Talk:Prophecy of Melkin

Disputed

The article in its current form [1] makes it appear as if Melkin was an actual historical figure, or at least thought to have possibly been one. However, according to all mainstream academic sources I've seen, it is universally agreed that he is purely legendary and that his "prophecy" was a medieval hoax. Both his name and his prophecy appear in the written record only in John of Glastonbury's Cronica from the mid-14th century, and it is commonly assumed that John simply made him up.

The position currently referenced to "Griffin 2012", who seems to be trying to argue for an actual historical Melkin, is a WP:FRINGE position from an amateur grail seeker (the topic area of legends associated with Glastonbury unfortunately still attracts that kind of pseudohistorical speculation among modern amateurs.) For all I can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with reliable scholarship on this figure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

This article was moved without discussion, and it cannot be moved back? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also dispute the manner in which this article was rewritten, also with no discussion, Melkin is obviously notable in his own right, else why do the sources discuss him? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't discuss "him", because "he" didn't exist. The only thing reliable modern sources discuss is the various inventions medieval authors wrote about him, and all of that is only in the context of the "prophecy", which is the only thing tangible and real in the whole story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have also, again, used unnecessary blanket reverts re-introducing multiple obvious errors against trivial and uncontroversial fixes I had made. How about preserving the proper formatting of the verse layout? How about fixing the source attribution? (The translated text isn't found in "Carley 1994, p. 130" as your current footnote 4 claims. Actually, this misattribution is a rather serious blunder: the translation you used comes from the earlier edition by Robinson (1926), and is cited after him by many other authors, but Carley, to whom you misattribute it, is of course the editor of a different, newer edition and translation, so obviously if he wanted to cite the passage he'd do so using his own translation, not this one. His translation is found at Carley (1985 : 29f.) [2]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in the absence of any further discussion substantially addressing the challenges laid out here, in the maintenance tags and in the section above, I will revert the article to the corrected version again some time later today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]