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)

Contents 1 Needs merging 2 Fishes in the water 3 'Nuclear version' 4 ashes, ashes 5 Plague 'myth' 6 Interpretation 7 Canada and Newfoundland

[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 an 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)

[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 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)

[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)

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)

[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)

[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)