Talk:Saint Guinefort

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

Untitled[edit]

Added a reference to Le Moine et la sorcière. I think someone who knows more about this than I ought to weave Fr. Etienne de Bourbon into the article proper, as he was the first man of letters to encounter and report on this phenomenon.--Themill 05:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "It was alleged by Catholic commentators, dismayed by the worship of a dog, that the locals sacrificed babies at the site." to "It was alleged by contemporary commentators that locals left their babies at the site to be healed by the dog, and sometimes the babies would be harmed by the rituals..." The people venerating the dog-saint were also Catholics, and the rumour was of people leaving babies to be healed, not sacrificing them. Added quote from Stephen of Bourbon to back this up. --yewtree (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration of St. Guinefort[edit]

I've removed previous image which was labeled as one of St. Guinefort. It was actually an illumination from Livre de chase by the Count of Foix, mostly known as Gaston Phoebus, and particularly an image of himself. I have illustrations which allude to this Medieval dog-saint, tho alas, still figuring out how to upload! GetMedievalWithMevanwy (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Connection to St. Christopher?[edit]

The Dutch version of this article claims (without sources) that the name Guinefort may be a perversion of "Cynephor", which is somehow a variant of Cynoceph, suggesting that the cult was somehow confusedly founded on veneration of St. Christopher who, being from Canaan, was formerly often depicted as canine, with a dog's head. The first link at the bottom of this article may well be that source, but I don't know how credible it is. Does anyone else have a source for this name derivation that seems more citable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.56.176 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

It would be nice to know where its grave is. "Near Lyons" is rather vague. Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources[edit]

Hello 7&6=thirteen, per WP:BRD I removed some of your additions to this article here, explaining in the edit summary that I assess those four “sources” to be self-published sources. Per BRD, you should Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes ... (bolding mine). Now I have commenced the discussion on your behalf, if you still feel these sources are worthy of inclusion please outline what evidence you have of their reliability. Cavalryman (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Agh, I now see that instead of commencing this discussion, you have elected to WP:CANVASS your friends here and here.
If you edit any articles on this list, it is likely I will see them here. As a member of WP:DOGS, you may have been aware of this. Cavalryman (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Huh? You've said it all.
These are reliable sources that parallel and corroborate the other sources. They add a little more context and dimension.
We will have to see what other editors say. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take it from your above response you are either unwilling or incapable of presenting any policy based rationale for including these sources. Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
And links which you nuked. Please outline why they are unworthy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thirteen, it is best that we keep content and conduct separate. I have stated three times now why I do not believe the sources are reliable, twice in edit summaries and once above. What evidence do you have that they are reliable? Cavalryman (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Not to be a busybody, but I took a look at the four sources have to agree- none of the four are what I'd call reliable. Please don't include them. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not WP:Edit warring. The question is being presented, and I will abide by whatever consensus is. WP:BRD still applies.
I continue to be stalked and my edits undone by some of the naysayers. And that is true of others amongst those hung out to dry at ANI. See here. User: Cavalryman had never edited that article before, but when I mentioned it on my user page, he was there in spades.
There is nothing here to Canvass. Unless you think this was a Preemptive strike for the AFD you intend to present. Getting this minor kerfuffle addressed by interested editors is a good thing. User:SilverTiger12 is an opinion.
Cavalryman does not address the question of external links. I submit it is a separate question with a separate answer and standard to be applied.
I find it ironic that there are those who want me banned (see the parallel WP:ANI because I dared to raise the questinon. Apparently we are not free to discuss this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The above was edited at 12:07, 21 November 2021 changing the nature of the comment [1]. Cavalryman (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Thirteen, no aspersions please. Now, what about these sources do you think make them reliable? Cavalryman (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Discuss two of them as external links
You have again chosen to ignore the question. They mirror what is in the other sources. Their content is reliable, even if they won't be used as sources. Given that they are videos, and they illustrate the subject in a different way, this could benefit some of our readers.
Indeed, this is of no great consequence one way or the other. Even if they could not be used as sources. They present the material in a way that benefits readers.
You are the one who started this discussion clainming that there was "canvassing." I don't see any effect; but the procedural stuff was in the lead here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are now deflecting. I do not believe they meet the threshold of WP:ELYES or even WP:ELMAYBE. Now, you cited them and two other webpages as sources, you claim they are reliable, why do you believe that? Cavalryman (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I've explained that above.
They are consistent with
  • "Episode 67: Holy Greyhound! St. Guinefort, the Greyhound Saint" (Podcast). About Greyhounds. August 18, 2018. Celebrate St. Guinefort the greyhound saint on August 22.
I admire the straight forward way in which you avoid the issue. That you and I disagree is no surprise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see anywhere above where you have explained anything, I suggest you provide a diff. Now, again, what about these sources do you think make them reliable? That they are self-published is undeniable, so do you have any WP:Verifiable information about the authors that establishes them as subject-matter experts? Again, please no aspersions. Cavalryman (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

You've said it again. I did not add these back or into the article as I am not edit warring. I've said what I intend to say. You disagree. Your need to get in the last word is part of your style. We need to hear from other editors. Not that anybody else cares to get involved in this small controversy in an obscure article. Over and out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen adding back these SPS as you did here: [2] was edit warring. Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Edit history does not support your conclusion. I did not just "add back the sources." Read it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, explain how I'm wrong. Mztourist (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thirteen, is it now your belief that you never added any sources to this article? These are the other two sources you added [3][4] which I removed [5], and here is you restoring them again [6]. Anyway it appears you are unable to provide any policy based rationale for including them, so we can all move along. Cavalryman (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I see your friend have joined you. It is now my belief that I made the article way better than I found it. Absent other editors' input you are beating a dead horse. Put away your cudgel. You continue to pursue alleged small victories that don't help the article 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen, no one is bearing arms, pursuing victories or beating deceased animals. We are having an honest and frank discussion about sources, something that happens every minute across Wikipedia, because information drawn from unreliable sources is damaging to the encyclopedia. I have not sought anyone’s assistance in this matter, if you have evidence to the contrary I would urge you to take it to ANI, otherwise again no aspersions please. Cavalryman (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queries[edit]

This article could raise a number of questions. Is Guinefort officially recognised as a saint by the RC church? Are there any other examples of animal saints, either folk saints or officially recognised by any Christian church? PatGallacher (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Guinefort&oldid=1208346875"