Talk:Fais do-do

message: 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)
thread_title: Harry Lee isn't alive

message: I'm French and I can confirm that "fais dodo" means "go to sleep".
This is found in many French nursery rhymes, for instance :
=== French ===
: refrain :
: Fais dodo, Colas mon p'tit frère,
: Fais dodo, t'auras du lolo.
 
: Maman est en haut ,
: Qui fait des gâteaux,
: Papa est en bas,
: Qui fait du nougat.
 
: [refrain]
 
: Si tu fais dodo,
: Maman vient bientôt
: Si tu ne dors pas,
: Papa s'en ira.
 
: [refrain]
=== English ===
: chorus:
: Go to sleep, Colas my little brother,
: Go to sleep, you will have milk.
: Mommy is upstairs,
: Making cakes,
: Daddy is downstairs,
: Making nougat.
: [chorus]
: If you go to sleep,
: Mommy comes soon
: If you don't sleep,
: Daddy will leave.
: [chorus]
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Meaning of "fais dodo" 

message: : chorus:
: Go to sleep, Colas my little brother,
: Go to sleep, you will have milk.
: Mommy is upstairs,
: Making cakes,
: Daddy is downstairs,
: Making nougat.
: [chorus]
: If you go to sleep,
: Mommy comes soon
: If you don't sleep,
: Daddy will leave.
: [chorus]
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  English 

message: 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)
replies: text: Removed that source, since no one opposed doing so. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  The mere fact that one person has speculated is not worthy of publishing in an encyclopedia.  TooManyFingers (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Caffery source unreliable