Talk:Ring a Ring o' Roses
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Erm...I've never heard this version before. It's usually "Ring around the roses". Deb 18:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It must depend on where you grow up: I'd say "Ring around the rosie". There are lots of variations at the links I just added. - Nunh-huh
- And conversely, I've never heard the version with "roses". Livajo 02:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Needs merging
This page needs merging with Ring-a-ring of roses, or visa-versa
Agreed, but this version should be merged with "Ring-a-ring of Roses", as the rhyme is English, and "Ring around the Rosie" appears to be a North American alteration.
Well it seems that the merge was made at some time, but without paying attention to the comments above. I completely agree with the above comment that the page should be named after the original English version, and suggest that the page be renamed accordingly. Howie ☎ 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well it's been two weeks since I posted this. If there are no objections, I'll rename on Sunday Howie ☎ 23:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good idea to me, as long as there's a redirect from the American title. -- Avenue 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with the redirect as Ive never ever heard the American title of "Ring around the Rosie" before (until reading this article!) 203.57.241.67 00:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Encise
[edit] Fishes in the water
My daughter is being taught the second verse as beginning "Fishes in the water, fishes in the sea, ..." here in New Zealand (although I don't recall learning the second verse at all when I grew up here). Has anyone else come across this variation? Is it widespread, or just restricted to New Zealand? -- Avenue 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a Brit, and whilst I'm not saying that the whole of the UK doesn't know/have it, I certainly have never heard of that before! Howie ☎ 23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm also a Brit and have indeed heard the second verse - it being popular throughout my schooling years in South East England. Although I would summise that the second verse may not have it's origins in the Bubonic Plague like the first. 203.57.241.67 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Encise
- I'm a Brit and had never heard any further verses until last year when my daughter arrived back from nursery school in Preston singing the "Fishes in the water" version. --Longwayround 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a Brit and had known of additional verses. Probably the "best" version I've heard was the one read out by Joanna Lumley in the TV series "Sapphire and Steel". Sadly, as a work of fiction, this is not an authoritative source, or I'd suggest it for the list. I would be wary about placing an original date on it, simply because there are so many versions and I've never heard of something as simple as a rhyme splintering so rapidly. It would seem more plausible to push the origin back just a little and have the multiple versions form at the same rate as they have for other rhymes. Exceptions and special cases make me wary. I'd also point out that the rhyme's age has as much relationship to its subject as any book or Hollywood production. The use of rhymes and mnemonics was common enough in the 1700s and 1800s. I think the strongest statement we can be sure of is that the rhyme is not oral history from the time of the Black Death. (Because there are multiple versions and we can't be certain which one is the original, we can't assume anything about the symbolism unique to a specific version.) This whole argument reminds me of the fight over whether "eenie meenie minie moe" was based on a pre-Celtic counting system. There are counting systems used in the Northwest of England today which are pretty close to that, but the information needed to say if that means anything at all simply does not exist. The best you can do is say what theory X is the most plausible, but you will never be able to give a definitive answer. --Jcday 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 'Nuclear version'
Is there any actual evidence for this? Looks bogus to me. Crosbie 13:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The reference appears to have been deleted. However, if it was the same one as that cited by the Opies, it's genuine, though possibly not important enough for inclusion as it is one of doubtless very many topical versions which have been produced over the years.Martin Turner 13:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ashes, ashes
Where I grew up in a Maryland suburb of Washington D.C. in the 80's it was "ashes, rashes".
I've always thought this was about the plague, even been some TV documentories about this as well. Any other info would be great.
I grew up in western Montana (USA) and we said "ashes to ashes" as in the funeral verse "ashes to ashes and dust to dust". I remember as a young child thinking it was weird that a funeral prayer would include a line from a nursery rhyme!
- I agree that allot of TV documentaries have said this song was about the plague so I have to disagree with Snoops on this one. We truly don’t know where this came from and to say it is not about the plague is ludicrous. We do not know either way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanguze (talk • contribs) 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Plague 'myth'
Let's stick to the facts--no one knows how old the rhyme is, and it is entirely possible that it was recited for centuries before being written down. I, and everyone I've asked, knows this rhyme, yet not a single one of us has every seen it written. We don't deny it's been written down, we just didn't need to read it to learn it. Passing stories by storytelling, rather than writing, has a long tradition (Illiad and Odyssey, ancient civilations that had no written language, etc.). Also, the Great Fire of London came only a year after the Great Plague of London; perhaps the 'ashes, ashes' or 'fetched a pail of water' refers to that event. Imagine being a child in London in 1666--everyone had been terrified because the plague was killing thousands of people a week during the previous year, and now 85% of the city burned to the ground. Creating a rhyme to make light of those circumstances makes complete sense. I'm not saying that's where the rhyme came from, but it certainly could be a possibility. So let's give some credence to that possibility and not refer to it as a 'myth' (as Snopes does). Snydley 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I believe giving credence to the possiblity that the poem relates to the plague is an error. To do so, appears to me, is an example of what I term folkloric 'wishful thinking'. I think human beings are drawn to explanations that resonate, but unfortunetly, even though something is a nice explanation doesn't make it one. Although storytelling has a rich and deep tradition, does not mean that this is an example of history through storytelling. There is now a vast and great story of many invented things that are simply fiction, but they still remain created myths. It's far more likely, people heard this memorable folkloric rhyme, which obviously had great salience and tried to decifer greater meaning from it, which itself had great folkloric resonance. There is no evidence that this relates to the plague, as even the words are ambigious. One can see how quickly the words change in the retelling just in the different versions listed on this page. Let's not pretend meaning, the poem is deep and worthwhile enough without having the explanation that it come from situations that would make it more 'meaningful'. However, by all means, let us discuss the fact that many people believe it to be related to the plague, as that is notable, and interesting. leontes 04:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please, stick to facts. Calling the plague theory a myth is just as fallacious as saying it is the truth. There is no evidence either way. One can believe it is a myth and describe many reasons why it must be, just as another can say it is the truth and try to defend that position. Both have merits and should be discussed, but the article should remain neutral on the subject. Snydley 04:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please, stick to facts. Suggesting that this nursery rhyme has anything to do with the plague is conjecture, as you have labelled quite accuretly. It's completely unsupported by the evidence. We may as well say that Ring a Ring O'Roses foretold 9/11 and the Macbook Pro. It is intruinging that many people believe that it relates to the plague, but it doesn't lend it any more credence.leontes 05:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- You should stick to the facts. The fact is that the facts that disprove the plague interpretation are nonsense. The first "proof" that I found that said that the rhyme simply couldn't refer to the plague was that there are too many variations of it; now really that makes no sense because just because there are variations of the song doesn't change the original meaning. Second was that it was not written down but really I highly doubt that anybody would've bothered to check if the rhyme was written down if it hadn't bben for the plague "myth" and we must really ask ourselves: how many medieval children's nursery rhymes were put into print, I mean besides religion or mythology/history literature wasn't that wide spread at the time. And thirdly if it wasn't put into print until the 1800s that doesn't mean that it wasn't a reference to the black plague. And besides whats wrong with saying that its possible that it's a myth I mean people scoffed at Darwin's theories and it was only a little while ago that people thought that the atom was the smallest thing in existence until they cut it open and they discovered that there was much smaller things. Besides if you think about it completely dismissing it as a myth is conjecture and a warping of the facts
- You say the points in favor of this song being unrelated to the plague "are nonsense". Okay. Let's look at your refutation. You posit that the "Original Meaning" isn't altered by variations existing. This is true, but where does your idea that the "original meaning" is related to the plauge come from? The current version of the lyrics? That isn't evidence. Without that key piece of evidence, there is no point to be made. It's not only that there are variable wordings of the song, but the earliest we know about have no relation to the plague and the items people associate with the plauge only comes up in samples found later. What you have is an extremely vauge, fanciful hypothesis that can have no proof of validity. As for your second point... I don't know off-hand if there are any songs or verse from that time period. Cantebruy tales is from an earlier time, so I imagine there are a few reminants and writings around. None mention this song/poem. It may be interesting to look at the middle english that was spoken then, and come up with how this poem would sound if it were spoke in that form of english. I imagine the usage of the words of "ashes" or "we all fall down" would sound very different from back then Regardless, just because not much survives from that time doesn't make it relting to the plague any more likely. You "feel" it to be true, which is very different than it at all relating. Show me some evidence, besides what the current printing of the words implies to some and I, and others who are skeptical at the connection, may be more open to it. Darwin had proof, those that believe this to be related to the myth, have none. I remain to be impressed at how important this relating to the plague somehow becomes for people. It's a great piece of salient folklore, and one that will be remembered for a long time, bolsted also by the meaning that some ascribe to it.leontes 23:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- It wouldn't sound that different in Middle English. Ashes is 'askes' (2nd line of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight), Rose was 'rose' (lots of examples). However, the conjectured link is with the plague immediately preceding the Great Fire of London in 1666. The first printed edition of nursery rhymes was (if I remember correctly) about 1776. Real interest took off in the 1880s. The existence of a large number of variations, geographically dispersed, implies that the rhyme was already old when it was first printed. The Opies suggest that many nursery rhymes were 200 years old before first printing (although others were more recent), so that would create a feasible timescale. I'm not sure why you want to compare this with Canterbury Tales, which is high literature, and occupied a prestige position in the English canon from the day it was written. Caxton did not print any collections of nursery rhymes, and subsequent printers followed suit. In any case, there are very many Middle-English works that only survived in one manuscript, and sometimes only in a half manuscript. Far more was lost than was ever retained.Martin Turner 01:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- You say the points in favor of this song being unrelated to the plague "are nonsense". Okay. Let's look at your refutation. You posit that the "Original Meaning" isn't altered by variations existing. This is true, but where does your idea that the "original meaning" is related to the plauge come from? The current version of the lyrics? That isn't evidence. Without that key piece of evidence, there is no point to be made. It's not only that there are variable wordings of the song, but the earliest we know about have no relation to the plague and the items people associate with the plauge only comes up in samples found later. What you have is an extremely vauge, fanciful hypothesis that can have no proof of validity. As for your second point... I don't know off-hand if there are any songs or verse from that time period. Cantebruy tales is from an earlier time, so I imagine there are a few reminants and writings around. None mention this song/poem. It may be interesting to look at the middle english that was spoken then, and come up with how this poem would sound if it were spoke in that form of english. I imagine the usage of the words of "ashes" or "we all fall down" would sound very different from back then Regardless, just because not much survives from that time doesn't make it relting to the plague any more likely. You "feel" it to be true, which is very different than it at all relating. Show me some evidence, besides what the current printing of the words implies to some and I, and others who are skeptical at the connection, may be more open to it. Darwin had proof, those that believe this to be related to the myth, have none. I remain to be impressed at how important this relating to the plague somehow becomes for people. It's a great piece of salient folklore, and one that will be remembered for a long time, bolsted also by the meaning that some ascribe to it.leontes 23:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- You should stick to the facts. The fact is that the facts that disprove the plague interpretation are nonsense. The first "proof" that I found that said that the rhyme simply couldn't refer to the plague was that there are too many variations of it; now really that makes no sense because just because there are variations of the song doesn't change the original meaning. Second was that it was not written down but really I highly doubt that anybody would've bothered to check if the rhyme was written down if it hadn't bben for the plague "myth" and we must really ask ourselves: how many medieval children's nursery rhymes were put into print, I mean besides religion or mythology/history literature wasn't that wide spread at the time. And thirdly if it wasn't put into print until the 1800s that doesn't mean that it wasn't a reference to the black plague. And besides whats wrong with saying that its possible that it's a myth I mean people scoffed at Darwin's theories and it was only a little while ago that people thought that the atom was the smallest thing in existence until they cut it open and they discovered that there was much smaller things. Besides if you think about it completely dismissing it as a myth is conjecture and a warping of the facts
- Please, stick to facts. Suggesting that this nursery rhyme has anything to do with the plague is conjecture, as you have labelled quite accuretly. It's completely unsupported by the evidence. We may as well say that Ring a Ring O'Roses foretold 9/11 and the Macbook Pro. It is intruinging that many people believe that it relates to the plague, but it doesn't lend it any more credence.leontes 05:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please, stick to facts. Calling the plague theory a myth is just as fallacious as saying it is the truth. There is no evidence either way. One can believe it is a myth and describe many reasons why it must be, just as another can say it is the truth and try to defend that position. Both have merits and should be discussed, but the article should remain neutral on the subject. Snydley 04:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There are three reasons for giving the plague interpretation space in wikipedia. First, it is neither conjecture nor hypothesis, but an observation of folk-belief: it has been an established adjunct to the rhyme for at least 55 years, so much so that it was considered worth recording in the first authoritative work on the subject as an established oral tradition, by the Opies in 1951. Second, there are no other historic oral-tradition alternatives to it, unlike several others rhymes where there is a tradition of multiple applications. Third, the rhyme is now used as a short-hand reference to plague in many modern contexts, and a speaker of another language consulting Wikipedia to understand the reference would need this cultural clue. It's perfectly possible to argue the toss endlessly about whether the lyrics seem 'likely' to be about the plague. Personally, I don't really see a connection between roses and plague, but you can argue this in both directions: either, why would someone make up such a bizarre connection, or, how does the poem support such a connection? I don't think it's really up to anyone in our century to determine whether or not plague was the 'real' meaning of the rhyme. In fact, I think the question is itself meaningless, but, equally, to claim that it is 'false' seems going far beyond the available evidence.Martin Turner 01:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Again, I think the available evidence all suggests that the idea of linking to the plaugue is just wishful thinking, as it 'makes sense' to those that think about the words behind the modern day nursery rhyme. The idea has been around for a long time and many people believe it, I agree. Any scholar who is at all familiar with the nursery rhyme these days, rejects the connection. I think the article as is includes all this information and places it in the proper context, due to what scholariship is out there. The interpretation is important, as it is culturally significant but should not presented as likley. leontes 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Returning for a moment to the question of textual attestation. Are there any reference books before 1951 which survey the field of origins of nursery rhymes? It's my understanding that the Mother Goose and similar collections which began in the 1770s were really only concerned with printing the texts. Therefore, their silence on the issue cannot be taken in either direction. If broad surveys do not exist, then the Opie work, which was based on about 20 years of field work, will be the earliest date at which we can expect to find evidence of interpretation. In the mean time, I think the Snopes reference should be deleted -- it isn't a scholarly article on the subject, and someone should find evidence of actual scholarship (my web research came up blank -- it's time to go with printed reference works and peer reviewed journals like Speculum etc.)Martin Turner 20:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Within the field of folkloristics, Barbara and David Mikkelson are actually rather well regarded, as far as I can tell. They do seem to add a bibliography to most of their pages, which suggests that thier information is at least sourced. Snopes is also used as a reference on a host of other wikipedia pages, around 130. I think it's a fine source, but I agree that other sources would be good. I'd love to read revelevant passage in the Opie book, as I do not have access to it. leontes 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've no doubt that the Mikkelsons are well regarded in their own field, which seems mainly concerned with urban myths. However, nursery rhymes are outside of their field. To actually see the Opie collection you would have to go to the Bodleian Library in Oxford (and get admitted as a Reader), but essentially they did about 20 years of field work to gather 20,000 separate items of British oral tradition in nursery rhymes and other children's folk lore. The collection was later catalogued by Julia Briggs. The difference here, I think, is between someone limited to readily available published sources, and two pre-eminent scholars who accessed (and published, both through OUP and peer-reviewed journals) the direct evidence. Regrettably the catalogue of the Nursery Rhyme sections of their collection is not yet online, but you can get a picture of how much material they collected here http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/rarebooks/opie.html . I think, all things considered, rather more weight should be given to their critical judgment. I also think we should remove the claim that 'no printed texts reference...', unless this can actually be cited from somewhere.Martin Turner 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- The snopes article states "the earliest print appearance of "Ring Around the Rosie" did not occur until the publication of Kate Greenaway's Mother Goose or The Old Nursery Rhymes in 1881." The field that the Mikkelsons are involved with is known as folkloristics, (doens't have much of an wikipedia article, yet) (my understanding comes comes from my undergraduate studies, which was a while ago). Foklorisitics is the study of folklore, this entails the study of myths, legends and lore of all kinds, including nursery rhymes. Folkorists work on examining the reasons for choices in fokllore, determining patterns of belief (sort of post-modern deconstruction). Folklorists generally believes that anything that has no clear authorship or has progressed beyond it and changes in the telling, so that it is sort of created by the folk that creates it. The legend behind the creation of the rhyme certainly falls into that perview and I think another good source may be foklore journals as they may have examined this issue in depth. leontes 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- But what is their source for that claim? Many of the internet articles I found while checking this topic cited the claim, from the earlier version of this article, that Leeson's was the earliest reference to the plague theory. We now know this to be false. It's a relatively simple thing to state that the nursery rhyme appeared in Mother Goose, but this doesn't say anything about the thousands of out of print rare books collected by the Opies, which the Mikkelsons could not know unless they had been through the collection. It's possible that they have, but the article gives no indication of this. At the very best, they are working from a secondary source to make this claim, but they don't state what it is. Ultimately, we have a choice between the world-leading scholars on nursery-rhymes, in a published work which is cited in every internet article on Ring a Ring a Roses, which has also been considered authoritative since its publication date in 1951, versus an internet article which makes some fairly bold claims but does not (in the article) substantiate them. The Mikkelsons I am sure are well established in their own field, but Snopes articles are very much of the magazine kind -- they are certainly not scholarly articles, and are also not peer reviewed. I welcome any references from folkloristics journals, but I think we should not suggest that an internet article on a site which is basically about debunking urban myths should be given equal weight with a pre-eminent reference work.Martin Turner 21:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- As I've stated before, snopes is used as a citation on many other wikipedia articles. I do not think that snopes was used as a source for the eroneous Leeson. If you have a source that says that a written version of the poem prior to 1881, then by all means cite it, but as far as I can tell, you aren't suggesting that Opie suggests that, rather that their might be proof in the text they have collected, and since the possiblity exists, we should delete the snopes article. However, snopes has is used in dozens of other wikipedia articles as an appropriate citation. Even though snopes is written in magazine form and for entertainment, my impression is that it generally thought of as a trustworthy source. Fairly often snopes.com is cited in books, in relation to things on their website (On Amazon search books for Barbara Mikkelson, for example.) I would recommend writing to the Mikkleson's if you are curious as to where they obtained that information, as they may be responsive to such an inquiry. However, I see no reason to limit citation to their article, even if it is not a peer reviewed journal. Many citation on wikipedia come from much less reputabile sources and although I do not think that is desirable to have unsubstantiated information on any article, I'm still more likely to trust the article, rather than dismiss it out of hand. leontes 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Starting with its second sentence this article, supposedly an encyclopedia entry about a nursery rhyme, becomes a sneering diatribe "debunking" the Opies' research. Unnamed scholars are mentioned who can back-up the claims against the Opies, but the only reference given (the same link disguised three ways in refs 1, 5 and 10) is the Mikkelsons' site, snopes.com. The Mikkelsons are not scholars, they have no academic standing. The Opies, on the other hand, have for the past sixty years been the world-famous authority on the subject of nursery rhymes. Martin Turner and others have made the greatest effort to keep this article neutral, but to no avail. I propose redressing the balance.--JO 24 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Martin Turner wrote much of what you reverted. The plague interpretation has over the last 100 years, become an important part of our understanding of the poem, and I think it highly important to, in an encyclopedia article to speak to that fact. The article, as it is right now, does not in any way contradict the Opies, in fact, it supports their findings. The Opies never suggested that the poem is related to the origin of the plague. The reason the snopes article is used is that it summarizes the other scholastic findings the only one that we have easy access to online, but I recommend Talking Folklore, Volume 7, should you wish another source. All serious folklorists suggest the poem has nothing to do with the plague, contrary to popular to popular belief. This should be reflected in the article. You are welcome to make edits that reflect this truth, but the plague interpretation is a misconception and that is essential to convey. leontes 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can easily convey the point that the plague interpretation may be a misconception by writing it just once, in the main body of the text and with adequate verification. If you also believe, "all serious folklorists suggest the poem has nothing to do with the plague, contrary (to popular) to popular belief" and that there are "other scholastic findings" besides the snopes website to support that, then you must: (a) be able to back it up and, (b) do it without repetition. If you do that then the idea is credible--otherwise it seems like obsessive crazy stuff, to be immediately discounted. Believe me, you are really better off with a more condensed version. Don't forget this article is about the nursery rhyme, not about "the plague myth". Come to think of it, why don't you write an article that is solely about the plague myth? It would be very quick to do and could be directly linked to all the other articles (eg the ones about plagues).--JO 24 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your edits, but do not have the protracted time currently to get into an edit war with you. y Your edit now gives too much credence to the plague interpretation. I hope you will reconsider your edits or that someone other than myself has the time to find a way of working with you to make a more reasonable article. However, the plague interpretation being a misinterpretation should be stated at the header of the article by way of summary and the article should make clear that the plague interpretation is an invention started around the turn start of the century. I do not believe it should be a separate article, as it relates directly to what the poem has come to mean. Right now the article is wrong: Peter and Iona Opie do not connect the rhyme with the great plague of london, they say that others are connecting the poem to the plague. The opies do not parse every line, that comes from popular interpretation and I agree they should be sourced. The article is misleading. The other article you rfer to created and was a way of dealing with the bloat of cultural references that had come to burden the article, and I do not mourn it's loss. leontes 12:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I now see that it looks as if you wrote that article, only to have it deleted by someone. How very frustrating! It must now be reinstated.--JO 24 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can easily convey the point that the plague interpretation may be a misconception by writing it just once, in the main body of the text and with adequate verification. If you also believe, "all serious folklorists suggest the poem has nothing to do with the plague, contrary (to popular) to popular belief" and that there are "other scholastic findings" besides the snopes website to support that, then you must: (a) be able to back it up and, (b) do it without repetition. If you do that then the idea is credible--otherwise it seems like obsessive crazy stuff, to be immediately discounted. Believe me, you are really better off with a more condensed version. Don't forget this article is about the nursery rhyme, not about "the plague myth". Come to think of it, why don't you write an article that is solely about the plague myth? It would be very quick to do and could be directly linked to all the other articles (eg the ones about plagues).--JO 24 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Martin Turner wrote much of what you reverted. The plague interpretation has over the last 100 years, become an important part of our understanding of the poem, and I think it highly important to, in an encyclopedia article to speak to that fact. The article, as it is right now, does not in any way contradict the Opies, in fact, it supports their findings. The Opies never suggested that the poem is related to the origin of the plague. The reason the snopes article is used is that it summarizes the other scholastic findings the only one that we have easy access to online, but I recommend Talking Folklore, Volume 7, should you wish another source. All serious folklorists suggest the poem has nothing to do with the plague, contrary to popular to popular belief. This should be reflected in the article. You are welcome to make edits that reflect this truth, but the plague interpretation is a misconception and that is essential to convey. leontes 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- But what is their source for that claim? Many of the internet articles I found while checking this topic cited the claim, from the earlier version of this article, that Leeson's was the earliest reference to the plague theory. We now know this to be false. It's a relatively simple thing to state that the nursery rhyme appeared in Mother Goose, but this doesn't say anything about the thousands of out of print rare books collected by the Opies, which the Mikkelsons could not know unless they had been through the collection. It's possible that they have, but the article gives no indication of this. At the very best, they are working from a secondary source to make this claim, but they don't state what it is. Ultimately, we have a choice between the world-leading scholars on nursery-rhymes, in a published work which is cited in every internet article on Ring a Ring a Roses, which has also been considered authoritative since its publication date in 1951, versus an internet article which makes some fairly bold claims but does not (in the article) substantiate them. The Mikkelsons I am sure are well established in their own field, but Snopes articles are very much of the magazine kind -- they are certainly not scholarly articles, and are also not peer reviewed. I welcome any references from folkloristics journals, but I think we should not suggest that an internet article on a site which is basically about debunking urban myths should be given equal weight with a pre-eminent reference work.Martin Turner 21:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- The snopes article states "the earliest print appearance of "Ring Around the Rosie" did not occur until the publication of Kate Greenaway's Mother Goose or The Old Nursery Rhymes in 1881." The field that the Mikkelsons are involved with is known as folkloristics, (doens't have much of an wikipedia article, yet) (my understanding comes comes from my undergraduate studies, which was a while ago). Foklorisitics is the study of folklore, this entails the study of myths, legends and lore of all kinds, including nursery rhymes. Folkorists work on examining the reasons for choices in fokllore, determining patterns of belief (sort of post-modern deconstruction). Folklorists generally believes that anything that has no clear authorship or has progressed beyond it and changes in the telling, so that it is sort of created by the folk that creates it. The legend behind the creation of the rhyme certainly falls into that perview and I think another good source may be foklore journals as they may have examined this issue in depth. leontes 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've no doubt that the Mikkelsons are well regarded in their own field, which seems mainly concerned with urban myths. However, nursery rhymes are outside of their field. To actually see the Opie collection you would have to go to the Bodleian Library in Oxford (and get admitted as a Reader), but essentially they did about 20 years of field work to gather 20,000 separate items of British oral tradition in nursery rhymes and other children's folk lore. The collection was later catalogued by Julia Briggs. The difference here, I think, is between someone limited to readily available published sources, and two pre-eminent scholars who accessed (and published, both through OUP and peer-reviewed journals) the direct evidence. Regrettably the catalogue of the Nursery Rhyme sections of their collection is not yet online, but you can get a picture of how much material they collected here http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/rarebooks/opie.html . I think, all things considered, rather more weight should be given to their critical judgment. I also think we should remove the claim that 'no printed texts reference...', unless this can actually be cited from somewhere.Martin Turner 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Within the field of folkloristics, Barbara and David Mikkelson are actually rather well regarded, as far as I can tell. They do seem to add a bibliography to most of their pages, which suggests that thier information is at least sourced. Snopes is also used as a reference on a host of other wikipedia pages, around 130. I think it's a fine source, but I agree that other sources would be good. I'd love to read revelevant passage in the Opie book, as I do not have access to it. leontes 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Returning for a moment to the question of textual attestation. Are there any reference books before 1951 which survey the field of origins of nursery rhymes? It's my understanding that the Mother Goose and similar collections which began in the 1770s were really only concerned with printing the texts. Therefore, their silence on the issue cannot be taken in either direction. If broad surveys do not exist, then the Opie work, which was based on about 20 years of field work, will be the earliest date at which we can expect to find evidence of interpretation. In the mean time, I think the Snopes reference should be deleted -- it isn't a scholarly article on the subject, and someone should find evidence of actual scholarship (my web research came up blank -- it's time to go with printed reference works and peer reviewed journals like Speculum etc.)Martin Turner 20:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I think the available evidence all suggests that the idea of linking to the plaugue is just wishful thinking, as it 'makes sense' to those that think about the words behind the modern day nursery rhyme. The idea has been around for a long time and many people believe it, I agree. Any scholar who is at all familiar with the nursery rhyme these days, rejects the connection. I think the article as is includes all this information and places it in the proper context, due to what scholariship is out there. The interpretation is important, as it is culturally significant but should not presented as likley. leontes 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Interpretation
The words must means something. It makes sense that this page should list various interpretations. The plague interpretation should be listed as a possible meaning, rather then being discounted as a myth.
- Agree. Although, equally interesting is that the plague explanation is now a part of folklore: whether or not it was the original explanation, it is certainly now believed by a very large number of people (I was taught it in Junior School). It seems bizarre to disconnect a modern folk-interpretation from 'true' folklore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinTurner (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
I've been back over this section, and come up with what I hope is a more balanced presentation. The Opies cite the conjectured interpretation in 1951, so I have removed the reference to Leeson as being the first to put it forward. I have also been through the various web 'debunkings' of the explanation. Regrettably, most of them seem to lean on each other for support (or, indeed, on earlier versions of this article). However, the most scholarly web link is http://www.english.uwaterloo.ca/courses/engl208c/esharris.htm, which presents evidence which runs quite contrary to the rather definite views of the debunkers. Since it now appears that at least some very notable scholars are willing to attach the interpretaton without ruling it out, I have changed the assertion that scholars believe it to be false, as this is not supported by the literature. I want to emphasise that I am not putting forward the plague theory, or suggesting that it is true, but merely trying to give a NPOV in relation to published scholarly opinion. I welcome others with better and more up to date references to recent scholarly views. Martin Turner 13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- They reference each other as a way of agreement, I think. The snopes article is a well sourced article and written by a respected scholar. This university of waterloo paper appears to be written by a student. This rewriting leads a person to confusion that there is some debate regarding it, but to scholars of the subject, there appears to be none. I find it strange to "balance" the section when there is no scholar who suggests that the intepretation is likely, using evidence of an uessay written by an ndergraduate student as proof that folklore can have murky origins, is pretty weak, if you ask me. leontes 02:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- The essay was properly referenced, which the Snopes article wasn't. However, it wasn't the essay which I was citing, it was the fact that the Opies decided to include it in the Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes. I don't really see how you have introduced NPOV. The plague interpretation is a fact of folklore: rightly or wrongly, many people believe that they are linked, and this is attested in one of the most authoritative texts on nursery rhymes. It strains credulity to claim that the linkage is false -- there simply isn't any evidence, and there never will be. I have no axe to grind on this particular subject, it's just that the article as it now stands seems rather unencyclopedic. It should be sufficient to note both views, and let the reader be aware that a popular view is not substantiated by evidence, but is also not disproved by it. I don't really see how it is Wikipedia's job to choose which view it wants to support.Martin Turner 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a folkloric fact. It's most likely false (99.9% likely) even though a lot of people believe it. If the fact that a lot of people believe it is enough to give it equal weight to what the scholars who look into the link conclude than by all means edit it that way. It seems encyclopedic and of benefit to wikipedia readers to see the intpretation in the context of expert research. I personally think that even if something 'could' be true, doesn't mean it should be included in articles. Other articles regarding folklore artifcats often seem to put the belief in a realistic context, some do not, I think in this case the choice should be clear. leontes 00:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you miss the point. It's not at all false that there has been a popular interpretation which was established enough for the Opies to include it in the main reference work on the subject. When the only reference was someone called Leeson in the 1960s -- which is where the article was when I found it -- then, I agree, it seems like a modern urban myth. As is clear from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com , the authors of the Snopes articles are not experts on nursery rhymes — they are debunkers of urban myths. The Opies, on the other hand, spent fifty years collecting them, and their collection of 20,000 items is now housed in the Bodlein Library. The Mickelson article gives the Opies in a list of reference works, but it doesn't quote from it, instead quoting from John Lennon! This is hardly a scholarly article. On another note, I have to say that I have yet to see any evidence, online or anywhere else, which indicates the conjectured link is false. However, I have seen plenty of arguments to show that the link is not attested in written texts before 1951. Unfortunately, 99% of the material the Opies collected was not attested in written sources before they gathered it -- this is why their work was so important, since so many folk traditions would have been lost if they had not collected them. Lack of attestation is not evidence either way, since it has been established that there was an oral tradition assigning the 'meaning' of the rhyme to the plague. The reason the interpretation should be included in the encyclopedia is because it is essential to understanding most of the cultural references listed in the following section. Martin Turner 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I definetly think that the interpretation should be included, we agree on that. I just argue that we should not give the impression that it is at all likely. leontes 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can find a wording which accommodates both views. I don't think that the question of 'likely' is a valid one, and I've yet to see any actual scholarship which treats it in that way. Martin Turner 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've been back through the printed Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, and added a number of references. The earliest attestation is 1790. The Opies seem to suggest that the plague interpretation is a relatively new innovation in their generation, so I have put this point of view. Hopefully, the article now presents a balanced picture, demonstrating that there is no historic link with the plague, but that the modern interpretation is an important 20-21st century reference.Martin Turner 14:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you made excellent progress. I did find it a little dense and I thought possibly confusing to readers. I re-added the original snopes reference to the first paragraph and made some other changes for clarity's sake. leontes 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Basically agree, but don't understand what this sentence is for: "However, this plague link is entirely unsupported by any written record, as there is no mention of the verses, nor written evidence of their existence, before [[1881]". Newell notes the song being sung as early as 1790, and Lady Gomme's collection predates the 1881 publication. More to the point, the lack of written evidence before 1881 is neither here nor there -- since there were already at least 12 versions collected, with further dispersal of the game and the tune across Europe, it therefore follows that at least one version of the song is very substantially older. The late date of the earliest attestation has more to do with the fact that people didn't start printing nursery rhymes before the 1790s. From Newell we know that the rhyme is at least that old. How much older is it? There is no possible way of knowing. There is no reason to believe that it is as old as the 1666 plague and fire, and there is also no reason to believe that it is not. Martin Turner 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see that sentence as the 'settling bets' sentence of the article, suggesting 'to the best of our knowledge the plague and this poem have nothing in common'. Do change the date regarding Lady Gomme and if Newell is a credible source, date it back to then. I personally was stuck that the Newell recollection seemed a little fanciful, from what I remember reading. From what I undertsand regarding the Opie collection, it would be very unusual for a nursery rhyme to exist, but for it not to be included in one of the collections that were written regarding nursery rhymes for the three hundered years between the plague and when it appears to pop up for the first time. Perhaps it was spoken in secret, or among a very limited group, and then suddenly became poipular, but I think a poem of this saliency and lasting power one imagines it to be noticable enough ot be included in said collections. As it was not written down until much later, I think is important to note and helps clarify the issue. I do see your point and acknoledge that it is a judgement call, but I think it's so unlikely that it's better to err on the side of written proof. leontes 23:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think we're getting there. The Opies collected thousands of rhymes and variants which were known orally but not otherwise written down, and they suggest that many of these could have been more than two-hundred years old. I haven't found any positive evidence to say that the rhyme was not linked to the plague, only a complete absence of evidence to say that it was. I really think that the article should reflect that -- I think a statement on the lines of "There is no textual evidence to support this claim" is strong enough. To have positive evidence that there was no connection would require someone to find the text in which the suggestion was first posited, and find the orginal suggester saying something like "I am quite sure in my conjecture that this must link to the plague, because of…, although I have not yet been able to find an oral tradition that supports this view…". By tracing the conjecture to its source, we would therefore have demonstrated that it is no older than the suggester. In the mean time, no evidence positively refutes the claim that it was an oral traditional interpretation passed down over the centuries -- it's just that the claim has no evidence to support it, which puts it in the category of unsupported conjecture.Martin Turner 13:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the slack of textual evidence ends up being enough positive evidence as people have been looking for a long time. As the poem does not appear in any form and there being no reference, or inclusion of like of the stanzas in anthologies or collections provides enough of a picture to state "all evidence suggests". I wish I had access to Talking Folklore, No. 7 (August 1989), pgs 1-14, as this I feel most likely provides the journal article/scholastic examination that you we were looking for earlier. A summary of the article can be found at AFU. I think we do people a service by choosing not to use an inconclusive tone, the research has been done- I think we can safely say that all evidence suggests there is no connection. leontes 15:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link — I'd already looked at it, but had lost track of it. I shall have a look for the journal. Most of the stuff in the link, however, is less exact than the Opie article. Although the first printed reference is Mother Goose, the Opie's consider Newell's reference to be genuine earlier attestation, and, in any case, Lady Gomme's versions were collected before the Mother Goose publication. I'm still very uncomfortable about claiming positive evidence against something when there is only negative evidence. This seems to be bad scholarship, and, in effectively adding to the references, would should be classed as 'original research'. On the other hand, if the Talking Folklore article is conclusive, then we should cite that. I will, as I say, try to look it out.Martin Turner 22:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your hesitation. In my mind, the difference between original research and saying all available evidence is that we are providing several citations. The poem isn't related to the plague, I think it's okay that we say that people have looked into it and have found this to be unrelated. We do provide appropriate sourcing of experts: Opie thought is was a recent invention, folklorists come to the conclusion that it's also false. If there was any reasonable source that was suggesting that there was a link, i.e. someone who had looked into and believed it to be true, beyond their 'gut' feeling or an inexaustive search of newspapers, then I would completely agree that we should use the less conclusive language. There have been a multitude of individuals who have examined this folk belief and come to the conclusion that it's a recent rather than ancient invention. I don't see why we shouldn't indicate that in the article rather than the other language which sort of suggests that the research still need to be done. leontes 16:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link — I'd already looked at it, but had lost track of it. I shall have a look for the journal. Most of the stuff in the link, however, is less exact than the Opie article. Although the first printed reference is Mother Goose, the Opie's consider Newell's reference to be genuine earlier attestation, and, in any case, Lady Gomme's versions were collected before the Mother Goose publication. I'm still very uncomfortable about claiming positive evidence against something when there is only negative evidence. This seems to be bad scholarship, and, in effectively adding to the references, would should be classed as 'original research'. On the other hand, if the Talking Folklore article is conclusive, then we should cite that. I will, as I say, try to look it out.Martin Turner 22:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the slack of textual evidence ends up being enough positive evidence as people have been looking for a long time. As the poem does not appear in any form and there being no reference, or inclusion of like of the stanzas in anthologies or collections provides enough of a picture to state "all evidence suggests". I wish I had access to Talking Folklore, No. 7 (August 1989), pgs 1-14, as this I feel most likely provides the journal article/scholastic examination that you we were looking for earlier. A summary of the article can be found at AFU. I think we do people a service by choosing not to use an inconclusive tone, the research has been done- I think we can safely say that all evidence suggests there is no connection. leontes 15:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think we're getting there. The Opies collected thousands of rhymes and variants which were known orally but not otherwise written down, and they suggest that many of these could have been more than two-hundred years old. I haven't found any positive evidence to say that the rhyme was not linked to the plague, only a complete absence of evidence to say that it was. I really think that the article should reflect that -- I think a statement on the lines of "There is no textual evidence to support this claim" is strong enough. To have positive evidence that there was no connection would require someone to find the text in which the suggestion was first posited, and find the orginal suggester saying something like "I am quite sure in my conjecture that this must link to the plague, because of…, although I have not yet been able to find an oral tradition that supports this view…". By tracing the conjecture to its source, we would therefore have demonstrated that it is no older than the suggester. In the mean time, no evidence positively refutes the claim that it was an oral traditional interpretation passed down over the centuries -- it's just that the claim has no evidence to support it, which puts it in the category of unsupported conjecture.Martin Turner 13:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I see that sentence as the 'settling bets' sentence of the article, suggesting 'to the best of our knowledge the plague and this poem have nothing in common'. Do change the date regarding Lady Gomme and if Newell is a credible source, date it back to then. I personally was stuck that the Newell recollection seemed a little fanciful, from what I remember reading. From what I undertsand regarding the Opie collection, it would be very unusual for a nursery rhyme to exist, but for it not to be included in one of the collections that were written regarding nursery rhymes for the three hundered years between the plague and when it appears to pop up for the first time. Perhaps it was spoken in secret, or among a very limited group, and then suddenly became poipular, but I think a poem of this saliency and lasting power one imagines it to be noticable enough ot be included in said collections. As it was not written down until much later, I think is important to note and helps clarify the issue. I do see your point and acknoledge that it is a judgement call, but I think it's so unlikely that it's better to err on the side of written proof. leontes 23:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Basically agree, but don't understand what this sentence is for: "However, this plague link is entirely unsupported by any written record, as there is no mention of the verses, nor written evidence of their existence, before [[1881]". Newell notes the song being sung as early as 1790, and Lady Gomme's collection predates the 1881 publication. More to the point, the lack of written evidence before 1881 is neither here nor there -- since there were already at least 12 versions collected, with further dispersal of the game and the tune across Europe, it therefore follows that at least one version of the song is very substantially older. The late date of the earliest attestation has more to do with the fact that people didn't start printing nursery rhymes before the 1790s. From Newell we know that the rhyme is at least that old. How much older is it? There is no possible way of knowing. There is no reason to believe that it is as old as the 1666 plague and fire, and there is also no reason to believe that it is not. Martin Turner 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you made excellent progress. I did find it a little dense and I thought possibly confusing to readers. I re-added the original snopes reference to the first paragraph and made some other changes for clarity's sake. leontes 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've been back through the printed Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, and added a number of references. The earliest attestation is 1790. The Opies seem to suggest that the plague interpretation is a relatively new innovation in their generation, so I have put this point of view. Hopefully, the article now presents a balanced picture, demonstrating that there is no historic link with the plague, but that the modern interpretation is an important 20-21st century reference.Martin Turner 14:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can find a wording which accommodates both views. I don't think that the question of 'likely' is a valid one, and I've yet to see any actual scholarship which treats it in that way. Martin Turner 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I definetly think that the interpretation should be included, we agree on that. I just argue that we should not give the impression that it is at all likely. leontes 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you miss the point. It's not at all false that there has been a popular interpretation which was established enough for the Opies to include it in the main reference work on the subject. When the only reference was someone called Leeson in the 1960s -- which is where the article was when I found it -- then, I agree, it seems like a modern urban myth. As is clear from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com , the authors of the Snopes articles are not experts on nursery rhymes — they are debunkers of urban myths. The Opies, on the other hand, spent fifty years collecting them, and their collection of 20,000 items is now housed in the Bodlein Library. The Mickelson article gives the Opies in a list of reference works, but it doesn't quote from it, instead quoting from John Lennon! This is hardly a scholarly article. On another note, I have to say that I have yet to see any evidence, online or anywhere else, which indicates the conjectured link is false. However, I have seen plenty of arguments to show that the link is not attested in written texts before 1951. Unfortunately, 99% of the material the Opies collected was not attested in written sources before they gathered it -- this is why their work was so important, since so many folk traditions would have been lost if they had not collected them. Lack of attestation is not evidence either way, since it has been established that there was an oral tradition assigning the 'meaning' of the rhyme to the plague. The reason the interpretation should be included in the encyclopedia is because it is essential to understanding most of the cultural references listed in the following section. Martin Turner 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a folkloric fact. It's most likely false (99.9% likely) even though a lot of people believe it. If the fact that a lot of people believe it is enough to give it equal weight to what the scholars who look into the link conclude than by all means edit it that way. It seems encyclopedic and of benefit to wikipedia readers to see the intpretation in the context of expert research. I personally think that even if something 'could' be true, doesn't mean it should be included in articles. Other articles regarding folklore artifcats often seem to put the belief in a realistic context, some do not, I think in this case the choice should be clear. leontes 00:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- The essay was properly referenced, which the Snopes article wasn't. However, it wasn't the essay which I was citing, it was the fact that the Opies decided to include it in the Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes. I don't really see how you have introduced NPOV. The plague interpretation is a fact of folklore: rightly or wrongly, many people believe that they are linked, and this is attested in one of the most authoritative texts on nursery rhymes. It strains credulity to claim that the linkage is false -- there simply isn't any evidence, and there never will be. I have no axe to grind on this particular subject, it's just that the article as it now stands seems rather unencyclopedic. It should be sufficient to note both views, and let the reader be aware that a popular view is not substantiated by evidence, but is also not disproved by it. I don't really see how it is Wikipedia's job to choose which view it wants to support.Martin Turner 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ashes in the water / Ashes in the sea
FYI, as an aside to the plague debate, I've heard (but cannot verify) an extension to the plague theory/myth which concerns the "Ashes in the water / Ashes in the sea" verse. In this interpretation, the ashes verse relates to the supposed quenching of the plague by the Great Fire of London. As it's an additional verse, there is a possibility that it was written after the plague theory/myth surfaced. Evidently, we'll need written evidence of this theory/myth extension before it can be considered for inclusion on the main page, but I thought someone reading this might know of such evidence, especially since there's so much interest in the plague theory/myth at the moment. Mittfh 18:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Canada and Newfoundland
Growing up in Newfoundland, the rhyme used "Ashes, ashes" for the third line. This seemed true all across the province; we travelled a lot. I'd never heard of "Husha, Husha" until I moved to Ontario, and a friend born there who worked in child-care told me that she refused to teach the children the "Ashes, ashes" version (I didn't prompt her by telling her what version I knew) she sang as a child because of the rumour it was a rhyme about the bubonic plague. Where did we get the information that "Husha, Husha" was a Canadian version? Also, it's possible that Newfoundland acquired the "ashes" version with Americans coming to their military bases, but being primarily an isolated British colony for centuries, I'd thought we used a British version. I also don't think the American military personnel personally taught children anything like nursery rhymes. This is very odd.--WPaulB 17:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I grew up in BC and it was always 'husha husha' I didn't hear the ashes version until I was an adult, I think from American media. 128.189.135.87 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Summary of plague discussions
-there follows a lengthy debate on the origins of the rhyme, that boils down to the correct answer of 'we don't know but we should include the plague stuff anyway Jmackaerospace 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- there follows ANOTHER lengthy debate on the origins of the rhyme, that boils down to the correct answer of 'we don't know but we should include the plague stuff anyway Jmackaerospace 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- User Jmackaerospace made these observations at the top of the two plague link discussions on this webpage. As talk pages are supposed to be edited in conversation form, and kept kept as history of those discussions, I have placed the comments here at their proper place at the bottom, where they can be more easily viewed. I also returned the discussion of merging to the top of the page, which should remain there, unless archived. leontes 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I heard that the plague theory began because of the fallacy that victims of the plague had a ring of sores around their lips, and sneezed. In actuality neither of these are symptoms of the plague.
-
- If you think logically, there's nothing in the lyrics that suggests this rhyme has anything to do with any disease, letalone the plague. You have to do a lot of creative interpretation to see it that way. You have to twist the 'ring of roses' image so that it represents sores, and interpret 'tisha' as either a sneeze (which sounds more likely, but a sneeze isn't necessarily a sign that someone is fatally ill, and could be a reaction to the pollen of the flowers), or change it to 'ashes' and assume that's a reference to the funeral rite.--Jcvamp 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Last word in the Nursery rhyme
In one Variation a herd the last word was "Dead", make the rhyme go like:
- Ring around the rosies,
- Pocketful of posies.
- Ashes, ashes.
- We all fall dead--Brown Shoes22 06:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Smallpox?
As of about 1990, many of the things I've read about this nursery rhyme indicated it was more likely to be about Smallpox rather than the plague. This interpretation is focussed on the second verse (locally) regarding the cows in the meadow, since it was cowpox that was used as a vaccine. That would put the poem's origins to be some time after 1796 which matches the suggestion in the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes. Unfortunately I can't provide any references for this at this time as my interest in rhyme origins has only ever been a casual one. I'll see what I can do. Jarich 02:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
An interesting idea. The part "The Kind has sent his daughter // To fetch a pail of water" is also interesting. Well worship was (and still is) a major part of English tradition. Well Dressings, Well Sacrifices and the Yorkshire "cult of the head" (where a stone face was carved on wells) date back into the Iron Age. Well water is often ascribed mystical powers, including the warding off of the Black Death from parts of Derbyshire. However, it is not clear that it is well water that is being fetched in the rhyme, so it is unsafe to draw too much from that. On the other hand, it would seem implicit that it wasn't just a routine action. However, if the well theory is correct, it would seem to rule out the smallpox theory. Well water was much cleaner than river water (which - for slow-moving rivers - would also have all kinds of highly dangerous organisms and toxins), but the sorts of microbes, bacteria and parasites you'll get in lakes and slow rivers are not the sort to be carrying smallpox. Now, you may very well be right - and frankly I'd love it if all of the "standard" theories were wrong and you were right, just because it's so much more fun that way. However, the available information is too limited to draw any solid conclusions. Everything I've seen so far is based on what is not known, which is not always terribly reliable ground to stand on. The lack of data and the multitude of theories which can adequately "explain" all available facts without undue complexity tells me that what is known is not enough. You might as well go into interpreting Nostradamus' writings, if it's so easy to prove whatever theory you happen to like. --Jcday 02:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Title of the article?
Why has the o' of the article title been treated like the O' in Irish names such as "O'Reilly"? It is a short form of "of", and so the title should be as given in the first line of the rhyme itself: lower-case and as a separate word (that is, "Ring a Ring o' Roses"). — Paul G 09:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's true. Well spotted.--Jcvamp 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for moving the page. I've corrected the instances of o'ros(i)es in the body of the article. — Paul G 07:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edits to plague interpretation
User JO 24 has attempted to rewrite the plague interpretation paragraph as he or she feels that as it is currently misleading. His or her main complaints are as follows: the article as is is repetitious. The article as is has too much about the plague for an article ostensibly about a poem. The article relies to heavily on the snopes reference. The plague references seems 'crazy'. To remedy this, he or she removes much of the content and leaves a shortened version that I believe is misleading, removing the context that expressly states that the poem is clearly not about the plague and trends to misstating the thrust of the research of the Opies. Let us discuss and come to agreement on how best to work with JO 24's suggestions and concerns while maintain a clear narrative incorporating previous compromises. I also believe the intro should mention that the plague interpretation is false. leontes 06:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Leontes, you mention some of my objections to your version; my biggest objection, however, is to your writing that is blatently non-neutral: " I also believe the intro should mention that the plague interpretation is false", you write. You THINK it is false, it MAY be false, but the only reference to back up this OPINION is from snopes.com, despite your also having said that every folklorist in the world agrees with you on this. I am not in favour of "compromises" where bias is concerned. If anyone feels that I have eliminated anything else, he or she can make that case. --JO 24 07:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I submit to you that it isn't only snopes that is saying this. The Opies suggest that the plague interpretation originates with the movement of of the early twentieth century to find the origin of folksongs and nursery rhymes. This is a movement of a bunch of people trying to divine meaning out of nonsensical words. This isn't even mentioned by Snopes to back up their work, however. Snopes is used as a primary reference in the following articles: hidden message, snuff flm, vegemite, Bushism, gel bracelet, chop suey, united states two dollar bill among many others. This isn't to say that the site is always used appropriately, but it appears consensus on wikipedia would be that it is a reliable source. Other sources that refer to the plague online often refer to snopes due to its online presence, and those are avoided to avoid redundancy If you find a reliable source (as in one with sources, like the snope article) that backs up the claim that it has to do with plague, by all means include it and edit the article to reflect it, but you are the one who is coming to an established page, built by consensus and imposing your own point of view. You take exception to my writing because you find it "blatantly non-neutral", but your edit not only removes redundancy, but seems to suggest that the Opies connect the poem and the plague, which they do not. Before you edit it back again, please speak to that point, which you avoided. You also ignore all the other points that I've made about why your edit decreases the accuracy and truth of the article as you are blatantly misreading the Opies, and it would appear you know very little about this topic and are misreading my inaccuracies. Here is a folklorist site unrelated to snopes refer to the plague belief: [1] A few other primary sources that debunk the connection : Simpson in Dictionary of English folklore, the Talking folklore article I mentioned earlier and Philip Hascock, professor of folklore of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Dr. Phillip Hiscock who wrote about the plague connection in "Said and Done," St. John's (Newfoundland) Express , 27 January 1991. These are all primary sources by reputable people. Find a few reliable source that suggest otherwise. leontes 11:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is a waste of time: everything has already been said: I think that a neutral standpoint on the plague background is essential, and you don't. Since neither of us is willing to compromise, maybe a third party could lend an opinion. In my view (and I only came on it a few days ago), this is an appalling article--just compare it to the other nursery rhyme articles and you will see that--despite having had some very good imput from people like Turner. One reason it's so bad is that it has gotten bogged down in some really insignificant (but misleading) stuff like the plague "myth". --JO 24 18:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Everything hasn't been said: You claimed Snopes wasn't a legitimate source, I demonstrated that wikipedia, in general, disagrees. You said snopes is the only site claiming a link to the plague, I provided other reliable sources that said the same thing. You still say nothing about reinterpreting what the Opies say to fit your POV, but merely say that the article should be neutral regarding the topic: find a reliable source that claims that the plague myth is real or reword your edit to fit the sources that we do use. If you look at the history, you'll see that Turner wrote much of what you are eliminating. By all means, let's have others comment on this, but I do not think you've backed up your position enough for your edit to be the one that is seen when people are browsing wikipedia. leontes 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in having an extended personal argument, we would both spend our time much more productively by improving the quality of the rest of the article. The reasons for my two edits are already on this page, I'm not obliged to produce new ones every day, --JO 24 07:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I understand you want more neutrality in the article, as you see it. I understand that you feel that the article is "appalling" and seems "silly" compared to other poem articles on wikipedia. However, you aren't doing anything to introduce a compromise here. Despite a stylistic approach, I don't see what you are attempting to prove or improve here on the article. The fact that the poem is thought to relate to the plague by a great deal of people is notable (which is well sourced on this page) as is the fact that all available evidence suggests that this relation is based on supposition (as is well sourced). I wouldn't be as quick to discount your edits if they were indeed neutral, but you are misquoting and misleading about the Opies in your edit. I have attempted to edit it again in such a way that hopefully speaks to your concerns. Please do not just revert it, but let's edit back and forth to form a consensus edit.
-
- a) it is appropriate we talk about the plague in the intro in the article; it forms a significant part of the article. The only reason that you've given to avoid this sentence is that it 'betrays my POV'. I have attempted to make the sentence more neutral sounding, but I do prefer the previous way better. Please edit this sentence rather than eliminate it entirely in your next edit to make it sound like you want it to sound, by way of compromise and consensus building.
-
- b) At the intro of the plague interpretation, you remove the summary sentence referring to the snopes article and jump right in Opie "connecting to the plague" but give no context for that connection. Stylistically, it is appropriate to summarize the importance of this section, which the snopes article does nicely.
-
- b) You remove the reference to the 'movement for finding origins of folk-songs' which is the likely source, according to the Opies and others of the plague interpretation. This is important to include as it provides context. I've tried to make its point more explicit and replaced it.
-
- c) the final paragraph, you see as repetitious and as non-neutral point of view, but I see as an important summary. Your edit seems to me to be raising facts without providing context: why should we care that Lady Homme collected versions of the poem? My sense is that you feel that it drives the point home too strongly, and this is the crux of our disagreement, as I think its appropriate for wikipedia to answer that question about how folklorists think about it today. I've included the word modern to help frame the paragraph, does that provide enough hedging to work for you?
-
- We've been reverting back and forth too long, let's start editing to build a consensus. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the five pillars of wikipedia Wikipedia:Five_pillars, as you seem uninterested in discussing the changes you wish to make and are rather only interested in imposing your point of view of what makes a "good article". I do not think this current edit is a final one, but rather a stepping stone to a compromise, perhaps. leontes 10:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I expect it killed you to do it, but the article appears MUCH less biased, imo. I'll take a closer look over this weekend and possibly make some suggestions that we can both live with. Thanks for having done this.--JO 24 17:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Accusation of Vandalism
According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, the plague interpretation edits are not vandalism as I am a good-faith editor. I have cited all major additions I have made to the article with what I believe are reliable sources. Additionally, there have been multiple contributors who have also supported the phrasing and general approach to this article, over the past year. Please cease in calling my contributions vandalism. You appear to be engaging in wholesale reverting of the article to the way you think it should be. Please attempt to come new way of phrasing the article so it fits what you think will benefit the article. Do not accuse me of vandalism: it should be obvious to anyone reading this talk page and observing the edit history that I am clearly not a vandal. I disagree with removing the unambiguous statements from the article regarding the plague as the plague interpretation of Ring a Ring o' Roses being an invention is supported by every primary, reliable source found, including the Opies and journal articles. It is clearly appropriate for this Wikipedia article, and I believe the phrasing as it exists is a good way of conveying that information. leontes (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to any reasonable reading of the guidelines listed in Wikipedia:Vandalism, your edits of the past year include repeated vandalism. Vandalism of Wikipedia articles includes adding information in bad faith that you clearly know is false (including):
- Adding plausible misinformation to existing articles hoping others will not question it and the falsehood will not be detected
- The addition of false information, supported by an external link to a site that knowingly does not contain that information, but may be too overwhelming for most to read, or using a non-web reference that does not exist as a reference, or using one that does not provide that information, but is difficult for most people to locate
- Including an untrue statement together in the same paragraph or sentence with a true statement, followed by an external link or footnote as a reference, hoping others will assume the reference covers both statements
- The edits you have made over the past year have used all these ploys. They rely on exhausting the other editors' patience by reverting their edits, and supporting this action with unnecessarily long and repetitive explanations in the expectation that they do not have as much time as you to do battle on ring a ring o'roses and will eventually stop bothering. This has worked for you every time, it seems. Now, to cap it all, you try to remove the NPOV banner and ask for an explanation of why it's there--I can at least congratulate you on your sense of irony. If you have any other such questions, I refer you to the text in the discussion above, I think everything is answered there. I do not propose to feed the trolls any more. JO24--89.10.28.207 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the poem has no connection to the plague. I have not added any misinformation to this article. All things that have been cited on the page suggest that the poem and the plague have no connection. I am not, and have never been a troll or vandal. Stating that the poem does not come from the plague does not appear to be POV to me, as every piece of evidence suggests that the only relation they have is that people think they are connected. I have requested comment on the article from the wider wikipedia community. I stand by my edits. leontes (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for comment on article
The poem Ring a Ring o' Roses is considered by many to somehow reference the plague and to date from that time. Those that have examined the origin of the poem have found no evidence for that conclusion. What language should the article adopt regarding this issue? leontes (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems clear that the plague connection is a modern myth (J. Simpson and S. Roud, A Dictionary of English Folklore (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 295-6 say it ‘has no evidence to support it and is almost certainly nonsense’). Would something relatively neutral like this do for the last sentence of the intro? 'In modern times, there is a widespread popular belief that the song is concerned with the plague.’ As to the plague interpretation section, it is a little repetitious. Ideally you'd want to start the section by giving as clear a picture as possible about the state of belief at the time it was first reported, i. e. by the Opies. Perhaps their own words would not be too long. For the clarity of the picture, it is a pity that the earliest (1790s) version is hidden in a footnote. N p holmes (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have to work for the next while, but wanted to add that I. and P. Opie, The Singing Game (Oxford: OUP, 1985), 220-7 have a very thorough refutation of the myth, as well as many other details that should be reflected in the article. (Why, by the way, does the article currently pretend that the Opies supported the plague connection? It's clear even in the Nursery Rhyme book that they didn't.)N p holmes (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what Holmes has written, and will add the NPOV addition to the intro. I haven't got The Singing Game, but I certainly think their refutation and the other, additional details should be added; this could maybe be a replacement for the strident tone of the current refutation in the plague section. JO24--89.10.28.207 (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm making some (I hope) less controversial changes at the beginning of the article. If nobody else has anything to say by the weekend, I'll put up a suggested version for the plague section then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N p holmes (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The way that it is now written seems fine, some people might consider it being slightly loaded but I think the vast majority of people won't and there are plenty of references for the people who think it is unjustified. --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- What you were looking at may have had some text hidden by a change made a day or two ago which misused a "ref name = " tag so that all the text up to the next ref tag disappeared. I've made the change. I won't mind if someone takes the whole thing back (there are some errors in the previous version that should still be corrected though).N p holmes (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't take anything back, I think this is just so good. Congratulations, holmes. It is much clearer: better laid-out, better-written and much more informative. I don't feel it's biased anymore, and I think we can take the bias banner down. Apart from minor adjustment by holmes, I hope everyone feels they can leave the article alone now. Nice work. Agreed, Mr Leontes? JO24--89.10.28.207 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- As no one has objected to N p holmes's recent editorial work, I am taking down the npov banner today. JO24--89.10.28.207 (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't take anything back, I think this is just so good. Congratulations, holmes. It is much clearer: better laid-out, better-written and much more informative. I don't feel it's biased anymore, and I think we can take the bias banner down. Apart from minor adjustment by holmes, I hope everyone feels they can leave the article alone now. Nice work. Agreed, Mr Leontes? JO24--89.10.28.207 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- What you were looking at may have had some text hidden by a change made a day or two ago which misused a "ref name = " tag so that all the text up to the next ref tag disappeared. I've made the change. I won't mind if someone takes the whole thing back (there are some errors in the previous version that should still be corrected though).N p holmes (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- The way that it is now written seems fine, some people might consider it being slightly loaded but I think the vast majority of people won't and there are plenty of references for the people who think it is unjustified. --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Accidental Original "Research" on Date
Looking on Google Books for the works that the Opies cite I accidentally came across an earlier attestation for the rhyme's existence. Ann S. Stephens The Old Homestead (London, 1855), 215-6
Then the little girls began to seek their own amusements. They played “hide and seek”, “ring, ring a rosy,” and a thousand wild and pretty games.”
The motto to the chapter (p. 213) also seems to allude to the rhyme:
A ring–a ring of roses,
Laps full of posies;
Awake–awake!
Now come and make
A ring–a ring of roses.
The book's also on Project Gutenberg. Would it be reasonable to mention this in the section on early attestation, or is it excluded as original research? N p holmes (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. You're providing citations, that's all you need. By "original research", is meant original, non-empirical speculation.JO24--89.10.28.207 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kate Greenaway Illustration
Holmes, I love that picture. You don't think it should be higher up, perhaps next to the contents, so that you see it immediately the page comes up on your screen? Only asking.--JO 24 (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No preference. N p holmes (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A-tishoo
In Ireland this is "a tissue". I don't know that this EE-sha, AA-sha is. -- Evertype·✆ 09:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Second Verse
There's already been discussion of this ,but should information on possible second verses be put on the page? When I was little (Northern England) everyone sang:
Down at the bottom of the deep blue sea, Catching fishes for my tea, How many can you catch, one two three.
[edit] References in Popular Culture
The References in Popular Culture section of this article was spun-off into a separate article page, which was then subsequently deleted. Really clever - well done to the Admin who deleted it without merging the info back into the article.
Anyway, here's the content. I'd like it to go back into the article but thought I wouldn't stick it back in without consultation.
[edit] Appearances in popular culture
The song has appeared many times in popular culture, usually in reference to plagues or biological terror (see the plague interpretation above).
[edit] Film appearances
In the 1970 film, Beneath the Planet of the Apes, a group of children sings an ironic, post-apocalyptic version of the nursery rhyme: Ring-a ring o' neutrons;
A pocketful of positrons;
A fission! A fission!
We all fall down.In the film V for Vendetta, the rhyme is graphically represented by a ring of children holding hands and dancing in a circle within a memorial for the casualties of a biological attack on the United Kingdom.
In the movie Mission: Impossible II the character of Doctor Nekhorvich sees some children singing this song shortly after he injects himself with a deadly bio-engineered virus to smuggle it out of a lab. The image of the children dancing slows down and appears haunting, reflecting Nekhorvich's awareness of the dangers of the plague he carries.
In the film The Wizard of Oz the Wicked Witch of the West chants the following version mockingly at Dorothy and her friends (who have just been captured, after running a ring around the castle, by a number of Winkie Guards brandishing spears): Ring Around the Rosie A Pocketful of Spears
[edit] Television appearances
In the episode of Star Trek: The Original Series named And The Children Shall Lead (episode #60), when the children are found on Triacus with all their parents dead, they are holding hands and dancing in a circle while singing this song.
The rhyme was heavily featured in the very first serial of Sapphire & Steel, where it was used as a "trigger" to allow time to break through into the present day. Several characters who are mentioned in the rhyme, as well as a person who appears to have the plague, appear as ghosts.
In the episode "Dance of the Dead" of the Showtime show Masters of Horror, the rhyme was sung by children as a foreshadowing and emphasis of the biological warfare featured in the episode. In flashback sequences, a young girl remembers her birthday one year when "blitz" fell from the sky and ate away at the flesh of her friends.
On the episode "Dark Harvest" of the television show Invader Zim, the character of Miss Bitters devotes one of her classes to explaining the bubonic plague origins of the rhyme in a particularly menacing manner.
[edit] Musical appearances
The Irish American Celtic punk band Flogging Molly uses the "Ring a ring a rosey" in the song "The Rare Ould Times". From the album "Drunken Lullabies." This song originally by Pete St. John
The nu-metal band Korn incorporated the song into one of their singles called "Shoots and Ladders" on their self-titled album.
Dave Matthews of Dave Matthews Band also sings this rhyme as a verse in the song "Gravedigger" (Found on Some Devil, 2003.)
Another musical reference is in Pink Floyd's track "Take It Back" from their 1994 The Division Bell album, which incorporates the rhyme.
The medieval folk band "The Soil Bleeds Black" interprets this song in the album "Mirror of the Middle Ages".
The song "House of Wolves" by My Chemical Romance (on the album The Black Parade) quotes the line in the poem, "Ring around the ambulance" (instead of rosie) and "Ashes to ashes, we all fall down".The New England folk-rock band The Nields on their 1994 album "Bob on the Ceiling" use the rhyme as a refrain for the song "Ash Wednesday".
[edit] Other appearances
In the game Prey, during one level, the ghosts of possessed children sing the song in a sinister manner before attacking.
[edit] Second Verse from N. England & Refs in Pop. Culture
Both of the above ought to be in the article, in my opinion.--JO 24 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
