Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Fais do-do

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 years ago by TooManyFingers in topic Caffery source unreliable

Harry Lee isn't alive

[edit]

Sheriff Harry Lee is no longer living. This article talks as though he's not dead.74.180.87.42 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Meaning of "fais dodo"

[edit]

I'm French and I can confirm that "fais dodo" means "go to sleep". This is found in many French nursery rhymes, for instance :

The article seems to imply that "fais dodo" = "go to sleep" is a bit of a stretch linguistically, but it's the new proposal made here - the idea that "fais dodo" could somehow relate to "dos à dos" - that's the real stretch. French doesn't even use the verb "faire" in front of "dos à dos" - does it? I've never seen it that way. If there's no proof for the old story, then it's important to say that - but it's important *not* to then propose a new story that isn't even *plausible*, much less attested. Caffery in his article has shown no evidence, so he's done nothing but create another folk etymology - and it isn't even as good as the one he intended to replace. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are mistaken; it's an old French phrase. Here we have "C'était un simple jeu d'esprit , car je savais bien que j'irais , mais on aime quelquefois à faire dos à dos avec ses væux intimes . « J'irai , m'écriai - je tout à coup , j'irai...", about a "simple mind game". Carlstak (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Caffery source unreliable

[edit]

Under "History", a source article by Joshua Caffery is listed. However, if you read his article, you'll find that it's nothing but speculation on his part; he gives no evidence and no sources for what he's proposing, and he makes it clear by his choice of words that he's speculating. This already poor state of affairs is exacerbated by the fact that he doesn't even provide a plausible-sounding argument. I suggest that the paragraph containing his proposal be cut from the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Removed that source, since no one opposed doing so. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've reverted your removal of sourced content. The WP article says Joshua Caffery "suggests" rather than stating it as a fact in WP's voice, and Caffery's article says, "My alternate theory is...": he does not state it as fact. Caffery's article is published by the Louisiana Division of the Arts, Office of Cultural Development, Dept. of Culture, Recreation & Tourism. Not sure why an anonymous editor thinks his opinion counts for more than Caffery's; TooManyFingers hasn't shown us any sources to support his contentions. Carlstak (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
The mere fact that one person has speculated is not worthy of publishing in an encyclopedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have no burden of proof, since I'm merely asking for obviously frivolous material to be removed. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply