text:
User talk:TakuyaMurata

 * See the page history to retrieve old threads.

Tried to email you re IP Block Exemption
You requested IP block exemption, and it has been granted. Please note that the email address you provided with your request is listed as not valid. Should you wish to have IPBE extended, please send a brand new email with a current email account. Risker (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Constrained minimum criterion
You seem to think that Draft:Constrained minimum criterion should be deleted because the topic does not seem to merit an inclusion in Wikipedia, since the criterion seems too recently introduced. In other words, there is no need to develop this draft. If you think that you should use the process at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If you do not want to do that, you could always ignore the draft, and if nobody edits it for six months it will get deleted anyway.

Attempting to turn the draft article into a redirect is the wrong thing to do. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 * It was actually already deleted before by G13. I requested it to be undeleted to see if the topic is notable or if the draft contains some materials that need to be merged into the existing articles. As it turned out, the topic seems to be too recent so it probably doesn’t pass the notability but the notion was already mentioned in an existing article so I simply redirected it to that article. In my opinion, the redirect is preferable since anyone who disagrees with my editorial judgement can undo the redirect and develops the draft. Also, if the draft is deleted, to revisit the notability question later, we need to undelete it first: undoing the redirect is simpler and thus is more productive. What do you think? —- Taku (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The logic that you are using would apply if you moved the draft into mainspace. But if you did that, it would be sensible to copy some sort of talk page discussion into the redirect-page's talk-page.

 * But the logic you are using does not work in draft-space. This is because in draft-space, Draft:Constrained minimum criterion will be deleted if it goes for a 6-month period with no edits.  If the thing is going to remain in draft-space, then it should stay as an article (not as a redirect intended to mask an article).

 * Having redirects in draft-space works when you have two draft-space articles on identical subjects, and you merge them, and turn one into a redirect to the other. It is also works as a temporary thing when you move an draft from draft-space to main-space; but in that case, sooner or later, the draft-space redirect gets deleted. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Sorry but I don’t think I quite follow. For example, it’s actually quite common that a draft turns out to cover a topic that is already covered in mainspace articles. In that case, the best course of action is to merge the draft into the existing articles (and I do that a lot). The case of this draft is actually quite similar to such a case: the notion this draft is about is already mentioned in one mainspace article. It is a common and preferable practice to leave a redirect after the merger instead of deleting the article since it would be easier to undo the merger if needed afterward. The "logic" of leaving the redirect instead of deletion is exactly the same: my editorial judgment was the topic is not notable but if some other editor thought differently, it would be easier to undo the redirect, develop the draft and then move it to the mainspace. By the way, I am very familiar with G13 but it doesn’t mean we must use G13 to handle drafts; redirecting is fine too. —- Taku (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want the draft deleted, go through a deletion process.
 * If you want the draft preserved but hidden behind a redirect, move the draft to mainspace immediately after changing it to a redirect.
 * Or leave it as a draft article, and see what happens.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or just leave the redirect. Basically, you seem to think that is not an opinion, but it is an opinion since for example we leave a redirect when we merge drafts into the existing articles. I am not going to insist (not too important for me) but I just want to point out that a redirect is an option in addition to G13. —- Taku (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, do you still believe a redirect cannot be an option? (It’s just that from your non-response response, I cannot tell if you actually read and understand what I wrote above). —- Taku (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I read it. But it does not make sense. And your following it up with the 8 July message suggests that this is important to you, even though on 6 July you said the opposite. That does not make sense either. If you do not want to develop the draft into an article, then please just leave it as a draft and maybe someone else will. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand why you respond with non-repose again. I asked "do you still believe a redirect cannot be an option?" You can say yes or no and preferably with some reasoning. Like I said, a draft in question isn’t too important for me but I would like to know why you think what you think. I am quite active on the draftspace. So, what is important for me is to know what other editors think about the draftspace. That’s why I was interested in knowing why you insist on G13 instead of a redirect. At least, I explained why leaving a redirect is preferable in some instances; if you think it didn’t make sense, again you can tell why, that’s a response. Taku (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the draft article is left as a draft article, a number of things may happen:
 * Someone will read it and find it useful.
 * Someone will improve it.
 * Nobody will do anything, and eventually it will get deleted.

 * There is no valid reason to turn the draft into a redirect. And if it were turned into a redirect, it would be appropriate to delete the redirect after 6 months.  The policy at WP:RDRAFT is not applicable, since the draft has not been moved to mainspace. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I would say the logic doesn’t apply some instances. Besides the merger case mentioned above, another would be a case when a draft is a duplicate of an existing one in the mainspace; in that case, it is a common and preferable to redirect the draft. Just to confirm, you do agree there are some instances when redirecting is appropriate, right? You said “ There is no valid reason to turn the draft into a redirect. And if it were turned into a redirect, it would be appropriate to delete the redirect after 6 months”. This is plainly false. There is no such policy and is contrary to standard practices in the draftspace. —- Taku (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We do not agree. User talk:Arjayay shows that I am not the only person to disagree with you on this point. There is no value to Wikipedia in continuing this conversation. There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good. You finally answered my question. You are wrong (there is no prohibition on redirects as you seem to believe) but I agree we don’t need to continue the conversation. —- Taku (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:TakuyaMurata


text:
E. Nesbit

Edith Nesbit (married name Edith Bland; 15 August 1858 – 4 May 1924) was an English writer and poet, who published her books for children as E. Nesbit. She wrote or collaborated on more than 60 such books. She was also a political activist and co-founder of the Fabian Society, a socialist organisation later affiliated to the Labour Party.

Biography
Nesbit was born in 1858 at 38 Lower Kennington Lane, Kennington, Surrey (now classified as Inner London), the daughter of an agricultural chemist, John Collis Nesbit, who died in March 1862, before her fourth birthday. Her mother was Sarah Green (née Alderton).

The ill health of Edith's sister Mary meant that the family travelled for some years, living variously in Brighton, Buckinghamshire, France (Dieppe, Rouen, Paris, Tours, Poitiers, Angoulême, Bordeaux, Arcachon, Pau, Bagnères-de-Bigorre, and Dinan in Brittany), Spain and Germany. Mary was engaged in 1871 to the poet Philip Bourke Marston, but later that year she died of tuberculosis in Normandy.

After Mary's death, Edith and her mother settled for three years at Halstead Hall, Halstead, north-west Kent, a location that inspired The Railway Children, although the distinction has also been claimed by the Derbyshire town of New Mills.

When Nesbit was 17, the family moved back to Lewisham in south-east London. There is a Lewisham Council plaque to her at 28 Elswick Road.

In 1877, at the age of 18, Nesbit met the bank clerk Hubert Bland, her elder by three years. Seven months pregnant, she married Bland on 22 April 1880, but did not initially live with him, as Bland remained with his mother. Their marriage was tumultuous. Early on, Nesbit found that another woman believed she was Hubert's fiancée and had also borne him a child. A more serious blow came in 1886, when she discovered that her friend,, was pregnant by him. She had previously agreed to adopt Hoatson's child and allow Hoatson to live with her as their housekeeper. After she discovered the truth, she and her husband quarrelled violently and she suggested that Hoatson and the baby, Rosamund, should leave; her husband threatened to leave Edith if she disowned the baby and its mother. Hoatson remained with them as a housekeeper and secretary and became pregnant by Bland again 13 years later. Edith again adopted Hoatson's child, John.

Nesbit's children by Bland were Paul Cyril Bland (1880–1940), to whom The Railway Children was dedicated, Mary Iris Bland (1881–1965), who married John Austin D Phillips in 1907, and Fabian Bland (1885–1900). Bland's two children by Alice Hoatson, whom Edith adopted, were Rosamund Edith Nesbit Hamilton, later Bland (1886–1950), who married Clifford Dyer Sharp on 16 October 1909, and to whom The Book of Dragons was dedicated, and John Oliver Wentworth Bland (1899–1946) to whom The House of Arden and Five Children and It were dedicated. Nesbit's son Fabian died aged 15 after a tonsil operation; Nesbit dedicated several books to him, including The Story of the Treasure Seekers and its sequels. Nesbit's adopted daughter Rosamund collaborated with her on Cat Tales.

Nesbit admired the artist and Marxian socialist William Morris. The couple joined the founders of the Fabian Society in 1884, after which their son Fabian was named, and jointly edited its journal Today. Hoatson was its assistant secretary. Nesbit and Bland dallied with the Social Democratic Federation, but found it too radical. Nesbit was a prolific lecturer and writer on socialism in the 1880s. She and her husband co-wrote under the pseudonym "Fabian Bland", However, the joint work dwindled as her success rose as a children's author. She was a guest speaker at the London School of Economics, which had been founded by other Fabian Society members.

Edith lived from 1899 to 1920 at Well Hall, Eltham, in south-east London, which makes fictional appearances in several of her books, such as The Red House. From 1911 she kept a second home on the Sussex Downs at Crowlink, Friston, East Sussex. She and her husband entertained many friends, colleagues and admirers at Well Hall.

On 20 February 1917, some three years after Bland died, Nesbit married Thomas "the Skipper" Tucker in Woolwich, where he was captain of the Woolwich Ferry.

Towards the end of her life, Nesbit moved first to Crowlink, then with the skipper to two conjoined properties which were Royal Flying Corps buildings, 'Jolly Boat' and 'Long Boat'. Nesbit lived in 'Jolly Boat' and the Skipper in 'Long Boat'. Nesbit died in 'The Long Boat' at Jesson, St Mary's Bay, New Romney, Kent, in 1924, probably from lung cancer (she "smoked incessantly"), and was buried in the churchyard of St Mary in the Marsh. Her husband Thomas died at the same address on 17 May 1935. Edith's son Paul Bland was an executor of Thomas Tucker's will.

Writer
Nesbit's first published works were poems. She was under 20 in March 1878, when the monthly magazine Good Words printed her poem "Under the Trees". In all she published about 40 books for children, including novels, storybooks and picture books. She also published almost as many books jointly with others.

Nesbit's biographer, Julia Briggs, names her "the first modern writer for children", who "helped to reverse the great tradition of children's literature inaugurated by Lewis Carroll, George MacDonald and Kenneth Grahame, in turning away from their secondary worlds to the tough truths to be won from encounters with things-as-they-are, previously the province of adult novels". Briggs also credits Nesbit with inventing the children's adventure story. Noël Coward was an admirer. In a letter to an early biographer, Noel Streatfeild wrote, "She had an economy of phrase and an unparalleled talent for evoking hot summer days in the English countryside."

Among Nesbit's best-known books are The Story of the Treasure Seekers (1899) and The Wouldbegoods (1901), which tell of the Bastables, a middle-class family fallen on relatively hard times. The Railway Children is also popularised by a 1970 film version. Gore Vidal called the time-travel book, The Story of the Amulet, one where "Nesbit's powers of invention are at their best." Her children's writing also included plays and collections of verse.

Nesbit has been cited as the creator of modern children's fantasy. Her innovations placed realistic contemporary children in real-world settings with magical objects (which would now be classed as contemporary fantasy) and adventures and sometimes travel to fantastic worlds. This influenced directly or indirectly many later writers, including P. L. Travers (of Mary Poppins), Edward Eager, Diana Wynne Jones and J. K. Rowling. C. S. Lewis too paid heed to her in the Narnia series and mentions the Bastable children in The Magician's Nephew. Michael Moorcock later wrote a series of steampunk novels around an adult Oswald Bastable of The Treasure Seekers. In 2012, Jacqueline Wilson wrote a sequel to the Psammead trilogy: Four Children and It.

Nesbit also wrote for adults, including eleven novels, short stories, and four collections of horror stories.

In 2011, Nesbit was accused of plagiarising the plot of The Railway Children from The House by the Railway by Ada J. Graves. The Telegraph reported that the Graves book had appeared in 1896, nine years before The Railway Children, and listed similarities between them. However, not all sources agree on this finding: The magazine Tor.com posited an error in the earlier news reports, saying both books had been released in the same year, 1906.

Although she was the family breadwinner and has the father in The Railway Children declare that "Girls are just as clever as boys, and don’t you forget it!", she did not champion women's rights. "She opposed the cause of women’s suffrage—mainly, she claimed, because women could swing Tory, thus harming the Socialist cause." She is said to have avoided the literary moralizing that characterized the age. "And, most crucially, both books are constructed from a blueprint that is also a kind of reënactment of the author’s own childhood: an idyll torn up at its roots by the exigencies of illness, loss, and grief."

Places

 * Edith Nesbit Walk and cycleway runs along the south side of Well Hall Pleasaunce in Eltham.
 * Lee Green, also in south-east London, has Edith Nesbit Gardens.
 * A 200-metre footpath in Grove Park south-east London, between Baring Road and Reigate Road, is named Railway Children Walk after the novel, as is one in Oxenhope, a film location on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway used in the 1970 film.
 * There is a Nesbit Road in St Mary's Bay, Romney Marsh, where Nesbit's home Long Boat & Jolly Boat stands.
 * Nesbit House, a care home at Badgers Mount, Kent, is located near Halstead Hall where Edith Nesbit lived when she was young.

Other legacy

 * Actress Judy Parfitt portrayed Nesbit in the 1972–1973 miniseries The Edwardians
 * The Edith Nesbit Society was founded in 1996 with Dame Jacqueline Wilson as president.
 * In The Guardian in 2001, Francis Spufford placed The Story of the Amulet first on his list of greatest children's books.
 * A. S. Byatt's 2009 novel The Children's Book is inspired partly by Nesbit, who appears as a character along with Kenneth Grahame and J. M. Barrie.
 * Nesbit's life inspired a one-act, one-woman play, Larks and Magic, by Alison Neil, in 2018.
 * Several of Nesbit's horror short stories were adapted into the anthology play The Shadow In The Dark by Oliver Giggins and Ash Pryce, which also drew on elements of Nesbit's own life and fears taken from her autobiographical writings. The show premiered at the Edinburgh Horror Festival in 2023.
 * American children's book author Edward Eager considered Nesbit the best children's author of all time; his books have been compared to Nesbit's and his characters are often fans of her work.

Biographies
Aside from her autobiographical Long Ago When I was Young (published 1966), Nesbit has been the subject of five biographies.
 * Doris Langley Moore E. Nesbit, 1933
 * Noel Streatfeild, Magic and the Magician: E. Nesbit and her Children’s Books, 1958
 * Julia Briggs, A Woman of Passion, 1987
 * Elisabeth Galvin, The Extraordinary Life of E. Nesbit, 2018
 * Eleanor Fitzsimons, The Life and Loves of E Nesbit, 2019

Bastable series

 * 1899 The Story of the Treasure Seekers
 * 1901 The Wouldbegoods
 * 1904 New Treasure Seekers

The Complete History of the Bastable Family (1928) is a posthumous omnibus of the three Bastable novels, but not the complete history. Four more stories about it appear in the 1905 Oswald Bastable and Others. The Bastables also feature in the 1902 adult novel The Red House.

Psammead series

 * 1902 Five Children and It
 * 1904 The Phoenix and the Carpet
 * 1906 The Story of the Amulet

House of Arden series

 * 1908 The House of Arden
 * 1909 Harding's Luck

Other children's novels

 * 1906 The Railway Children
 * 1907 The Enchanted Castle
 * 1910 The Magic City
 * 1911 The Wonderful Garden
 * 1913 Wet Magic
 * 1925 The novella Five of Us—and Madeline, published posthumously in a collection of that name

Novels for adults
As Fabian Bland: As E Nesbit
 * The Prophet's Mantle. Serialised, Weekly Dispatch, 3 August–14 December 1884, published 1889
 * The Hour before Day. Serialised, Weekly Dispatch, 1885
 * Something Wrong. Serialised, Weekly Dispatch, 7 March to 4 July 1886
 * The Marden Mystery (1896) (rare: few if any copies survive)
 * 1893 Her Marriage Lines. Serialised, Weekly Dispatch, 1893
 * 1898 The Secret of Kyriels (rare: few copies survive)
 * 1902 The Red House
 * 1906 The Incomplete Amorist
 * 1909 Salome and the Head (also known as The House with No Address)
 * 1909 Daphne in Fitzroy Street
 * 1911 Dormant (US title, Rose Royal)
 * 1916 The Incredible Honeymoon
 * 1922 The Lark

Stories and storybooks for children

 * 1887 The Pixies Garden
 * 1891 "The Pilot", poem, picture book(?),
 * 1892 Father Christmas: The Children's Casket of Pictures
 * 1894 Miss Mischief
 * 1895 Tick Tock, Tales of the Clock
 * 1895 Pussy cat
 * 1895 Doggy Tales
 * 1896 The Prince, Two Mice and Some Kitchen-Maids. Father Christmas: The Children's Treasury of Pictures and Stories (1892)
 * 1897 The Children's Shakespeare
 * 1897 Royal Children of English History
 * 1897 Tales Told in the Twilight (bedtime stories by several writers)
 * 1898 The Book of Dogs
 * 1899 Pussy and Doggy Tales
 * 1901 The Book of Dragons (stories that appeared in The Strand, 1899)
 * 1901 Nine Unlikely Tales
 * 1902 The Revolt of the Toys
 * 1903 The Rainbow Queen and Other Stories
 * 1903 Playtime Stories
 * 1904 The Story of Five Rebellious Dolls
 * 1904 Cat Tales (by Nesbit and her daughter Rosamund E. Nesbit Bland)
 * 1905 Oswald Bastable and Others (includes four Bastable stories)
 * 1905 Pug Peter, King of Mouseland
 * 1907 Beautiful Stories from Shakespeare (reprint of The Children's Shakespeare, 1895)
 * 1908 The Old Nursery Stories
 * 1912 The Magic World
 * 1925 Five of Us—and Madeline (posthumously assembled and edited by Rosamund E. Nesbit Bland, containing the title novel and two short stories perhaps completed by Nesbit)

Short stories for adults
As Fabian Bland As E Nesbit
 * "Psychical Research". Longman's Magazine, December 1884
 * "The Fabric of a Vision". Argosy, March 1885
 * "An Angel Unawares". Weekly Dispatch, 9 August 1885
 * "Desperate Conspirator". Weekly Dispatch, 15 May 1887
 * "A Pot of Money". Weekly Dispatch, 21 August 1887
 * "Christmas Roses". Weekly Dispatch, 25 December 1887
 * "High Social Position". Weekly Dispatch, 8 July 1888
 * "Mind and Money". Weekly Dispatch, 16 September 1888
 * "Getting into Society". Weekly Dispatch, 30 September 1888
 * "A Drama of Exile". Weekly Dispatch, 21 October 1888
 * "A Pious Fraud". Weekly Dispatch, 11 November 1888
 * "Her First Appearance". Weekly Dispatch, 16 December 1888
 * "Which Wins?" Murray's Magazine, December 1888
 * "Only a Joke". Longman's Magazine, August 1889
 * "The Golden Girl". Weekly Dispatch, 21 December 1890
 * "Uncle Abraham's Romance". Illustrated London News, 26 September 1891
 * "The Ebony Frame". Longman's Magazine, October 1891
 * "Hurst of Hurstcote", 1893
 * "The Butler in Bohemia" (by Nesbit and Oswald Barron),, 1894
 * "A Strayed Sheep". Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal, 2 June 1894 (with Oswald Barron)
 * "The Secret of Monsieur Roche Aymon". Atalanta Magazine, October 1894 (with Oswald Barron)
 * "The Letter in Brown Ink". Windsor Magazine, August 1899
 * "'Thirteen Ways Home", 1901
 * "The Third Drug", Strand Magazine, February 1908, as by E. Bland. Reprinted in anthologies thus and as "The Three Drugs"
 * "These Little Ones", 1909
 * "The Aunt and the Editor". North Star and Farmers' Chronicle, 15 June 1909
 * "To the Adventurous", 1923

Short story collections for adults

 * Grim Tales (horror stories), 1893
 * "The Ebony Frame", "John Charrington's Wedding", "Uncle Abraham's Romance", "The Mystery of the Semi-Detached", "From the Dead", "Man-Size in Marble", "The Mass for the Dead"
 * Something Wrong (horror stories), 1893
 * In Homespun (10 stories "written in an English dialect" of South Kent and Sussex), 1896
 * The Literary Sense (18 stories), 1903
 * Man and Maid (10 stories), 1906 (some supernatural stories)
 * Fear (horror stories), 1910
 * Collected Supernatural Stories, 2000
 * "Dormant" ("Rose Royal"), "Man-size in Marble", "The Detective", "No. 17", "John Charrington's Wedding", "The Blue Rose", "The Haunted House", "The House With No Address" ("Salome and the Head"), "The Haunted Inheritance", "The House of Silence", "The Letter in Brown Ink", "The Shadow", "The New Samson", "The Pavilion"
 * From the Dead: The Complete Weird Stories of E Nesbit, 2005
 * "Introduction" (by S. T. Joshi), "John Charrington's Wedding", "The Ebony Frame", "The Mass for the Dead", "From the Dead", "Uncle Abraham's Romance", "The Mystery of the Semi-Detached", "Man-Size in Marble", "Hurst of Hurstcote", "The Power of Darkness", "The Shadow", "The Head", "The Three Drugs", "In the Dark", "The New Samson", "Number 17", "The Five Senses", "The Violet Car", "The Haunted House", "The Pavilion", "From My School-Days","In the Dark", "The Mummies at Bordeaux"
 * The Power of Darkness: Tales of Terror', 2006
 * "Man-Size in Marble", "Uncle Abraham's Romance", "From the Dead", "The Three Drugs", "The Violet Car", "John Charrington's Wedding", "The Pavilion", "Hurst of Hurstcote", "In the Dark", "The Head", "The Mystery of the Semi-detached", "The Ebony Frame", "The Five Senses", "The Shadow", "The Power of Darkness", "The Haunted Inheritance", "The Letter in Brown Ink", "The House of Silence", "The Haunted House", "The Detective"

Non-fiction
As Fabian Bland As E Nesbit
 * No pieces yet traced
 * "Women and Socialism: from the Middle-Class Point of View". Justice, 4 and 11 April 1885
 * "Women and Socialism: A Working Woman's Point of View". Justice, 25 April 1885
 * Wings and the Child, or The Building of Magic Cities, 1913
 * Long Ago When I Was Young (originally a serial, 'My School-Days: Memories of Childhood', in Girl's Own Paper 1896–1897) Originally appearing as "My School-Days: Memories of Childhood" in The Girl's Own Paper between October 1896 and September 1897, Long Ago When I Was Young finally took book form in 1966, some 40 years after Nesbit's death, with an insightful introduction by Noel Streatfeild and some two dozen pen-and-ink drawings by Edward Ardizzone. The twelve chapters reproduce the instalments.

Poetry

 * "A Lovers' Petition". Good Words, 17 August 1881
 * "Absolution". Longman's Magazine, August 1882
 * "Possibilities". Argosy, July 1884
 * "Until the Dawn". Justice, 21 February 1885
 * "Socialist Spring Song". Today, June 1885
 * "The Dead to the Living". Gentleman's Magazine
 * "Waiting". Justice, July 1885
 * "Two Voices". Justice, August 1885
 * "1857-1885". Justice, 22 August 1885
 * "The Wife of All Ages". Justice, 18 September 1885
 * "The Time of Roses", undated (c. 1890)
 * 1886 "Lays and Legends"
 * 1887 "The Lily and the Cross"
 * 1887 "Justice for Ireland!". Warminster Gazette, 12 March 1887
 * 1887 "The Ballad of Ferencz Renyi: Hungary, 1848". Longman's Magazine, April 1887
 * 1887 "The Message of June". Longman's Magazine, June 1887
 * 1887 "The Last Envoy"
 * 1887 "The Star of Bethlehem"
 * 1887 "Devotional Verses"
 * 1888 "The Better Part, and Other Poems"
 * 1888 "Landscape and Song"
 * 1888 "The Message of the Dove"
 * 1888 "All Round the Year"
 * 1888 "Leaves of Life"
 * 1889 "Corals and Sea Songs"
 * 1890 "Songs of Two Seasons"
 * 1892 "Sweet Lavender"
 * 1892 "Lays and Legends", 2nd ed.
 * 1895 "Rose Leaves"
 * 1895 "A Pomander of Verse"
 * 1898 "Songs of Love and Empire"
 * 1901 "To Wish You Every Joy"
 * 1905 "The Rainbow and the Rose"
 * 1908 "Jesus in London"
 * 1883–1908 "Ballads and Lyrics of Socialism"
 * 1911 "Ballads and Verses of the Spiritual Life"
 * 1912 "Garden Poems"
 * 1915 "prayer in Time or War"
 * 1922 "Many Voices"

Songs

 * 1899 Slave Song (Chappell),

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: E. Nesbit


text:
Talk:Synth-pop

Semi-protection
This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. Here's a request. Make it acknowledge that the spelling "synthpop" is also used. That's used in article headlines as mentioned below, and is very common.71.236.206.225 (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Synth-pop?
I swear few months ago it was synthpop. Why change it?
 * It should be 'Synthpop' if you are taking about the British music scene and British synth music a la 'Synth Britannia' on BBC: Four
 * "Documentary following a generation of post-punk musicians who took the synthesiser from the experimental fringes to the centre of the pop stage.

 * "In the late 1970s, small pockets of electronic artists including The Human League, Daniel Miller and Cabaret Voltaire were inspired by Kraftwerk and JG Ballard, and they dreamt of the sound of the future against the backdrop of bleak, high-rise Britain".

 * "The crossover moment came in 1979 when Gary Numan's appearance on Top of the Pops with Tubeway Army's Are 'Friends' Electric? heralded the arrival of synthpop. Four lads from Basildon known as Depeche Mode would come to own the new sound, whilst post-punk bands like Ultravox, Soft Cell, OMD and Yazoo took the synth out of the pages of NME and onto the front page of Smash Hits. By 1983, acts like Pet Shop Boys and New Order were showing that the future of electronic music would lie in dance music. Contributors include Philip Oakey, Vince Clarke, Martin Gore, Bernard Sumner, Gary Numan and Neil Tennant".
 * It was Synthpop, because in the UK it was in the naming style of Electropop, Britpop, Eurodance et al (alternatively I suppose it would have been 'Synth. Pop' in the style of 'Alt. Rock', 'Alt. 90s' and 'Alt. 00s' or Synth Pop in the style of New Wave, Heavy Metal without the hyphen, as bizarrely the hyphen only ever seemed to be used when talking about genres that have come over from America like Hip-Hop or used instead of a slash like in the case of Hip-House i.e. 'that Beatmasters record its a bit Hip-Hop, its a bit House', though both Hip-Hop and Hip-House are now used without a hyphen on here). I also suppose it was Synthpop because it was originally a form of alternative music that became TOTP-worthy and found in the charts but not cheese (I hope I am using that hyphen in TOTP-worthy correctly!).
 * However the word 'Synthpop' is handy without the hyphen when you're dealing with the online argument that "Don't You Want Me was the first synthpop Number 1". I do not have the link to the thread to hand, but some people said "Cars" was 'Proto-Synthpop' (as Numan was not 'happy, shiny poptastic POP!'), which some may agree with, some disagree with...however it becomes hard on the eyes if people are writing Proto-synth-pop and putting millions of hyphens and dashes all over the place (I suppose some other people could argue that "Cars" was not synth-pop and just 'synth', especially if that hyphen is being used as a slash... which would make "Don't You Want Me" a record that's a little bit 'synthy' and a little bit pop because its made by alt. boys who have teamed up with pop girls)
 * It doesn't really matter if people want to use synthpop or synth-pop, but keep to one style guide, don't be like Wired Magazine and have a headline that says "Proto Synthpop Turned Yellow Magic Orchestra Into Godfathers of Electro" before adding "You're mistaken if you think synth-pop started with Devo. In the '70s, YMO used tools like a programmable drum machine and a synthesizer to create a unique sound" . Please keep to synthpop and electropop or synth-pop and electro-pop, don't mix it up...same goes for Hip-Hop and any other music genre where this is a problem, however being British (and from a pre-internet age of CDs and Tapes) I would go for synthpop and electropop if I was setting a style guide, though it may also be true that 'writers are overusing hyphens' these days, please see "Dash it!" by Jonathan Leake in The Sunday Times for more info on that matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.172.75 (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 * It should at least be mentioned that both spellings are used.71.236.206.225 (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I also think the article should be renamed to synthpop to be consistent with the spelling of related genres.. See also Talk:Synth-pop/Archive 1 Solidest (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Synth-pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ecentral.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2007%2F3%2F2%2Fmusic%2F16390129&sec=music
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604184727/http://www.pucchronicle.com/k-pop-splashes-into-the-west-1.2741892 to http://www.pucchronicle.com/k-pop-splashes-into-the-west-1.2741892

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Morrissey quote needs removing

 * He was talking about the synthesizer, not the synthpop genre.
 * He reneged on his position and eventually used synthesizers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.54.92.144 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Did he though? From what I understand after reading the There is a Light That Never Goes Out article, Johnny Marr played the synthesizer to emulate classical elements, and I believe is the only song, or one of few songs by The Smiths to feature a synthesizer, which could be because the band didn't have enough time to bring a full fledged orchestra on board, or didn't want to use one, so brought in a synthesizer to give the song classical instruments feel. The song itself is not synthpop as the synth itself does not appear until closer to the end of the song, and carries the song until is abruptly ends when it seems like it's going to slowly fade out. With the synth only being used to give the song an orchestra feel, it cannot classify as synthpop, but rather symphonic rock, which could be seen as a precursor of sorts due to it using synthesizers to give rock songs a classical feel, especially so with progressive rock bands such as Moody Blues with Nights in White Satin. Moline1 (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Association with New Wave
The edit warring needs to stop! Lets discuss the optimal description here.

My view is that there is a close association between Synth-pop and New Wave but that the AllMusic reference is utterly insufficient to establish one as a subgenre of the other. It is a short description with no named author. Much better references are needed if we are to make such a definite claim. If better references can be found then I will concede the point but they would need to be proper WP:RS sources.

Plausible arguments can be made that early Synth-pop pre-dates New Wave, although their heydays are closely related. The vagueness of the term New Wave makes this hard to sort out. The association is probably the best point to make in the lead. What we need to do is start the article with an uncontroversial statement and only delve into any controversy later on. Without researching better sources I'd be recommend something like this: "'Synth-pop (short for synthesizer pop;[3] also called techno-pop[4][5]) is a genre of pop music that became prominent in the late 1970s and was closely associated with new wave music.'" Of course, we need better references and if those guide us to something different then that is where we should go.

If there really is a radically different definition of the terms in the US and the UK then we need to reference this properly. We also need to remember that other countries exist and might have views on the matter too. Personally, I suspect that this is really just a difference of emphasis, not a fundamental difference in definition. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 * You’re absolutely correct. Synth-pop is a standalone genre of pop music, not just a subgenre of new wave. There are many synth-pop acts who aren't new wave, and many other, smaller genres that are classified as "genres", not "subgenres". Furthermore, on the wiki page for new wave, synth-pop is listed under "derivative forms" alongside other independent genres like alternative dance, rather than under "subgenres", causing internal inconsistency. Also, the page “list of synth-pop artists” describes it as a “genre”, not “subgenre”. Even the page itself, “Synth-pop”, notes that “It arose as a distinct genre in Japan and the United Kingdom” literally two sentences later and repeatedly refers to it as a “genre”. In short, the current description is most insensible and in dire need of changing, so I shall do so at once; if anyone objects, please respond here. In order to recognise the ambiguity of the issue I shall describe it as “a genre of new wave music *or* pop music”, similar to how hi-NRG is described as a “genre of uptempo disco *or* electronic dance music (EDM).” I have also added a quote from a reliable source (which also repeatedly describes it as a “genre”, not subgenre) on synth-pop’s status describing its relation to pop music in the same league as new wave - the relationship is up for contention, so both should be included on Wikipedia instead of relying on a single source (the AllMusic page) as one does now. Janglyguitars (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As written on the Allmusic website, synth-pop is a subgenre. UserFlash (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, new wave music itself evolved from pop music. UserFlash (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the procedures in Wikipedia, you should have opened a new discussion and not responded to an old discussion. UserFlash (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The AllMusic reference may say that, but, as put by DanielRigal, it is "utterly insufficient to establish one as a subgenre of the other." In the UK, synthpop/electropop was considered an entirely separate phenomenon from the New Wave, which referred to late 70s/early 80s punkish pop bands like Buzzcocks and The Jam. AllMusic may be widely used on Wikipedia, but it is an American site and reflects the incredibly loose American usage of the term new wave. Indeed, the other source used as a citation, the book Music in the 20th Century, does not in fact refer to synthpop as a new wave "subgenre", but rather part of the "umbrella term" usage of new wave which included "power-pop groups" as well as "myriad synthesizer-pop bands". Curiously, the Wikipedia page for power pop does not describe it as a "subgenre of new wave", nor even list new wave amongst the "stylistic origins" section of the page. For consistency's sake, it really ought to if we are to describe synthpop as a new wave subgenre, but clearly we would be mistaken in both cases. Also, note the source says "myriad synthesizer-pop bands", not "all" such bands, implying that even using the term as loosely as possible, there were still some synthpop groups who would not have qualified as new wave. This I think is inarguable, and probably the strongest reason why Wikipedia should not describe synthpop as merely a "new wave" subgenre. The 80s Eurodisco group Modern Talking, for instance, has synth-pop listed as one of its genres, but no sane person would ever claim this group had anything to do with new wave (indeed, such a group encapsulated much of what Punk/New Wave sought to destroy). Yet the reader of Modern Talking's page, clicking on synth-pop under the list of genres, is directed to a page which describes it as a "subgenre of new wave music", which is fundamentally untrue and misleading in implying that this group had any relation to new wave whatsoever. Wikipedia should not be in the business of misleading its readers like this. Synth-pop, as the name implies, is fundamentally its own genre of pop music, just like dance-pop and any number of "-pop" genres. The fact that new wave is also a form of pop music does not make them the same thing. Even the page "Category:Synth-pop new wave musical groups" describes synthpop as "a distinct genre during the new wave era of the late-1970s to the mid-1980s." For this reason, I think DanielRigal's proposal of describing synthpop as a "a genre of pop music that became prominent in the late 1970s and was closely associated with new wave music" is best, though failing that my proposal of "genre of new wave music or pop music" is reasonable as a compromise. To refer back to DanielRigal once again, the German page for synth-pop does not mention new wave at all in its lead and the French one does not claim it as a subgenre, so why should the English page be so uniquely wrongheaded? Janglyguitars (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and speaking of other countries, the Wikipedia articles in other languages might be worth looking at. The German one does not mention new wave in its lead while the French one does but not as prominently as in our article and does not claim it as a sub-genre. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they are synonym! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And Allmusic has clearly mentioned synthpop is subgenre of new wave, But FreakyBoy hasn't given any reliable sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.193.18.34 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The blind are leading the blind here, it seems. Regard this revert by Moonsun147258. First of all, no explanation is given: that is disruptive. Second, and here is the good part, it restores proper parameters to some of the citation templates. Third, it removes--and this is the rub--this source added by . That source is here, page 374. Problem is that the source is awful. It's a selection of conference papers, which--academically speaking--means they shouldn't be cited. The article is about "Detection of Communities with Multi-Semantics in Large Attributed Networks; fuck me if I know what that is, but it's not an article about synthpop, that's for sure. Moreover, it's not even written in proper English--it wouldn't pass in Freshman Comp, it's so incompetent grammatically. What it is supposed to verify is that synth-pop is some sort of spawn of electronic music and pop, and not a child of new wave (who cares...); what it says is "synth pop music origins from "new wave," "post-punk," and is popular in "80s."" In other words (I could parse this more but it's getting boring): no. The source is not to be used (deriving it's knowledge from a word cloud), and it doesn't even verify what it's supposed to verify. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, neither source should be used in that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyBoy (talk • contribs) 13:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know about AllMusic, I have no opinion, but is no fool. Surely it can't be hard to find good sources. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is good literature on the topic (, for instance), but I'm afraid Wikipedia editors are more likely to look for simple one-liners to nail down some genre. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Even though it not really about the relationship between new wave and synthpop, please read 'Why Synthwave Isn’t Synthpop (And Why It Matters)' on ironskullet by Preston Avery (June 12, 2019). Avery might be overly 'precious' when it comes to synthpop, synthwave and darkwave...but Avery does make some important points and talks about synthpop's relationship to new wave, industrial, EBM and mainstream 80s pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.174 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Japan?
If "Kraftwerk" were the first to play a Synth Pop, Germany should to be the ONLY pionner of this music genre. Yellow Magic Orchestra only copied the European idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesternUniverse (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Synthpop origins. Late 1960's, or 1977-80 as currently listed in article,
When did synthpop originate? The late 1960's or 1977-80, as is currently listed in the article? If you listen to Popcorn by Gershon Kingsly from 1969 and Hot Butter in 1972, and Dream Weaver and Love is Alive, both by Gary Wright, they are all synthpop. Let's also not forget the Clockwork Orange soundtrack which is also all synth music. This concludes it originated in the late 1960's in a basic form, but did not adopt all of its elements to make it complete until the late 1970's when new wave burst onto the scene. I edited the years to say Late 1960's-Early 80's (to account for synthpop's development during that timeframe), along with the aforementioned songs as being the reason for changing it, but someone reverted it saying those songs don't constitute synthpop and that the years are correct along with a Rolling Stone source. While they are certainly credible, I feel they don't capture synthpop's origins in the aforementioned songs. So, what do you guys think? Should we keep the years at 1977-80, or should we change it to Late 1960's-Early 80's to account for those aforementioned songs and the arrival of new wave? Heck, on the synthrock page, it says that has been around since the late 1960's, however, in actuality, that is not true. People are probably conflating synthrock and progressive rock and saying progressive rock was originally termed for music that would be otherwise termed synthrock, however, progressive rock synthesizers were used to give the song's a classical/symphonic feel, and not in the way they would be following synthpop's dominance. So, we can safely say synthpop originated in the late 1960's as there is credible evidence to that, however, there is no credible evidence that a rock band in the late 1960's-1970's used a synthesizer outside of the progressive rock/orchestra rock setting. Plus, the synthrock article is very bare bones that it would almost make better sense to merge it here with a section on it along with synthpunk, rather than it having its own article, especially if it's not as in-depth as this one is. I tried making it more in-depth by including rock bands that used a synthesizer prominently to give it a head start, but it was reverted as unsourced.Moline1 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Popcorn" and Gary Wright are not synthpop, even though it is right to mention "Popcorn" in the history of Electronic Music, just like Paul Hartnoll did last night on Trailblazers Of Electronic Music (alongside Chicory Tip), though "Popcorn" is more of a cheesy novelty thing. I think some people are getting mixed up between Synthpop (in the British 80s sense) and records that have a synthesizer/electronic keyboards/Bontempi organ on it. For example take Kajagoogoo...on here it says that Kajagoogoo/kædʒəˈɡuːɡuː/ were a British new wave band, best known for their 1983 hit single "Too Shy" (and a synth-pop act as well). Where this might be the case in the USA, they were just a pop band in UK. Yes, they had a bloke on keyboards (and also the keyboardist from Duran Duran producing a lot of their records), but if that bloke with the 'fancy organ' has pressed the Shakatak-setting on their keyboard for a lot of their tracks, are they really synthpop or new wave? Combined with the fact that it states that synthpop 'features synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument' on here, then Kajagoogoo are probably not synthpop as for a lot of the time the dominant musical instrument on a Kajagoogoo record is the 'bass', with the bloke on keyboards at the back doing his Shakatak thing and Nick Beggs out front playing with his stick. Therefore Kajagoogoo are as synthpop and new wave as they are jazz-funk (see Shakatak and especially see Level 42 - who are not synthpop or new wave even though they've got Mike Lindup on keys and have been credited as such), which is just silly. A lot of this is the Scouting for Girls argument but with keyboards and not guitars...but I suppose that's the problem with having such an ambiguous term that is used differently on both sides of the Atlantic...it would have been better for someone to have given it a 'locked down' name representing a time, place and scene...it would have been less troublesome if the journos had called it 'Mini Metro' (with reference to The 80s with Dominic Sandbrook there).
 * By the way Trailblazers Of Electronic Music started of their history in 1920s Soviet Russia and only mentioned synthpop once (even though it was a show featuring interviews with people like Andy McCluskey, Paul Humphreys and Wolfgang Flür)...in regards to 'punky new wavers' Blondie having a 'Synth-Pop-Disco' sound on "Heart Of Glass". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Dutch
please change ((Dutch)) to ((Netherlands|Dutch)) 98.239.227.65 (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Poorly constructed and researched article with emphasis Commercial success only
Very biased article with poor research and musical understanding. First of all, instrumental synthpop in Europe predates the British origin starting in about 1978 however due to language barrier and less competitive music industry European acts especially French and Belgian aren't as well know but musically they are the originators. Instrumental pop of Fredric Mercier, Jacno, Telex, vocal pop of Lio and one song of Plastic Bertrand from 1978 which can be considered first vocal synthpop song are neglected. Secondly synthpop didn't influence dance music to a great extent, space, italo and electronic disco along with hi NRG are the direct progenitors of EDM, house, techno and trance and there are many pre 1979 examples of instrumental synth/space disco, dance and hi NRG having the important features of these genres. The articles seems to portray a very layman narrative of music with no deep insight. Sharjeel.k126 (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a point there. Even though I am from the UK I would not say the pre-1980s origins of synthpop music are not British, though the 80s idea of synthpop (where this alternative music became chart pop on TOTP/Kid's TV then 'sold on' to America thanks largely to the development of MTV) was could be seen as a British development, though one less about music (apart the fact its electronic music with a lack of guitars) and something more cultural, socio-political and to do with the economics of the time. For example Synth Britainia is very much a story from the post-punk/New Wave-era and not really about teen pop/chart pop/cheesy pop. That programme has synthpop's roots being with Kraftwerk (i.e. European), with the soundtrack of A Clockwork Orange also important (even though the book was by Anthony Burgess, I wouldn't call A Clockwork Orange a wholly British film especially with the involvement of Stanley Kubrick [OK he had moved to the UK and didn't like flying back to the USA, but he wasn't making especially 'British' films e.g. Carry On... films, even if the subject matter was] and Warner Brothers.
 * It might be the case that synthpop (an alternative independent music scene and style) and synth-pop (pop music with a lot of synth) are two different things but with a lot of acts overlapping...so maybe you should do an article called 'European Synthpop' and leave this article to the American viewpoint and the 'MTV-friendly Haircut Bands' (regardless of them being British or not).
 * For less commercial stuff from the UK, may I point you in the direction of Cherry Red's Electrical Language: Independent British Synth Pop 78-84:

 * WINDPOWER – Thomas Dolby
 * SCIENCE FICTION – Alan Burnham
 * WARM LEATHERETTE – The Normal
 * STAY WITH ME TONIGHT – Alex Fergusson
 * TARANTULA – Colourbox
 * FANTASY – 100% Manmade Fibre
 * BANDWAGON TANGO – Testcard F
 * ELECTRICAL LANGUAGE – Be-Bop Deluxe
 * THE WORLD – Dalek I
 * HONOUR AMONG THIEVES – Chain Of Command
 * RED FRAME/WHITE LIGHT – Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark
 * RED CASTLES – The Legendary Pink Dots
 * LIFES ILLUSION – Ice The Falling Rain
 * THE HUMAN FACTOR – Music For Pleasure
 * SHE’S AN IMAGE – Poeme Electronique
 * I’M THINKING OF YOU NOW – Box Of Toys
 * THE PLANET DOESN’T MIND – New Musik
 * HOPE DEEP INSIDE – Schleimer K
 * THE DISTANCE FROM KÖLN – Native Europe
 * TECHNICAL MIRACLE – Voice Of Authority
 * CIRCUS OF DEATH – The Human League
 * XOYO – The Passage
 * CROWDS – A Popular History Of Signs
 * OCTOBER (LOVE SONG) – Chris And Cosey
 * FEEL SO YOUNG – Laugh Clown Laugh
 * CROATIA – Basking Sharks
 * MR NOBODY – Thomas Leer
 * RICKY’S HAND – Fad Gadget
 * HYPNOTIC RHYTHM – Local Boy Makes Good
 * DROWNING IN BERLIN – The Mobiles
 * EVEN NOW – Edward Ka-Spel
 * LYING NEXT TO YOU – Passion Polka
 * RABIES – Naked Lunch
 * DO IT – The Limit
 * WORK SONG – Robert Calvert
 * BABY WON’T PHONE – Quadrascope
 * IT HAPPENED THEN – Electronic Ensemble
 * IN THE MORNING – Jeanette
 * NIGHTLIFE – Those Attractive Magnets
 * MY COO CA CHOO – Beasts In Cages
 * YOUR LOVE IS LIKE A SLUG – The Bodhi-Beat Poets
 * VEIL LIKE CALM – Eyeless In Gaza
 * DESTITUTION – Camera Obscura
 * GOOD TIMES – Drinking Electricity
 * HAPPYFAMILIES – Zoo Boutique
 * FEELS LIKE WINTER AGAIN – Fiat Lux
 * FALLING DOWNSTAIRS – Colin Potter
 * OUR LITTLE GIRL – David Harrow
 * IT NEVER RAINS IN OUTER SPACE – Futurhythm
 * ZENNOR – Goat
 * VIDEOMATIC – Final Program
 * TADDY UP – Pink Industry
 * YOU DON’T LOOK THE SAME – Play
 * CHILDREN OF THE REVOLUTION – The Fast Set
 * TRACE OF RED – Two
 * LYING HERE – Shox
 * DAYTIME ASSASSINS – The Builders
 * BEATING HEART (12″ VERSION) – Section 25
 * ABSENT FRIENDS – Joe Crow
 * JAMAICA DAY – Faction
 * GENERATOR (LASERBEAM) – Tim Blake
 * TOUCH – Lori And The Chameleons
 * THE SECRET AFFAIR – Jupiter Red
 * I’M YOUR MAN – Blue Zoo
 * EVEN ROSES HAVE THORNS – Jesus Couldn’t Drum
 * PAINT IT BLACK – Techno Pop
 * CHASE THE DRAGON – Kevin Harrison
 * OTHER PASSENGERS – Thirteen At Midnight
 * YOUR VOICE – Freeze Frame
 * STAY WITH YOU – Time In Motion
 * LIVE WIRES KILL – The Toy Shop
 * SURFACE TENSION – Analysis
 * TIME – Paul Haig
 * CONTEMPLATION – Solid Space
 * COMMITTED TO VINYL – Martin O’Cuthbert
 * LOOK DON’T TOUCH – Science
 * THE WISHING TREE (MEGATREE MIX) – Charlie’s Brother
 * WORKING MODEL – The Quarks
 * THERE’S SOMEONE FOLLOWING ME – Eddie & Sunshine
 * HAPPY XMAS (WAR IS OVER) – Hybrid Kids — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.172.75 (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

British New Wave and Synthpop
On wiki there are articles for British jazz, British hip hop, British soul, British rock music, British rock and roll, Britpop, British rhythm and blues, British pop music and British popular music...now if there are so many differences between what the terms new wave and synthpop mean to people in the UK and USA, shouldn't there be articles about these popular genres viewed only from a British perspective, maybe called British punk and new wave and British synthpop (with obviously no hyphens used). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Nick Kamen's Each Time You Break My Heart
Is Nick Kamen's Each Time You Break My Heart (his last hit according to the introduction today on Pick of the Pops ) really synth-pop? The reviewer for the record said that the Dance mix was "light synth-pop"...but this is not the main single, which just sound like some bloke singing Madonna. However Madonna's albums from the period come under the following genres...
 * Pop/dance-pop/dance-rock/post-disco/Dance

...so there must be a genre discription missing. Note: "I Promised Myself" sounds like an Erasure B-side so that's alright (though its listed under Synth-pop and pop rock) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.174 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To quote Preston Avery (see below)

"This confusion was further compounded in the ‘80s as early synthpop was incorporated into a larger melting pot of commercial music that blended the characteristics of synthpop and new wave with funk, soul, hip-hop, and a high number of other styles. As the genres evolved into newer and increasingly unrelated styles, a lack of familiarity with synthpop’s origins and defining characteristics caused the synthpop label to be passed along indecisively to new genres. The Pointer Sisters’ 1984 album Break Out is a great example of this melting pot of music ideas, and it contains previously unrelated genre elements like R&B and synthpop alongside one another on the very same songs. Despite the influences of synthpop on the album, however, none of the entries on Break Out can be properly classified within the genre, and it is more accurate to refer to it as “‘80s commercial pop” or simply “‘80s pop.”
 * Isn't this the same for Nick Kamen's "Each Time You Break My Heart" and other similar records from around the time.

EBM and Industrial
With reference to Why Synthwave Isn’t Synthpop (And Why It Matters) by Preston Avery (Ironskullet June 12, 2019) and the synthpop/synthwave genre map shouldn't the 'See Also' section be as follows...

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021
Change: "In 1971 the British movie A Clockwork Orange was released with a synth soundtrack by American Wendy Carlos. It was the first time many in the United Kingdom had heard electronic music."

To:

"Excepting the theme of the popular show Doctor Who, with an electronic theme song executed by Delia Derbyshire in 1963, and heard by millions of Britons every Saturday evening, the 1971 British movie A Clockwork Orange, with a synth soundtrack by American Wendy Carlos was the first time many in the United Kingdom had heard electronic music score."

65.51.193.109 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm afraid we can't use Wikipedia as a source for itself (see WP:CIRCULAR), and I my quick review doesn't point to a source in that article that supports the text you're requesting. ‑‑ El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Synth pop??
Is “Synth-pop” really the correct label for this genre? First of all, “pop” is not a genre; pop is short for popular: in the 20s pop was Dixieland jazz, in the 30s it was swing, in the 50s it was rock and roll, doo-wop, and R&B - long story sort: not a genre. So stop using the term pop to describe a “style” of music. When this stuff came out in the 70s and 80s everyone called it Techno. As far as I’m concerned it’s still Techno, and that’s what we should be calling it now - Techno 47.185.231.204 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 * This is not a forum. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2022
90.230.43.85 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I would like too edit if that's ok
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022
I recently learned that Synth-pop is a subgenre of New wave, so I put it under the genre in the templates for Rock music and Post-disco. Could someone put those templates on this page? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌. For the last time, start getting your music genre information from books and articles written about music genres. Your disruption must end. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

"Synth-pop is a subgenre of new wave music" must be changed
This line is unacceptable and misleading for an encyclopedic reference such as Wikipedia. One or two sources do not and cannot firmly establish one genre as the "subgenre" of another, when the vast majority of scholarship on the genre of music in question (synthpop) treat it as an independent form within popular music. To give just one example, reference no. 7 on the main article page gives as a "working definition of synth pop", "popular songs with prominent synthesizer instrumentation." Elsewhere in the same reference, the piece notes that "for a time in the early 1980s, synth pop was mainstream electronic dance music". Does that not make synthpop also a "subgenre" of EDM? Or is not new wave therefore an EDM subgenre, since we are to believe that its own subgenre, synthpop, is a form of EDM? Nowhere is this mentioned on the page for electronic dance music, and rightly so - this is one source's opinion, not the consensus viewpoint. AllMusic may be a widely used source on Wikipedia, but it alone does not override all other scholarship. The other source used as "evidence" of synthpop's subgenre status does not actually say anything about it being a subgenre, but merely notes that "myriad synthesizer-pop bands" as well as "power-pop groups" were included under the new wave "umbrella". Power pop is not recognized as a "subgenre" of new wave by Wikipedia, as it ought not to be since this article says nothing of the sort. Likewise, it merely notes that many synth-pop bands also were considered new wave, but does not in any way state that synthpop exists solely as a form of new wave music.

To say that synthpop is merely a "subgenre of new wave music" is therefore reductive, anachronistic, and inaccurate. While every source describes synthpop as a form of popular music, many don't mention new wave at all. Wikipedia itself describes it as a "derivative form" of various genres (new wave, disco, etc.) and a "distinct genre" rather than a "subgenre" of any one genre, besides the one instance in the lead on this page, and later on when it notes that "In the US, [...] synth-pop is considered a subgenre of new wave". America is not the world, and our encyclopedia should not be regionally biased in this manner. The German page for synth-pop does not mention new wave at all in its lead and the French one does not claim it as a subgenre, so why should the English page be so uniquely wrongheaded?

Yet this is evidently a contentious issue, and there are discussions going back years on the talk page to prove it. The mere fact that no consensus exists ought to be enough to demonstrate that the current state of this page is unacceptable. The page has not always described synth-pop as a "subgenre of new wave music"; but was edited to say that some years ago (again without a consensus), so the onus is as much on those who make that argument as it is on my end. In fact, it bears heavier on the other side, for what I am arguing is already the consensus opinion of scholarship on this issue. Indeed, not only do the years of talk page disputes prove the lack of consensus on establishing synthpop as a "subgenre" of new wave; but so do the sources themselves used in the article, such as reference no. 2, which states that "What separated synth-pop from, say pop music with synths—or categories such as new wave—remained (and remains) a point of contention". What I think is not a point of contention, however, is that synthpop is a genre of popular music. On that we should be able to form a consensus. Janglyguitars (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I strongly agree that the "subgenre of new wave music" line is misleading and I feel it should be removed. Synth-pop is typically remembered as a genre of the 1980s, but that does not mean its existence begins and ends with new wave and there are numerous potential arguments about synth-pop work that support this. As has been been noted in previous discussion about this issue, there's a divergence between the UK/Éire and the US/Canada about the definition of new wave, but I think it's fair to say that key to the genre's definition is its era. It is tied to the late 1970s and 1980s and thus has an expiry date, as it were; I don't think anyone would consider an act who first recorded in the 1990s to be new wave. There are, though, numerous synth-pop works by such acts - synth-pop is not a genre restricted to a specific period or generation of musicians. The Magnetic Fields' "Holiday" (1994), for example, is considered a synth-pop album by various sources (Exclaim, Stereogum, AllMusic) and it is defined as one, with those sources cited, on its entry on this site. Crystal Castles, formed in 2006, have also produced synth-pop. The same goes for Ladytron, formed 1999. Synth-pop is also the first genre listed (with sources) in the infoboxes for M83, formed 1999, and John Maus, born 1980.| One of the three sources used for Maus is a 2011 interview in which he dismisses the notion that his music is 80s revivalism; " "I don't address my music in terms of nostalgia or retromania. I think synthesisers and waveforms allow for a sonic complexity that goes beyond the palette we're used to with guitars. The palette was there in the 80s so why was it set aside and forgotten? That thread can be taken up again". This music is not new wave music, and these artists are not new wave artists, but the sources support them all making synth-pop. I don't think I even need to mention Kraftwerk - were they parroting a new wave innovation when they made their synth-pop works? The "subgenre of new wave music" line would imply so. I agree with Janglyguitars that this is a major inaccuracy we are peddling currently. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I think the style can be noted as a genre that was part of the new wave music, because the new wave includes several genres, including synth-pop. UserFlash (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, synth-pop is defined as a subgenre just like dance-pop. UserFlash (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Binksternet Thoughts? I think @Humbledaisy and I have made our case. I would only add that the extent of my proposal is to restore the first sentence of the article to its original state prior to 18 November, 2016, when it described synth-pop as "a genre of pop music" until on that date it was altered without consensus, discussion, or any explanation whatsoever. Additionally, on 6 October, 2016, the page was edited to change "genre of popular music" to "genre of pop music" (again with no reason given), so perhaps it would be best to revert to "genre of popular music" instead (though either way would be fine). Janglyguitars (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be swayed much more by an argument that was forward looking rather than reactionary. I am not convinced that any of the past efforts at this page were definitive. Rather, we should be comparing the best available published sources to determine what would be the most appropriate summary for our readers. Certainly one must factor in the All Music Guide editorial staff description from their 2001 book, which says that "Synth-pop was one of the most distinctive subgenres of new wave." They emphasize the pop aspects. This is in contrast to Frank Hoffman's Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound which asserts synth-pop is a genre of rock that is also called technopop or electropop. I think we must tell the reader that there is not a single definition of synth-pop, that it may be a genre or a subgenre, and that it may have come from rock or pop. For contrary viewpoints we would name the proponents on each side of the issue. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be written that synth-pop is recognized as a subgenre of the new wave music, as it is written in AllMusic. UserFlash (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion synth-pop is a subgenre just like dance-pop. UserFlash (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposal to compare the views of different sources in the article is probably the best solution long-term, but it would require some major rewriting, which itself would create more issues needing consensus. In the short-term, I think the most important thing is that the page must cease misleading readers, as it currently does by describing one source's point of view (the AllMusic source) as definitive without acknowledging the variance of opinions in the sources. In regard to @Humbledaisy's point, I would also mention that the page Category:Synth-pop new wave musical groups exists in its entirety in recognition of the fact that not all synth-pop falls under new wave. The page itself reads, "This category contains synthpop new wave bands. Synthpop was a distinct genre during the new wave era of the late-1970s to the mid-1980s. This category is to distinguish itself from modern-day synthpop bands of the 21st century revival."
 * I think the easiest and least contentious way to improve the main synth-pop article would be by changing the sentence in the lead to "synth-pop is a genre of popular music", or by adopting the definition given on the page List of synth-pop artists, which reads, "Synth-pop (also known as electropop or technopop) is a music genre that uses the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument." Later, when more voices are involved, we can discuss how the page can be rewritten to compare the views of the different sources. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the AllMusic source will by no means be removed if my change goes through, but, like the source for "pop", will merely be relegated to the infobox until a consensus is agreed upon how to best integrate it into the article. The source can still be present on the page without being immediately mentioned within the first sentence of the article. Therefore, I move for consensus that the section "subgenre of new wave music" in the article's first sentence be changed to "genre of popular music". Janglyguitars (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it can be noted that the genre was also created as part of the new wave music. UserFlash (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's already noted in the infobox under "Stylistic origins" along with other genres. But the fact remains that synth-pop already existed independently from new wave, as HumbleDaisy mentioned with Kraftwerk. The page must be changed so that it stops misleading users, and I think we can all agree that broadly speaking, synth-pop is a genre of popular music. Thus I will now correct the page, and instead of reverting it please respond to the points we have made here if you still disagree. Janglyguitars (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no source that specifically says that synth-pop is a genre of popular music. UserFlash (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As Binksternet said, you cannot simply ignore AllMusic and similar sources on the article, and of course do not edit without consent on the talk page. UserFlash (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The AllMusic source is IN THE INFOBOX. Why should that ONE SOURCE determine what the first sentence of the body says when no others agree with it? Some sources say it is rock, others say pop, others say EDM, others say Eurodisco. THE ONLY THING those genres have in common is that they all fall under the umbrella of "popular music", so this is clearly the consensus opinion they share. Surely, @Binksternet, you must know that it is not proper procedure to rely on one source for such a contentious and refutable description which was added WITHOUT CONSENSUS, when "popular music" is something everyone can agree upon (except UserDash because he's being deliberately obstructive). over the Furthermore, it makes NO LOGICAL SENSE based on the Wiki itself, where synth-pop is described as a "Derivative form", NOT a "subgenre" of new wave. As Humbledaisy and I have explained, in detail, there are many, many synth-pop acts who do not qualify as new wave. The page  WOULD NOT EXIST otherwise. How do you respond? Janglyguitars (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you think synth-pop isn't popular music? Don't be ridiculous. Dance-pop, new wave, glam metal, disco, EDM, trance, and EVERY OTHER FORM of rock'n'roll and pop music in general are "popular music". This is not controversial, it is obvious, so obvious that it shouldn't need saying. NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD DISAGREE. It is not up for debate, unlike saying "subgenre of new wave", which is EXTREMELY CONTENTIOUS and backed up by only one source (the other one says no such thing), so YOU MUST FORM A CONSENSUS ON THAT. We have given our reasons, they are sound, and not one of them has been refuted or even addressed by you or anyone else. End of discussion. Janglyguitars (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dance-pop for example is defined as a subgenre. but even if your claim is true, you can't make changes without consent on the talk page, and certainly not use a source that doesn't mention synth-pop as a genre of popular music. You must stop the editing wars. UserFlash (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're the one who is arguing for a contentious, easily refutable claim. We have refuted it many times over. I am the one arguing for the consensus opinion of the sources. The onus is on you, and you are the one who is preventing constructive edits through your edit warring.  How can you not consider synth-pop to be a genre of popular music? If I suddenly started claiming something ridiculous, like that it was a genre of jazz, would we need unanimous consent before proceeding? In any case, I DO NOT CONSENT to your edits. "Popular music" is the most neutral, agreeable, and obvious way to describe it. It was what the page said in the first place before someone added the "subgenre of new wave" line without any discussion or consensus whatsoever. Janglyguitars (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The "genre" vs. "subgenre" debate is contemptible. Synth-pop is described as a "Distinct musical genre" ALL ACROSS WIKIPEDIA except for the first sentence in its own article. This is idiotic. Synth-pop is CLEARLY BROAD ENOUGH of a category to define as a genre, not subgenre, of popular music. In his "Guide to Electronic Music", Ishkur writes that "the term Synthpop has been used to refer to any and all synth-driven rock music from Indie Pop to Discopunk (and maybe even Eurodance)." That doesn't sound like a "new wave subgenre" to me. Janglyguitars (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not your place to decide that some sources are wrong, and erase them from existence. On Wikipedia, we must summarize the literature for the reader, and when the literature contains contradictions between sources, we tell the reader about those contradictions. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need to find what would describe synth-pop as a genre as it is sometimes defined and as a subgenre as it is sometimes defined as well. But there is no source that describes synth-pop as a genre of popular music. For example in the pop music article, synth-pop is mentioned as a subgenre along with dance-pop, but they cannot automatically be considered popular music genres. UserFlash (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like you are citing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is considered unreliable per WP:USERG. Certainly we can and should be concerned about giving the reader the same information no matter which article they are looking at, but our sources should always be external to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion right now it should be written that synth-pop is a subgenre of the new wave music because there is a source that says it explicitly. UserFlash (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the chapter on synthpop from the book I quoted, it makes clear that it's genre of popular music, but fine. I'll just add the part describing it as electronic dance music instead. Janglyguitars (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not "erasing it from existence", but rather confining it to the infobox with the other sources, many of which make no mention of new wave. Because these sources contradict one another, I sought to put a broad, generalized term under which all the various genres fit, "popular music", in the lead of the article, but apparently a basic grasp of the definition of "popular music" is considered highly controversial in these parts.
 * Simon Reynolds, a widely respected authority on the history of popular music (hehe) of the last 40-odd years, wrote an entire article about the history of synth-pop in which the term "new wave" never appears. In the first paragraph (about the history of synth-pop, remember), he writes that "synthesizers in popular music actually go back much further than the mandroid melancholy of Gary Numan". There it is right there, "popular music" - but really, it shouldn't have taken Simon Reynolds to figure this out for us. Later on, speaking about synth-pop's broader relation to popular music, Reynolds has this to say: "In some ways the crucial word in synth-pop isn't "synth" but "pop"." A-ha (no pun intended)! So synth-pop is a kind of pop music as well. Again, it shouldn't have taken a writer of Reynolds' caliber to make this evident to Wikipedians, but here we are. So why, again, are we giving sole precedence in the lead of the article to an anonymous author employed by AllMusic, instead of accepting the edits I have been trying (for the sake of consensus, if you consider the sources) to make despite your best efforts @Binksternet? Janglyguitars (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also add that with his statement that "synthesizers in popular music actually go back much further than the mandroid melancholy of Gary Numan", Reynolds is not only defining synthpop as a genre (sue me) of popular music, but openly disputing that synthpop only existed as a new wave subgenre, since it existed before the New Wave itself. Janglyguitars (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the last time, stop the editing wars. Stop making edits without consent on the talk page. The last edit you made was also done without consent on the talk page. You have to accept it and stop. UserFlash (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. You have no right to revert my most recent edit, especially since @Binksternet has said the best thing for the article would be to include the viewpoints of multiple different sources in the article. But since you can’t accept anything but your own way, despite having been shown to be wrong time and again, I’ll try once again at compromise and consensus-building: how about we just forget all this “genre/subgenre of what” stuff and use the definition that’s on the page List of synth-pop artists: “Synth-pop (also known as electropop or technopop) is a music genre that uses the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument.” Surely you can’t divine any spurious objections to such a simple and straightforwardly obvious statement of fact. Janglyguitars (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So it's settled then @UserFlash? “Synth-pop is a music genre that uses the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument.” Janglyguitars (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are so insistent on replacing the current description when there is a source with information about the style. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there is no such thing as a "compromise" in Wikipedia, certainly when there is already an accepted source. UserFlash (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There certainly is such a thing as "compromise". Please read Consensus again. If you read, I don't know, maybe the last 5000 words I've written on this talk page, you might get an idea about why I'm "so insistent". I can only say the same thing about 37 times before you decide to actually read and comprehend it. Janglyguitars (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, if there was another source that explicitly says that synth-pop is a genre of another genre, of course it could be added, but at the moment there isn't one. UserFlash (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Janglyguitars I always viewed Synthpop as a fusion of new wave and electronic music, taking the quirky pop oriented sound of new wave, but with prominent electronic instrumentation throughout. I think its misleading to not acknowledge its association with new wave in its description, as many of synthpop most famous acts are undeniably also associated with new wave such as Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, Human League, Eurythmics, OMD etc 86.11.146.201 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I believe synth-pop is just as much of an umbrella term as new wave is

FreakyBoy (talk)

 * I agree @FreakyBoy. This chapter, from the book Popular Music Genres: An Introduction, says:

"Our term synthpop, while not 'value-free', can be employed to transcend many of the other terms' limitations. In particular, it can cover the wide terrain between groups such as Adam and the Ants, who made little use of synthesiser technology but whose post-punk style was both resolutely pop and populist, and Cabaret Voltaire, who used synthesiser technology in an avant-garde 'industrial' style (and therefore achieved high credibility and low sales). Somewhere between the two is New Order, who despite massive success with their single Blue Monday, never fully capitalised on their popularity, at least partly due to the esoteric business practices of their label Factory Records."

This is clearly a term with very broad usage. Also, since this is a chapter in the book "Popular Music Genres: An Introduction" (and Phil Oakey's face appears right above the title on the cover), I'd encourage you to use this source to replace the badly supported AllMusic reference for "subgenre of new wave" with "genre of popular music". This chapter, which is far more detailed than the AllMusic summary (as are the other sources I cited above, like Simon Reynolds' synthpop history piece which makes no mention of 'new wave'), quite directly contrasts synthpop with new wave, almost framing them as opposites:

"The new decade saw elements of youth culture self-consciouslyembrace the new consumerism in order to gain success. 'Style' became a transcending signifier, aided by the shift in music journalism from the weekly 'inkies' (New Musical Express, Sounds, Melody Maker) to the recently established fortnightly or monthly 'glossies' (The Face, i-D, Smash Hits). Concepts such as design, marketing and image became central to the star-making machinery. There was nothing altogether new in this process, but they now became more overt, blatant and significant elements. After the monochrome blacks and greys of punk/new wave, synthpop was promoted by a youth media interested in people who wanted to be pop stars, such as Boy George and Adam Ant, and who 'looked good in colour: Numan ... Toyah' (Rimmer 1985: 19). [emphasis added]"

As is clear to anyone who looks at the sources, calling synthpop a "subgenre of new wave" is just wrong; the author even cites a contemporary source (Dave Rimmer) from 1985. Since I was wrongly blocked from editing this page, you should go ahead and replace the AllMusic source in the body (while leaving it in the infobox) with this source and change "subgenre of new wave" to "genre of popular music". I've made a citation for you as well, so it should be pretty easy. Thanks for helping out FreakyBoy :) Janglyguitars (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 * To finish the discussion, based on the source presented in this discussion, and because some see this style as a genre of new wave music, and some see this style as a genre of popular music, I recommend writing this: "Synth-pop is a genre of popular music and new wave music that first became prominent in the late 1970s and features the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument." The internet is full of sources that define the synth-pop genre also as part of new wave music, so both this genres, new wave music and popular music, can be mentioned. UserFlash (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d prefer “popular music or new wave” to recognise that the popular music source pits synthpop in direct opposition to new wave, but anything would be an improvement over the current status of the page. Janglyguitars (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording according to the sources. UserFlash (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the edit has been reverted, I recommend that it be written simply: "Synth-pop is a style of new wave and pop music that first became prominent in the late 1970s and features the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument." The word "style" would loosely define synth-pop as a genre and subgenre. It will be possible to use the sources that already exist on the page for new wave music and pop music. UserFlash (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let’s get this sorted out! If you want to try editing it again hopefully it won’t be reverted, as we seem to have at last come to a consensus here on the talk page. Janglyguitars (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a source to define synth-pop as a genre. genre of genre can also be a subgenre. all the sources on the page will loosely define the style. UserFlash (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll update the synth-pop section on Electronic dance music to match. Janglyguitars (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is it that the vocals are deemed “ androgynous”?
I find this to be incorrect in that it has no basis. The lyrics are not about an androgynous person,so why are the vocals androgynous? If it is because the voice of the _woman is not high pitched or considered deep for a _woman, this is an unintelligible insignificant opinion/observation that I don’t believe is relevant to the description. just say she has a deep voice, it has nothing to do with androgyny. Deedssky (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Synth-pop


text:
Henry Walter Bates

Henry Walter Bates (8 February 1825 in Leicester – 16 February 1892 in London) was an English naturalist and explorer who gave the first scientific account of mimicry in animals. He was most famous for his expedition to the rainforests of the Amazon with Alfred Russel Wallace, starting in 1848. Wallace returned in 1852, but lost his collection on the return voyage when his ship caught fire. When Bates arrived home in 1859 after a full eleven years, he had sent back over 14,712 species (mostly of insects) of which 8,000 were (according to Bates, but see Van Wyhe ) new to science. Bates wrote up his findings in his best-known work, The Naturalist on the River Amazons.

Life
Bates was born in Leicester to a literate middle-class family. However, like Wallace, T.H. Huxley and Herbert Spencer, he had a normal education to the age of about 13 when he became apprenticed to a hosiery manufacturer. He joined the Mechanics' Institute (which had a library), studied in his spare time and collected insects in Charnwood Forest. In 1843 he had a short paper on beetles published in the journal Zoologist.

He became friends with Wallace when the latter took a teaching post in the Leicester Collegiate School. Wallace also became a keen entomologist, (his first interest had been plants) and he read the same kind of books as Wallace, and as Darwin, Huxley and no doubt many others had. These included Thomas Robert Malthus on population, James Hutton and Charles Lyell on geology, Darwin's The Voyage of the Beagle, and above all, the anonymous Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (by Robert Chambers), which put evolution into everyday discussion amongst literate folk. They also read William H. Edwards's Voyage Up the River Amazons on his Amazon expedition, and this started them thinking that a visit to the region would be exciting, and might launch their careers.

The great adventure
In 1847 Wallace and Bates discussed the idea of an expedition to the Amazon rainforest, the plan being to cover expenses by sending specimens back to London. There an agent would sell them for a commission. (The often repeated statement that the main purpose was for the travellers to "gather facts towards solving the problem of the origin of species", and that Wallace put this in a letter to Bates, is almost certainly a myth, originating in a convenient adjustment of history by Bates in The Naturalist on the River Amazons of 1863. ) The two friends, who were both by now experienced amateur entomologists, met in London to prepare themselves. They did this by viewing South American plants and animals in the main collections. Also they collected "wants lists" of the desires of museums and collectors. All known letters exchanged between Wallace and Bates are available in Wallace Letters Online.

Bates and Wallace sailed from Liverpool in April 1848, arriving in Pará (now Belém) at the end of May. For the first year they settled in a villa near the city, collecting birds and insects. After that they agreed to collect independently, Bates travelling to Cametá on the Tocantins River. He then moved up the Amazon, to Óbidos, Manaus and finally to the Upper Amazon (Solimões). Tefé was his base camp for four and a half years. His health eventually deteriorated and he returned to Britain in 1859, after spending nearly eleven years on the Amazon. He sent his collection on three different ships to avoid the fate of his colleague Wallace, who lost his entire collection when his ship sank. Bates spent the next three years writing his account of the trip, The Naturalist on the River Amazons, widely regarded as one of the finest reports of natural history travels.

Home at last
In 1863 he married Sarah Ann Mason. From 1864 onwards, he worked as assistant secretary of the Royal Geographical Society (effectively, he was the secretary, since the senior post was occupied by a noble figurehead). He sold his personal Lepidoptera collection to Frederick DuCane Godman and Osbert Salvin and began to work mostly on beetles (cerambycids, carabids, and cicindelids). From 1868 to 1869 and in 1878 he was president of the Entomological Society of London. In 1871 he was elected a fellow of the Linnaean Society, and in 1881 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society.

He died of bronchitis in 1892 (in modern terms, that may mean emphysema). A large part of his collections are in the Natural History Museum (see The Field, London, 20 February 1892). Specimens he collected went to the Natural History Museum, at that time called the British Museum (Natural History), and to private collectors; yet Bates still retained a huge reference collection and was often consulted on difficult identifications. This, and the disposal of the collection after his death, are mentioned in Edward Clodd's Memories.

Wallace wrote an obituary of Bates in Nature. He describes Bates's 1861 paper on mimicry in Heliconiidae butterflies as "remarkable and epoch-making", with "a clear and intelligible explanation", briefly addressing its attackers as "persons who are more or less ignorant of the facts". He then praises Bates's contributions to entomology, before regretting, in remarkably bitter words for an official obituary, that the "confinement and constant strain" of "mere drudgery of office work" for the Royal Geographical Society had with "little doubt ... weakened his constitution and shortened a valuable life".

His work
Henry Bates was one of a group of outstanding naturalist-explorers who were supporters of the theory of evolution by natural selection (Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace 1858). Other members of this group included Joseph Dalton Hooker, Fritz Müller, Richard Spruce and Thomas Henry Huxley.

Bates' work on Amazonian butterflies led him to develop the first scientific account of mimicry, especially the kind of mimicry which bears his name: Batesian mimicry. This is the mimicry by a palatable species of an unpalatable or noxious species. A common example seen in temperate gardens is the hover-fly, many of which – though bearing no sting – mimic the warning colouration of hymenoptera (wasps and bees). Such mimicry does not need to be perfect to improve the survival of the palatable species. Bates noted of the Heliconids (long-wings) that they were forest dwellers which were:
 * 1. abundant 2. conspicuous and slow-flying. 3. gregarious; and also 4. the adults frequented flowers. 5. the larvae fed together.

And yet, said Bates "I never saw the flocks of slow-flying Heliconidae in the woods persecuted by birds or dragonflies ... nor when at rest did they appear to be molested by lizards, or predacious flies of the family Asilidae [robber-flies] which were very often seen pouncing on butterflies of other families. ... In contrast, the Pieridae (sulfur butterflies), to which Leptalis belongs [now called Dismorphia] are much persecuted."

Bates observed that many Heliconid species are accompanied by other species (Pierids), which mimic them, and often cannot be distinguished from them in flight. They fly in the same parts of the forest as the model (Heliconid) and often in company with them. Local races of the model are accompanied by corresponding races or species of the mimic. So a scarce, edible species takes on the appearance of an abundant, noxious species. Predators, Bates supposed, learn to avoid the noxious species, and a degree of protection covers the edible species, no doubt proportional to its degree of likeness to the model. These testable hypotheses about warning signals and mimicry helped to create the field of evolutionary ecology.

Bates, Wallace and Müller believed that Batesian and Müllerian mimicry provided evidence for the action of natural selection, a view which is now standard amongst biologists. Field and experimental work on these ideas continues to this day; the topic connects strongly to speciation, genetics and development.

Ega
Bates spent the best part of a year at Ega (now Tefé) in the Upper Amazon (Solimões), where he reported that turtle was eaten regularly, and insect catches were especially abundant. He found upwards of 7,000 species of insects in the area, including 550 distinct species of butterfly. Bates nursed a sick toucan back to health. Tocáno (the Indian name, after its cries) proved to be an intelligent and amusing companion, with a voracious appetite. Mainly a fruit eater, he learnt the meal times "to a nicety", and would eat flesh and fish as well as fruit.

Taxonomy
Bates' original work was done on a group of conspicuous butterflies always spelled by Bates as Heliconidae. He divided this assemblage into two groups, the Danaoid Heliconids, having affinities with the tribe Danaini (see also Danainae); and the Acraeoid Heliconids related to the Acraeini. The former are now known as Ithomiini, closely related to the milkweed butterflies, and were named after the genus Danaus in the Danainae. The latter are now known as the tribe Heliconiini, or longwings, named after the genus Heliconius. Both group within the family Nymphalidae, and both groups tend to feed on poisonous plants. The milkweed plant supplies poisonous glycosides which render both caterpillar and adult danaines noxious. Ithomiines, in contrast gain their toxicity from their adult nectar sources. Heliconiine caterpillars feed on poisonous Passiflora vines. However, ithomiines gain their toxicity from their adult food plants.

Legacy
Henry Walter Bates is commemorated in the scientific name of a species of South American boa, Corallus batesii and in the name of his theory of mimicry, Batesian mimicry.

Before Bates

 * Edwards W.H. 1847. Voyage Up the River Amazons, Including a Residence at Pará. London. (the book that sparked Wallace and Bates to travel to the Amazon; scanned copy of US edition at Cornell University Library website)

By Bates

 * Bates H.W. 1863. The Naturalist on the River Amazons. 2 vols, Murray, London. Volume 1; Volume 2.
 * Bates H.W. 1864. The Naturalist on the River Amazons. 2nd ed as one vol, Murray, London. (this is an abridged edition with much of the natural history cut out; and it is this truncated edition which is usually reprinted. Advice: use the 1863 or 1892 editions for professional purposes) (reissued by Cambridge University Press, 2009; ISBN 978-1-108-00163-2)
 * Bates H.W. 1892. The Naturalist on the River Amazons, With a Memoir of the Author by Edward Clodd. (this edition, published after Bates' death, is valuable for two reasons: it is the only time since 1863 that Murray published the full text, and it includes a good short biography by Clodd)
 * Bates H.W. 1878. Central America, the West Indies and South America, with ethnological notes by A. H. Keane. Stanford, London; second and revised edition 1882. (based on Von Hellwald's Die Erde und ihre Volker; the natural history and geographical relations of fauna and flora are wholly written by Bates; the other aspects he extensively revised and updated)
 * Bates H.W. 1881-4. Biologia Centrali-Americana: Insecta Coleoptera. Volume I, Part 1.
 * Bates H.W. 1886–90. Biologia Centrali-Americana: Insecta Coleoptera: Pectinicornia and Lamellicornia. Volume II, Part 2.
 * Bates H.W. and D. Sharp. 1879–86. Biologia Centrali-Americana: Insecta Coleoptera: Phytophaga (part). Volume V.
 * Bates H.W. 1886–90. Biologia Centrali-Americana: Insecta Coleoptera: Pectinicornia and Lamellicornia. Volume II, Part 2.
 * Bates H.W. and D. Sharp. 1879–86. Biologia Centrali-Americana: Insecta Coleoptera: Phytophaga (part). Volume V.

About Bates

 * Bedall B.G. (ed) 1969. Wallace and Bates in the Tropics: an Introduction to the Theory of Natural Selection. Macmillan, London. (includes excerpts from Bates' River Amazons)
 * Clodd, Edward 1892. Memoir (of Henry Walter Bates) 70 pages plus coloured plate 'illustrations of mimicry between butterflies', xvii–lxxxvii in Bates 1892.
 * Crawforth, Anthony. 2009. The Butterfly Hunter: The Life of Henry Walter Bates, University of Buckingham Press, ISBN 978-0-9560716-1-3.
 * Dickenson, John. 1992. "The Naturalist on the River Amazons and a wider world: reflections on the centenary of Henry Walter Bates". The Geographical Journal, 158(2): 207–214. (fine tribute to Bates on the centenary of his death)
 * Moon H.P. 1976. Henry Walter Bates FRS 1825–1892: Explorer, Scientist and Darwinian. Leicestershire Museums, Leicester. (this booklet of about 100 pages by an emeritus professor of zoology can be strongly recommended)
 * Woodcock G 1969. Henry Walter Bates, Naturalist of the Amazons. Faber & Faber, London. (This, the only book-length biography, is by an author who was not a biologist. It gives a weak account of Bates' work on mimicry, says nothing about Müller, and remarks about Wallace are undistinguished. It is good on Bates' early life and his marriage, and on the travel aspects of the Amazon. The author dismisses Bates' later life too abruptly.)

title: Henry Walter Bates