Talk:Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln

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

Lincolnshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire 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.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Saints Low‑importance

	Saints portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British crime (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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.[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please proved reliable secondary sources that support your position. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"......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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln → Hugh 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)[reply]

Oppose WP:NATURAL found in GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose. Common name in the sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is no one source to support the statements in the article that the claim was false. Not one, yet it is stated several times as fact? These claims need to be changed to alleged or similar etc. No sources at all either way, so it cant be claimed to be a false claim? 2A00:23C4:22D:CA01:7C0C:9C9:58A1:AA60 (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and "Saint"[edit]

There's some need to follow standard practice on the Infobox and also to avoid reverts. While the fact this and other similar children were regarded as saints is repugnant, it is important to recognise that they had a status as a saint and not to effectively whitewash this fact. Likewise, we do not want to make it look like the veneration is an actual signal that there was something holy about the figure.

Also "Little Sir Hugh" the name of a later derived song, and not the name given to the putative saint while he was venerated.

What do pages on other unofficial saints do? Is there guidance somewhere? Jim Killock (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]