliable source for your position. AJRG (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to accept that Saint Piran is the most popular and the patron saint of Cornwall. However they are not one of the national saints of the British Isles, there are only four countries there, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England. You have to find a citation that supports the inclusion I am afraid. --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Countries and nations are different things. Deacon, Cole and Tregidga (2003) describe Cornwall as politically incorporated into the English realm but culturally regarded as a distinct nation. See, for example, The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?, Cornwall, Great Britain A Celtic Nation, Peoples and nations today: Cornwall, The Nations within Britain and Royal charters applying to Cornwall. AJRG (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Cornwall as a celtic nation fine (I have defended that) as a distinct cultural entity fine. But its not enough to establish that St Piran is one of the National Saints of the British Isles. If you find a reference which says that, and its reliable then fine. Otherwise your argument is OR. --Snowded ^TALK 14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't yet cited any reliable source for your position. AJRG (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "national saint" the same as "saint of a nation"? And if Saint Piran is the patron saint of the nation and county of Cornwall, doesn't that make him a saint of one of the nations of Britain? --Joowwww (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Its OR to say that, you need something which brackets Piran with David, Patrick, George and Andrew to establish the point. AJRG, there is no requirement to provide a source to prove a negative. --Snowded ^TALK 22:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to take a position, you need to be able to support it. New citation which brackets Piran with David, Patrick, George and Andrew BBC Christian Calendar for 2010 . AJRG (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do they have any official status? --Joowwww (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you check the references on their pages yes, although I am not sure what point you are trying to make --Snowded ^TALK 22:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble deciphering exactly what your issue is. Is it the inclusion of the word "national" or the inclusion of Saint Piran? --Joowwww (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in question contrasts David with Patrick, George and Andrew is respect of birth. I don't see what relevance Piran has in that sentence. --Snowded ^TALK 23:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you see any relevance? I'm not trying to be awkward I'm just finding you rather cryptic. --Joowwww (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well for a start its not clear where Piran was born. Its also not normal to bracket Piran with David/George/Andrew/Patrick as they stand to the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. --Snowded ^TALK 23:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

But the context is not the United Kingdom, it is the British Isles. I don't see place of birth as an area that should cause much knicker twisting, he is widely considered to have come from Ireland. I don't think there are many birth certificates from the 6th century. --Joowwww (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And in the context of "British Isles" the case for Cornwall is less, that is normally Scotland, Wales, England and the island of Ireland. --Snowded ^TALK 23:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How is Cornwall's administrative status relevant? The sentence is talking about patron saints of the British Isles. Plus I see no reference to any official status in the David, Andrew or Patrick articles. --Joowwww (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

St Piran's flag is widely identified as 'The Cornish Flag ' and it was the basis for the recently invented 'St David's Flag' which simply turned the cross golden instead of white, so if it happens to be the case that the Cornish unite to acclaim St Piran to be their patron saint that is surely their own business, provided that they recognise that he is not solely a Cornish possession e.g. in the old borough of Cardiff the guild chapel in the town hall was dedicated to St Piran, so as I understand it St Piran is also the patron saint of Cardiff. Fairly obviously very popular with seafarers I'd say DaiSaw (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

Why not delete the words "In contrast with the other national patron saints of the British Isles, Saints George, Andrew and Patrick..." ? They don't really add anything to an article about someone else entirely. It would also avoid any arguments over the "BI" term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it is notable you know,the only native born. But i'm open to discussion on how to phrase it. --Snowded ^TALK 23:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AJRG (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it notable to a biography of St. David? The main text of the article doesn't seem to mention it at all, and therefore it shouldn't be in the lead lede anyway. I know you're arguing about how to phrase it - I'm suggesting that the argument is unnecessary, and it would be a better article without the comparison being made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: The statement "David is a native of the country of which he is patron saint" is untrue anyway. Even if it said "...was..." it would be highly debatable as to whether Wales could, at the time he lived, be described as a "country". If it simply said "David was a native of Wales....", it might (just about) be acceptable. The problem arises because the sentence is a sort of irrelevant tourist board factoid tacked onto what is otherwise a scholarly article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The PS is a good point. He was born within the boundaries of the country of which he is the national saint, others were not. However Patrick lived most of his life in Ireland, which would be another argument for change. I do feel that there is some notability in the co-location though. I really need to pack and get ready for a day of meetings before flying back to the UK and can't for the moment think of the best way of dealing with this. Happy for you to edit along the above lines. --Snowded ^TALK 23:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll only make changes if there is a consensus with the pro-Piran editors. And it will have to wait till the morning anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support either the inclusion of Piran or the entire removal of the sentence. I still don't see any legitimate reason for exclusion of Piran. --Joowwww (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The BBC Christian Calendar for 2010 brackets Piran with David, Patrick, George and Andrew. AJRG (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

along with St Swithan, St Basil, Acquinas and Edward - its just a list of saints days, no relevance to what is being discussed here that I can see. --Snowded ^TALK 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It lists Dewi Sant as patron saint of Wales, Piran as patron saint of Cornwall, St Patrick as patron saint of Ireland, St George as patron saint of England and St Andrew as patron saint of Scotland, Greece and Russia. Only those national patron saints are listed. AJRG (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As per multiple conversations on your NLP Association page you really need to read WP:OR. --Snowded ^TALK 12:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived. AJRG (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly --Snowded ^TALK 12:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole sentence? I see no problem with a sentence stating, simply: "David was a native of Wales, and a relatively large amount of information is known about his life." Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine too. --Joowwww (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

deal --Snowded ^TALK 00:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be off to sort out Israel and Palestine next.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted the most recent edit. It was a clear attempt to edit out the words British Isles for no good reason. In fact, GMyrtle suggests as much above. Maybe the current version needs sourcing, but I see no advantage in removing facts just to eliminate a phrase the some don't like. Mister Flash (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense - the aim was to get a consensus wording, which is what was achieved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No. You're the one talking nonsense. I quote, "It would also avoid any arguments over the "BI" term." In other words, get rid. As with all the anti-BI brigade, you edit not necessarily to improve an article but in some cases to push a particular POV. Your statement says it all. Mister Flash (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And another thing - consensus! You are joking aren't you. The debate lasted less than 24 hours and the main contributors were two noted BI deletionists; you and Snowded. I'm reverting your revert pending a wider discussion here. Mister Flash (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

More. I notice this article has been targetted before [3]. Mister Flash (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion. My suggestion was that the section be deleted because: "...the words "In contrast with the other national patron saints of the British Isles, Saints George, Andrew and Patrick..." ...don't really add anything to an article about someone else entirely." The "BI" issue was entirely a side-issue, which was not raised in any of the subsequent discussion, and which was emphatically not any part of the reason for the change being made. Your other "allegations" as to my motives are utterly unfounded, so I'll ignore them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I did read it all, but I still wonder why you mentioned BI - It does say something about motives, side issue or not. Revert if you want, but I would just suggest that less than 24 hours is not sufficient to gain a consensus. Mister Flash (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the original sentence was fine since it conveyed an interesting fact, regardless of any other issue. I would, however, suggest not including St Piran in the list. Mister Flash (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned BI - it wasn't relevant to the issue, which was to resolve the question of whether the list should be extended. The consensus was to delete the list, as not relevant to this article. So, the choice now is whether to accept that consensus, or go back to discussions on whether Piran and others should be added to a list which in my view, as I said, is not relevant to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: .....or, as a further compromise, to take the (in my view, trivial and irrelevant) words out of the lede, and reinstate them (or something similar) further down the article, for instance in the "Reputation" section. Incidentally, unless I missed it, the article doesn't seem to explain how or why he became patron saint of Wales (maybe because it is deemed to be obvious). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a libellous statement, I have never deleted "British Isles" from any article without consensus. --Joowwww (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Flash is a single purpose editor Joowwww with a track record of abusive comments. I placed a warning on his page. --Snowded ^TALK 07:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite laughable. First off - Joowww, I wasn't talking about you. If you read my remarks you'll see I specifically mentioned Snowded and Ghmyrtle. The former spends a considerable amount of time at a special page designed to curb use of British Isles at Wikipedia, while the latter has, in the past, made no secret of his preference not to use the term. Next - these comments are no where near libellous, nor are they, as Snowded claims on my talk page, abusive. I would admit to their being "strong", but that's about it. Next - I am not a SPA, though my primary interest at the moment is to stand up for BI usage in the face of a continuing and long-term campaign against it. I offered a revert, which Ghmyrtle was generous enough not to use, so I assume he would have continued the discussion here at some point, but Snowded jumped at the chance to remove BI again. I have no real opinion on the St Piran issue, save to say it probably doesn't make sense to lump him in with the other saints. Mister Flash (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really "generosity" on my part - more "can't-be-arsed"-ness. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowded was not particularly concerned about BI to be honest, and on the project page he currently has around a 50-50 record of supporting and opposing the use of BI as a word. --Snowded ^TALK 11:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, I misread "two noted BI deletionists; you and Snowded" for "two noted BI deletionists, you and Snowded". --Joowwww (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Vegan?

Saint David is currently listed on both Category:Christian vegans and Category:Christian vegetarians. He only needs to be listed on one of these. Is there any evidence that he was vegan? If so, it should be noted and referenced in the article. If not, it would be prudent to list him only on Category:Christian vegetarians. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there is evidence for either category - if someone can't find anything they should both be deleted --Snowded ^TALK 17:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Saint David

Saint David, born 510 in Ceredigion (mid-west wales) of the Cunedda bloodline died in 589 aged 79. Of crimes against humanity: (530 to 550 CE) That a Christian army under commission from Pope Hormisdas and commanded by Dawi (St David) of Anglo-Saxon Christians did finally defeat the resistance of the Welsh through a combination of horrific torture, using the techniques of St. Patrick by constantly maintaining human sacrifice on hills in the view of resisters and secondly by starvation, rape and infanticide. Approximately 200,000 to 300,000 Welsh were slaughtered by the Christian army, with the remaining inhabitants sold into slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.196.154 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Source? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems odd

Just curious why this comment: "John Davies notes that one can scarcely "conceive of any miracle more superfluous" in that part of Wales than the creation of a new hill." is where it is in the article and/or there at all to begin with. Not that I disagree with Davies' opinion that the 'miracle' was rather pointless... I'm just not sure what it adds to the article and if his opinion on the matter is worth noting. 99.113.116.35 (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's just a mildly amusing aside that neither adds to, nor detracts from, the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely adds to. It establishes the setting involved. As far as why his opinion is worth noting... well, go ahead and google the number of our pages that use him as a source on the country.  — LlywelynII 10:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Annales Cambriae

Seems like I should come up with a template to add to pages in this era.

The Welsh annals have no dates for this period.

They simply list everything as a series of yearly entries. The A text apparently starts in the middle of nowhere. The B text goes all the way back to the birth of Christ, but its dates are not the ones being used here. Instead, it's simply one possible reconstruction that was offered by a guy named Phillimore when he was editing the A text in 1888. If subsequent research has fixed David's death more precisely, it's just time to think about revising Phillimore's dating.

Fwiw, the actual B text gives Dewi's death as 569.  — LlywelynII 09:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Actually, this guy's transcription of the C text seems to show that it didn't use annual entries but clustered events within the supposed range of an emperor's reign. It places the saint's death between 559 and 583 and credits the Synod of Chester with elevating him to an archbishop (obviously Augustine's church wouldn't've approved, but it's possible the Welsh would've done it amongst themselves to avoid his authority).  — LlywelynII 10:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)