Talk:Ring a Ring o' Roses

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Needs merging

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: In Australia, "fishes in the water, fishes in the sea..." is what I hear as a 3rd verse. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was at school, in North-east England, we used to add 'Down at the bottom of the deep blue sea, catching fishies for my tea'. There was more than that, but I can't remember the rest.--Jcvamp (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  I'm English from West Yorkshire - 2nd verse was always 'Down at the bottom of the deep blue sea, catching fishies for my tea, One ..., Two ... THREE !" at which point all the children who fell to the floor at 'We all fall down', jump up into the air. As an adult I've lived first in Newcastle upon Tyne, then South East England, the second verse in each place is always. "Fishes in the water, fishes in the sea - we all jump up with a one, two, three !"
90.220.242.82 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fishes in the water

message: Is there any actual evidence for this?  Looks bogus to me. Crosbie 13:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Nuclear version'

message: 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)
replies: text: He just doesn't think that it is "usually" sung that way in the US, and that squared brackets are used to insert something missing from a version of a text, not something optional. If you feel this version is valid you could include it under Texas lower in the list, but I would prefer that you give a reliable source, rather than just memory. See comments on unsourced versions below.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ashes, ashes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interpretation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ashes in the water / Ashes in the sea 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Canada and Newfoundland 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Smallpox? 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's true. Well spotted.--Jcvamp 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Title of the article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Request for comment on article

message: 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 makeA 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Accidental Original "Research" on Date

message: 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)
replies: text: No preference. N p holmes (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kate Greenaway Illustration

message: In Ireland this is "a tissue". I don't know that this EE-sha, AA-sha is. -- Evertype·✆ 09:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-tishoo 

message: 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.
That has nothing to do with "ROROR". As a child (in South East England) I remember the "catching fishes for my tea" rhyme was sung but it's got nothing to do with this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.143.234 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Same for me. Both as a pre-school toddler in Southern England and then later when I started school in Scotland. My first teacher at school even got us all impersonating buttercups, even the boys. After that we had to jump up and clap our hands loudly, and that part I enjoyed far more.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.11.97 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Verse 

message: 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.
===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).
===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
The 2006 film "Ring Around the Rosie" is linked to from several Wiki articles (such as the Gina Philips summary and filmography), but they all redirect to the childrens' song article.  I don't know how to fix it, or I'd just do so.
===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.
===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".
The 1883 version is recited by a children's choir in the song "Scaretale" by the Finnish band Nightwish. The song is about child nightmares and the poem used to create a creepy atmosphere during the intro of the song. 77.191.30.185 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in Popular Culture 

message: 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".
The 1883 version is recited by a children's choir in the song "Scaretale" by the Finnish band Nightwish. The song is about child nightmares and the poem used to create a creepy atmosphere during the intro of the song. 77.191.30.185 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical appearances

message: Both of the above ought to be in the article, in my opinion.--JO 24 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Verse from N. England & Refs in Pop. Culture 

message: I changed the previous written German version to the most popular one  as the previous had some serious failures:
* Ringelreihen is a complete composed noun (even well known and not specifically invented for this case) with the fist word Ringel repeated in this rhyme. Thus writing it as separate words is wrong. Furthermore "Ringelreihe" without ending "n" is considered wrong dumb speek, the only other accepted variants are "Ringelreihn" and "Ringelreigen".
* Thus the second line as well ends in "dreien" and not "dreie". Furthermore this "en"-rhyme is more correct as in poems this structure with the unusual ending adjective is commonly used with ending "en" (In standard prosa language you would say "Wir sind drei Kinder").
* As well the inserted first word "Wir" in the second line gives an additional note which makes the whole melody more sound and corresponds to the "Und" in the fourth line which starts with the same note.
* In line three I replaced the statement. I only know "Sitzen _unter'm_ Hol(l|d)erbusch" ([we] sit beneath the elder bush). I never have head or seen the line "Sitzen _auf dem_ Holderbusch" (We sit on top of the elder bush). This is also quite unlikely as and elder bush hardly can withstand people (or even children) sitting on it. However it is much more likely that you can hide beneath an elder bush given it's structure. And of course the fourth line makes much more sense that way: The exclamation "Husch, Husch!" means "Hurry! [Hide out fast!]" (In this text this is used used as a noun "Huschhusch", which is unusual). As well I have never heard of "musch" instead of "husch".
Of course in the article you quoted a source for this very unusual and improper version. However I think it is better to write down the most popular and lyrically better version and mention historical and regional variants instead the other way round. I left the broken translation and the following sentences as I don't have the sources mentioned there (and thus don't want to fiddle around with them) in order to make it right. So what do you think? Arnomane (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German version 

message: Am I the only one who believes the above versions are somehow out of place in this article? There is no doubt that some version or another of the rhyme is sung all around the world now as a result of modern communications and the widespread presence of english-speaking/expatriates nursery schools. However, Indonesia being a non-English-speaking country, mention of an English-language [rhyme] here is plenty surreal. I believe the inclusion of the [English] Indonesian rhyme may be in violation of WP:NOT#IINFO or WP:NOT#DIRECTORY for the reason we could include Burkino Faso, Bolivia, Belize, Brazil or Bahrain. I would speculate that Indonesia and all the countries I have named above are certain to have picked up the rhyme in the course of the last 50 years or so. All that makes it not very relevant and even less notable or important.
On the same note, I find the Japanese version a bit incongruous particularly because there is no attempt to track its evolution and entry date into Japan, which would be nice to know. However, the article only states their existence and quotes the lyrics. I could say the same about the German Greek and Italian versions, but the article mentions that similar versions exist throughout Europe, making it seem less like the proverbial sore thumb. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesian and Japanese versions 

message: I would also comment that the difference between what is labelled "the Irish version" and the "English version" is trivial. I'm not even sure someone can state authoritatively which "version" is recognised as the 'standard' one in either country. Even if it is not read as it is spelt in the case of 'roses' , it's obvious that 'rosies' rhymes better with 'posies'. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish and English versions 

message: I disagree with the US version being "ring around the roses".  I grew up in the Midwest in Iowa and moved to Minnesota.  (My parents came from Illinois)  To my recollection, however, I have never heard this rhyme told with the word roses.  To my memory it has always be "ring around the rosey".  I would like to know if that changes by region?  Not unlike "duck, duck, goose" in Iowa turns to "duck, duck, grey duck" in Minnesota.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.72.234.5 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosey vs Roses (US and others)

message: If wether or not "America" was a proper country at the time, which isn't properly stated, is even marginally significant, the phrase "Even though America wasn't even a proper country yet." needs changing. Whatever is expressed here should be clarified. At least it should be USA, rather than America, if one takes this statement as relevant.
DerGolgo (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  America not a proper country yet? 

message: I always thought the 'ring a rosie' part meant to complete the rosary devotion, y'know because the rosary's in the shape of a ring. It would also tie in with the Plague explanation. 86.29.224.56 (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It might, although, as the article states, there's very little evidence that the plague explanation is valid. Do you have a source for the rosary devotion connection? garik (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosie (Rosary?) 

message: The main text of this article is well referenced, but the table of alternative versions does not have any sources, making it difficult to judge their validity. I propose we make an effort to give references for as many versions as possible and then delete the rest, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, after a reasonable period of time.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions without sources

message: Weather it was about this particular plague or another,it is about a plague of some sort, although this plague does some to fit it rather well. But in any case history will repeat itself again its not meant for us to fight over where it came from it was meant for us to learn from. So that next time it might not kill so many, your friend Lewis Cotten.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis cotten (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no good evidence that it had anything to do with any plague. garik (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Lewis cotten

message: currently the article reads "... everyone fall down. (Fall down is a command.)".
Now "everyone" takes a singular finite verb in such situations (see, for example ), so if it were not in the imperative it would be "everyone falls down". I am going to remove the bracketed part because it is redundant, and I think this is actually obvious to native speakers. Thehalfone (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanise version 

message: 'Ashes, ashes, we all fall down'. Those are the true words. It's about the plague. I was born in England, my mum is British and this was the way she always sang the rhyme. 24.61.21.58 (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know about "ashes, ashes, we fall down", but it's nothing to do with the plague, although that's a popular misconception. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Contemporary accounts (Samuel Pepys,Daniel Defoe) of the 1665 Great Plague of London say that plague victims were buried in quicklime.  I don't know of any accounts that mention cremation of bodies. 96.54.32.44 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  omg you have to add 

message: The article directs us to nosegays but did people actually bottle their nosegays bundles? Wouldn't it then be a potpourri bottle?  Maybe a bottle of perfumed water?   97.85.185.160 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bottle full of posie 

message: Anyone else think the near-total reliance on the Opies for one of the best-known nursery rhymes in the English language is a bit, well, bizarre? There must be other relevant authors, and it's clear from the discussion that many of them differ on the plague attribution. 70.107.172.167 (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, given the the Opies remain the standard text on nursery rhymes and that four or five other sources are used. Not sure why that would seem bizarre. Bear in mind that almost everything that repeats the plague attribution is not a scholarly work in the same way of the Opies.--SabreBD (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also bear in mind that there really aren't many reliable scholarly sources on nursery rhymes. This shouldn't be all that surprising. garik (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single Source 

message: Congratulations are due to Wikipedia for putting an end to the ridiculous claim that this nursery rhyme originates from the Great Plague of 1665. As any one who has read the book by Peter and Iona Opie on nursery rhyhmes will know, this is without foundation and is a theory upsets what we know about the history of this  Nursery_rhyme. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations are due to Wikipedia

message: *The current Italian version of the rhyme, still used widely among children, is sung to the same tune but has substantially different lyrics:
*:Giro giro tondo,
*:Casca il mondo,
*:Casca la terra,
*:Tutti giù per terra
*which translates as "Spin, spin around / The world is falling / The earth is falling / Everyone down on the ground"
*The Croatian vesion is:
*:Ringe ringe raja,
*:Doš'o čiko Paja,
*:Jedno jaje muć,
*:A mi djeco čuč!
*which roughly translates to: "Ring, ring, noise / Uncle Paja has come / One egg is shook / And we children crouch!"
The above was removed as uncited. Hyacinth (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: Uncited

message: Yeah, upstairs, downstairs. 108.93.144.242 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upstairs, downstairs  

message: As a point of possible interest the version I know (I am from the Black Country in the English Midlands) is:
*Ring a ring o roses
*A pocket full of posies
*Atishoo, atishoo
*We all fall down
*Ashes in the water
*Ashes in the sea
*We all jump up with a one, two, three.
I can't say what the origin of this is or how old it is though.Dan.M.McLaughlin (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version from the English Midlands  

message: Ring-a-round the rosie,
Pockets full of posy,
Ashes! Ashes!
We all fall down.
Anyone growing up in the US knows this to be the truth. I won't edit the page, though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.152.48.222 (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguably the only correct way in the US 

message: I have always been under the impression this song is about influenza, given the era (late 1800s) and symptoms (breathing related.) Influenza was a substantial killer of young children at this time, which had no treatments apart from herbal therapies, and the epidemics were quite catastrophic to the very young and old (I have no doubt this would have been a song sung by children during the 1918 pandemic where millions died), whereas plague virtually didnt exist and smallpox was already starting to be marginalised by vaccinia. Suggesting it was about plague would be like suggesting the songs children sing about today is about the coronation of Elizabeth the first, or polio, both of which are not relevant to modern children.volantares  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.250.231 (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that it has been traced back to the 1840s.  Some children's songs are of great age, comfortably including Elizabeth I.  See Ride a cock horse to Banbury Cross which may refer to Elizabeth I (or possibly even Lady Godiva fl. 1010–1067).  Not quite as old, but when did you last see a muffin man?  Going back to the Tudors, Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary may refer to either Mary, Queen of Scots or Bloody Mary.  Roses are Red has its origin in Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene of 1590.  Although doubted by some, local legend legends ascribe Cunobeline (Shakespeare's Cymbeline) as being the model for Old King Cole, and that's back to c.5 BC – AD 40!  Children's rhymes are very conservative.  The rhythm of poetry tends to conserve the vocabulary and most such lines are learnt by heart from parents, who learnt them at their mother's knee, and so forth back into the mists.  Whilst often impossible to prove the dates on these traditional songs, it is also very difficult to disprove some very early origins, particularly when apparent nonsense phrases (eg "silver bells" may refer to a Catholic Sanctus bell and cockleshells were the badge of pilgrims to Santiago de Compostela in Spain) have an interpretation which no child would understand. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Influenza not plague or smallpox

message: I've just been reading Jean Harrowven's book and she firmly ascribes the origin to the 1664 Great Plague.  The "ring a rosies" was the weal on the skin, "pocket full of posies" the supposed preventative herbs, "atishoo" sneezing and "we all fall down" as illness or death.  After a discussion about herbs, the plague and its effects she quotes a verse from Cornwall:
Ashes in the river,
Ashes in the sea;
We all jump up,
In a one, two, three.
''
which she links to the Great Fire of London (1666).
The book is 356 pages with the usual indices and a two page bibliography (which includes the Opies) and appears to be well researched in reasonable depth.  I'm tempted to add the information to the article and change the categoric dismissal to note that there is scholarly dissent.  However, the article is GA and I don't want to kick off an edit war.  There has been much name-calling above, can editors try to stick with (1) whether this source is trustworthy, and (2) if so does WP:NPOV (and in particular WP:BALASP) apply? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plague (again) 

message: I've removed the claim that "there is a connection to the pastoral poem by Christopher Marlowe - The Passionate Shepherd to his Love". If someone can find a proper connection, please add it back but as far as I can see the only "connection" is that the poem contains the word "posies" (And I will make thee beds of Roses / And a thousand fragrant posies). Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Passionate Shepherd to His Love 

message: The purpose of Wikipedia is apparently supposed to be that of an encyclopedia, not a deep dive into armchair-folklorist trivia. Per WP:NOTLYRICS.
::An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article.
As well, most of the Meaning section can go, seeing as the "plague code" crap is properly covered elsewhere, not least being a 2000 Snopes article.Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many lyrics 

message: I haven’t looked at the page history yet, but given the problems detailed on this page and in the article, it’s pretty clear the article no longer meets the GA requirements, and it’s possible that it never did.  The lead section doesn’t summarize the article and there’s an issue with the way the lyrics are included per above. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 GA review  

message: Odd that the musical example given doesn't include the melody heard almost universally across the US, for generations:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/317574211202022129/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: , can you please stop changing the words of the Indian version quoted to your preferred "Ring around the Rosie" and "Atishoo! Atishoo!". You are simply quoting the British/American versions. I'm sure such versions of the song are found in India, but the point of this section is to note local variants. We cite two sources giving the Indian wording (not necessarily the only Indian wording) as "Ringa Ringa Roses" and "Husha busha!" (or similar), and that is what should appear in the article. Your repeated unexplained edits are beginning to amount to vandalism, and if you persist in this behaviour you will be blocked. GrindtXX (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian version 

message: — Assignment last updated by Isha0323 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music