Talk:Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (talkcontribs) 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 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)[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]

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]

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