Talk:Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Source 3[edit]

It does not seem reliable at all. It is basically a blog post. It hardly proves a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.154.158 (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This has gone Jim Killock (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

text[edit]

In the last para, who is Child, who sums things up? Martin

Francis James Child was probably the second-greatest collector of English folk songs, behind Cecil Sharp. I'd guess it was him. There are dozens of folk songs about Little Sir Hugh, and I'd be very surprised if Child didn't know several - possibly someone with access to a copy of the Child Ballads can check if any are in there? - Jacob Steel

Little Saint Hugh is definitely represented in the Child Ballads. One ballad is number 155. "Sir Hugh, or, The Jew's Daughter." I may be mistaken, but I think there is another as well, but I don't have that volume immediately at hand. Leprendun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.5.117 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It might also be mentioned that there is a Catholic saint named Hugh of Lincoln (c. 1135 - 1200) who may at some point need to be disambiguated. Hephaestos

I added a disambig block - which works if we're sure that "little sir hugh" never made it as far as being sainted. Martin

Without doubt, Hugh of Lincoln should go straight to Saint Hugh of Lincoln, not to Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, since Hugh was the earlier and more important. Hugh is the one compared with whom Little Hugh is 'little'. Anyone from anywhere near Lincoln would think first of St Hugh when Hugh of Lincoln was mentioned, if he ever got round to thinking of Little St Hugh. (RJP 19:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC))

Steeleye Span[edit]

Just wondered it says this is often corrupted to Little Sir Hugh. Do youthink the song of this name by Steeleye Span should be mentioned? It is definitely related to this (see the lyrics at [1] 84.67.16.155 20:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC) (This was me T.A Stevenson but I forgot to log in.

This is mentioned on the page about the song Sir Hugh instead. Jim Killock (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Death date[edit]

Should his death be given with an exact date? He went missing July 31 and his body was found August 29, he could've died at any point between those two days, and I doubt they had any reliable means of estimating time of death back then, so shouldn't it be just 1246-1255 without dates? XinaNicole (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, modified to say "Before". Jim Killock (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Needs some rewrite[edit]

When you compare this article with the articles on William of Norwich and Robert Bury you can see that this one needs help! The whole story about the King and the taxes etc. is without source and it sounds a little funny. If Henry didn't want the income, why did he sell the rights? Was he conspiring from the get go? It seems unlikely. Also, there is just a little bit too much certainty expressed on the blood libel side. It may be a blood libel, it may not. It might be a case of ritual murder, and who's to say some Jew didn't go off his rocker and do it. Eight hundred years later is a little late to be exculpating a whole race of people.Brechbill123 (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop filling various article talk pages with your unsourced claims that Jews might have actually done ritual murders. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't filled any talk pages. When every historical source in this case implicates "the Jews," the burden is on the revisionist to document an alternative theory.Brechbill123 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please proved reliable secondary sources that support your position. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely evidence is needed to prove that they did not in fact do it , considering that they were found guilty in court. No sources provided have given any evidence of innocence, merely the unfounded claims of the authors of secondary sources. Better sources necessary in order for the current article to remain valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerdic1096 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"......with ramifications that reach until today"[edit]

How so? The article doesn't explain this at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully the significance is clearer now. Jim Killock (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


Little Saint Hugh of LincolnHugh of Lincoln (blood libel) – Hugh was not a saint, and the title "Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln" is that used by the cult's proponents. Hugh of Lincoln is taken by the saint of that name, so it would need something in brackets for disambiguation, eg "Hugh of Lincoln (blood libel)", which reflects what happened (there is no controversy that this was a blood libel) Jim Killock (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP:NATURAL found in GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The very sources used in this article use this name - see Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedia, the Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society. Even Find a Grave agrees. Google Scholar shows that this is a common name for the child - even into the 2000s (see the search for Peter Dan's article on "COMPETING TRUTHS: ANTI-SEMITISM, BLOOD LIBEL AND THE MAINTENANCE OF EVIL" from 2008). If there is another common name that would be fine - but the mere fact that he was never officially declared a saint does not mean that we can't use the word saint in the title if most sources refer to him as such. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Common name in the sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.