Talk:Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln

"......with ramifications that reach until today"

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

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 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)

• 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

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)

 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)

it’s extremely clear what they are saying and what they think needs to be changed actually. You are obfuscating clearly, likely because you have no agenda or bias. Peppapignig (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that's just the standard response. You'd need to write "change xxxx to xxxx". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and "Saint"

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)

I've replaced the infobox with infobox person. Valereee (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced this is right, as it obscures the historical status they had. Consistency is best. Is there a policy on infoboxes or is it a discretionary matter? Jim Killock (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Why aren't you convinced this is right? Other local "saints" use infobox person as well. glman (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

As I say standardisation would be my preference; the pause I have is simply that WP needs to be clear and consistent. Simon of Trent for instance details the cult in the infobox; William of Norwich, Harold of Gloucester, Robert of Bury also follow this pattern. Where and why they were venerated, that the cult was suppressed, etc, are important facts. William of Norwich presents it best, IMO stating plainly at the top "cult suppressed". Jim Killock (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it obscures the fact. The fact is mentioned in the lede's second sentence. But if you want to change it back to the saint infobox, I don't object. Do we have information that could fill in the "suppressed" parts? Valereee (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we need a larger discussion if we want to return. It's a misuse of the infobox IMO, as these figures were never venerated by the church. The only use for "suppressed" saints are those that venerated and then suppressed (such as Margaret the Virgin), while these figures were never saints in the first place. For example, putting "No" in the "canonized_date" box is clearly not intended usage of this infobox. glman (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, @Glman for The only use for "suppressed" saints are those that venerated and then suppressed (such as Margaret the Virgin), while these figures were never saints in the first place., I am not very familiar with these things. Okay, @JimKillock, maybe the solution for concerns about consistency, a discussion somewhere, maybe WT:MOS with notification to WP:WikiProject Catholicism, WP:WikiProject Infoboxes, Template talk:Infobox saint? Probably not something we can decide here at this obscure talk page. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a solid approach - we definitely need a wider consensus, as there are clearly several similar cases. glman (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I would also prefer a wider discussion.

To be clear tho, these children were "venerated" as "saints"; it is the case that they were never officially agreed to be saints by the Papacy, but the need for this step was a late development roughly dating to this period. Prior to that, it wasn't considered necessary for the central church to agree to someone's sainthood. Clearly some people including two English Kings did claim Hugh as a saint, for their own unpleasant reasons. His veneration as a saint is precisely how the idea of blood libel was circulated, thus making this less clear isn't entirely helpful, in my view.

However it is done, ensuring that their status is clear, accurate and relevant information about the cult is presented seems the most important thing. Jim Killock (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

“ While the fact this and other similar children were regarded as saints is repugnant[…]” Why is that repugnant? Peppapignig (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Because their "sainthood" comes from false blood libel narratives. glman (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Biased article

It is simply assumed without evidence that the accusations were false. 2601:6C3:8300:D50:16D2:5DC0:B933:BA7 (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)