text:
Alternative rock

Alternative rock (also known as alternative music, alt-rock or simply alternative) is a category of rock music that evolved from the independent music underground of the 1970s. Alternative rock acts achieved mainstream success in the 1990s with the likes of the grunge, shoegaze, and Britpop subgenres in the United States and United Kingdom, respectively. During this period, many record labels were looking for "alternatives", as many corporate rock, hard rock, and glam metal acts from the 1980s were beginning to grow stale throughout the music industry. The emergence of Generation X as a cultural force in the 1990s also contributed greatly to the rise of alternative rock.

"Alternative" refers to the genre's distinction from mainstream or commercial rock or pop. The term's original meaning was broader, referring to musicians influenced by the musical style or independent, DIY ethos of late-1970s punk rock. Traditionally, alternative rock varied in terms of its sound, social context, and regional roots. Throughout the 1980s, magazines and zines, college radio airplay, and word of mouth had increased the prominence and highlighted the diversity of alternative rock's distinct styles (and music scenes), such as noise pop, indie rock, grunge, and shoegaze. In September 1988, Billboard introduced "alternative" into their charting system to reflect the rise of the format across radio stations in the United States by stations like KROQ-FM in Los Angeles and WDRE-FM in New York, which were playing music from more underground, independent, and non-commercial rock artists.

Initially, several alternative styles achieved minor mainstream notice and a few bands, such as R.E.M. and Jane's Addiction, were signed to major labels. Most alternative bands at the time, like the Smiths, one of the key British alternative rock bands during the 1980s, remained signed to independent labels and received relatively little attention from mainstream radio, television, or newspapers. With the breakthrough of Nirvana and the popularity of the grunge and Britpop movements in the 1990s, alternative rock entered the musical mainstream, and many alternative bands became successful.

Emo found mainstream success in the 2000s with multi-platinum acts such as Fall Out Boy, My Chemical Romance, Paramore and Panic! at the Disco. Bands such as the White Stripes and the Strokes found commercial success in the early 2000s, influencing an influx of new alternative rock bands that drew inspiration from garage rock, post-punk and new wave, establishing a revival of the genres.

Origin of term
In the past, popular music tastes were largely dictated by music executives within large entertainment corporations. Record companies signed contracts with those entertainers who were thought to become the most popular, and therefore who could generate the most sales. These bands were able to record their songs in expensive studios, and their works were then offered for sale through record store chains that were owned by the entertainment corporations, along with eventually selling the merchandise into big box retailers. Record companies worked with radio and television companies to get the most exposure for their artists. The people making the decisions were business people dealing with music as a product, and those bands who were not making the expected sales figures were then excluded from this system.

Before the term alternative rock came into common usage around 1990, the sorts of music to which it refers were known by a variety of terms. In 1979, Terry Tolkin used the term Alternative Music to describe the groups he was writing about. In 1979 Dallas radio station KZEW had a late night new wave show entitled "Rock and Roll Alternative". "College rock" was used in the United States to describe the music during the 1980s due to its links to the college radio circuit and the tastes of college students. In the United Kingdom, dozens of small do it yourself record labels emerged as a result of the punk subculture. According to the founder of one of these labels, Cherry Red, NME and Sounds magazines published charts based on small record stores called "Alternative Charts". The first national chart based on distribution called the Indie Chart was published in January 1980; it immediately succeeded in its aim to help these labels. At the time, the term indie was used literally to describe independently distributed records. By 1985, indie had come to mean a particular genre, or group of subgenres, rather than simply distribution status.

The use of the term alternative to describe rock music originated around the mid-1980s; at the time, the common music industry terms for cutting-edge music were new music and postmodern, respectively indicating freshness and a tendency to recontextualize sounds of the past. A similar term, alternative pop, emerged around 1985.

In 1987, Spin magazine categorized college rock band Camper Van Beethoven as "alternative/indie", saying that their 1985 song "Where the Hell Is Bill" (from Telephone Free Landslide Victory) "called out the alternative/independent scene and dryly tore it apart." David Lowery, then frontman of Camper Van Beethoven, later recalled: "I remember first seeing that word applied to us... The nearest I could figure is that we seemed like a punk band, but we were playing pop music, so they made up this word alternative for those of us who do that." DJs and promoters during the 1980s claim the term originates from American FM radio of the 1970s, which served as a progressive alternative to top 40 radio formats by featuring longer songs and giving DJs more freedom in song selection. According to one former DJ and promoter, "Somehow this term 'alternative' got rediscovered and heisted by college radio people during the 80s who applied it to new post-punk, indie, or underground-whatever music."

At first the term referred to intentionally non-mainstream rock acts that were not influenced by "heavy metal ballads, rarefied new wave" and "high-energy dance anthems". Usage of the term would broaden to include new wave, pop, punk rock, post-punk, and occasionally "college"/"indie" rock, all found on the American "commercial alternative" radio stations of the time such as Los Angeles' KROQ-FM. Journalist Jim Gerr wrote that Alternative also encompassed variants such as "rap, trash, metal and industrial". The bill of the first Lollapalooza, an itinerant festival in North America conceived by Jane's Addiction frontman Perry Farrell, reunited "disparate elements of the alternative rock community" including Henry Rollins, Butthole Surfers, Ice-T, Nine Inch Nails, Siouxsie and the Banshees (as second headliners) and Jane's Addiction (as the headlining act). Covering for MTV the opening date of Lollapalooza in Phoenix in July 1991, Dave Kendall introduced the report saying the festival presented the "most diverse lineups of alternative rock". That summer, Farrell had coined the term Alternative Nation.

In December 1991, Spin magazine noted: "this year, for the first time, it became resoundingly clear that what has formerly been considered alternative rock—a college-centered marketing group with fairly lucrative, if limited, potential—has in fact moved into the mainstream."

In the late 1990s, the definition again became more specific. In 1997, Neil Strauss of The New York Times defined alternative rock as "hard-edged rock distinguished by brittle, '70s-inspired guitar riffing and singers agonizing over their problems until they take on epic proportions."

Defining music as alternative is often difficult because of two conflicting applications of the word. Alternative can describe music that challenges the status quo and that is "fiercely iconoclastic, anticommercial, and antimainstream", and the term is also used in the music industry to denote "the choices available to consumers via record stores, radio, cable television, and the Internet." However alternative music has paradoxically become just as commercial and marketable as the mainstream rock, with record companies using the term "alternative" to market music to an audience that mainstream rock does not reach. Using a broad definition of the genre, Dave Thompson in his book Alternative Rock cites the formation of the Sex Pistols as well as the release of the albums Horses by Patti Smith and Metal Machine Music by Lou Reed as three key events that gave birth to alternative rock. Until the early 2000s, when indie rock became the most common term in the US to describe modern pop and rock, the terms "indie rock" and "alternative rock" were often used interchangeably; while there are aspects which both genres have in common, "indie rock" was regarded as a British-based term, unlike the more American "alternative rock".

Characteristics
The name "alternative rock" essentially serves as an umbrella term for underground music that has emerged in the wake of punk rock since the mid-1980s. Throughout much of its history, alternative rock has been largely defined by its rejection of the commercialism of mainstream culture, although this could be contested since some of the major alternative artists have eventually achieved mainstream success or co-opted with the major labels from the 1990s onward (especially into the 2000s, and beyond). In the 1980s, alternative bands generally played in small clubs, recorded for indie labels, and spread their popularity through word of mouth. As such, there is no set musical style for alternative rock as a whole, although in 1989 The New York Times asserted that the genre is "guitar music first of all, with guitars that blast out power chords, pick out chiming riffs, buzz with fuzztone and squeal in feedback." More often than in other rock styles since the mainstreaming of rock music, alternative rock lyrics tend to address topics of social concern, such as drug use, depression, suicide, and environmentalism. This approach to lyrics developed as a reflection of the social and economic strains in the United States and United Kingdom of the 1980s and early 1990s.

Precursors in 1960s and 1970
Precursors to alternative rock existed in the 1960s with proto-punk. The origins of alternative rock can be traced back to The Velvet Underground & Nico (1967) by the Velvet Underground, which influenced many alternative rock bands that would come after it. Eccentric and quirky figures of the 1960s, such as Syd Barrett have influence on alternative rock in general.

1980s
The Dead Kennedys formed the independent record label Alternative Tentacles in 1979, releasing influential underground music such as the 1983 self-titled EP from the Butthole Surfers. By 1984, a majority of groups that were signed to indie labels drew from a variety of rock and particularly 1960s rock influences. This represented a sharp break from the futuristic, hyper-rational post-punk years.

Throughout the 1980s, alternative rock remained mainly an underground phenomenon. While on occasion a song would become a commercial hit, or albums would receive critical praise in mainstream publications like Rolling Stone, alternative rock in the 1980s was primarily featured on independent record labels, fanzines and college radio stations. Alternative bands built underground followings by touring constantly and by regularly releasing low-budget albums. In the United States, new bands would form in the wake of previous bands, which created an extensive underground circuit filled with different scenes in various parts of the country. College radio formed an essential part of breaking new alternative music. In the mid-1980s, college station KCPR in San Luis Obispo, California, described in a DJ handbook the tension between popular and "cutting edge" songs as played on "alternative radio".

Although American alternative artists of the 1980s never generated spectacular album sales, they exerted a considerable influence on later alternative musicians and laid the groundwork for their success. On September 10, 1988, an Alternative Songs chart was created by Billboard, listing the 40 most-played songs on alternative and modern rock radio stations in the US: the first number one was "Peek-a-Boo" by Siouxsie and the Banshees. By 1989, the genre had become popular enough that a package tour featuring New Order, Public Image Limited and the Sugarcubes toured the US arena circuit.

Early on, British alternative rock was distinguished from that of the US by a more pop-oriented focus (marked by an equal emphasis on albums and singles, as well as greater openness to incorporating elements of dance and club culture) and a lyrical emphasis on specifically British concerns. As a result, few British alternative bands have achieved commercial success in the US. Since the 1980s, alternative rock has been played extensively on the radio in the UK, particularly by disc jockeys such as John Peel (who championed alternative music on BBC Radio 1), Richard Skinner, and Annie Nightingale. Artists with cult followings in the US received greater exposure through British national radio and the weekly music press, and many alternative bands had chart success there.

United States in 1980s
Early American alternative bands such as the Dream Syndicate, the Bongos, 10,000 Maniacs, R.E.M., the Feelies and Violent Femmes combined punk influences with folk music and mainstream music influences. R.E.M. was the most immediately successful; their debut album, Murmur (1983), entered the Top 40 and spawned a number of jangle pop followers. One of the many jangle pop scenes of the early 1980s, Los Angeles' Paisley Underground revived the sounds of the 1960s, incorporating psychedelia, rich vocal harmonies and the guitar interplay of folk rock as well as punk and underground influences such as the Velvet Underground.

American indie record labels SST Records, Twin/Tone Records, Touch and Go Records, and Dischord Records presided over the shift from the hardcore punk that then dominated the American underground scene to the more diverse styles of alternative rock that were emerging. Minneapolis bands Hüsker Dü and the Replacements were indicative of this shift. Both started out as punk rock bands, but soon diversified their sounds and became more melodic. Michael Azerrad asserted that Hüsker Dü was the key link between hardcore punk and the more melodic, diverse music of college rock that emerged. Azerrad wrote, "Hüsker Dü played a huge role in convincing the underground that melody and punk rock weren't antithetical." The band also set an example by being the first group from the American indie scene to sign to a major record label, which helped establish college rock as "a viable commercial enterprise". By focusing on heartfelt songwriting and wordplay instead of political concerns, the Replacements upended a number of underground scene conventions; Azerrad noted that "along with R.E.M., they were one of the few underground bands that mainstream people liked."

By the late 1980s, the American alternative scene was dominated by styles ranging from quirky alternative pop (They Might Be Giants and Camper Van Beethoven), to noise rock (Sonic Youth, Big Black, the Jesus Lizard ) and industrial rock (Ministry, Nine Inch Nails). These sounds were in turn followed by the advent of Boston's Pixies and Los Angeles' Jane's Addiction. Around the same time, the grunge subgenre emerged in Seattle, Washington, initially referred to as "The Seattle Sound" until its rise to popularity in the early 1990s. Grunge featured a sludgy, murky guitar sound that syncretized heavy metal and punk rock. Promoted largely by Seattle indie label Sub Pop, grunge bands were noted for their thrift store fashion which favored flannel shirts and combat boots suited to the local weather. Early grunge bands Soundgarden and Mudhoney found critical acclaim in the U.S. and UK, respectively.

By the end of the decade, a number of alternative bands began to sign to major labels. While early major label signings Hüsker Dü and the Replacements had little success, acts who signed with majors in their wake such as R.E.M. and Jane's Addiction achieved gold and platinum records, setting the stage for alternative's later breakthrough. Some bands such as Pixies had massive success overseas while they were ignored domestically.

In the middle of the decade, Hüsker Dü's album Zen Arcade influenced other hardcore acts by tackling personal issues. Out of Washington, D.C.'s hardcore scene what was called "emocore" or, later, "emo" emerged and was noted for its lyrics which delved into emotional, very personal subject matter (vocalists sometimes cried) and added free association poetry and a confessional tone. Rites of Spring has been described as the first "emo" band. Former Minor Threat singer Ian MacKaye founded Dischord Records which became the center for the city's emo scene.

Great Britain in 1980s
Gothic rock developed out of late-1970s British post-punk. With a reputation as the "darkest and gloomiest form of underground rock", gothic rock uses a synthesizer-and-guitar based sound drawn from post-punk to construct "foreboding, sorrowful, often epic soundscapes", and the subgenre's lyrics often address literary romanticism, morbidity, religious symbolism, and supernatural mysticism. Bands of this subgenre took inspiration from two British post-punk groups, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and Joy Division. Bauhaus' debut single "Bela Lugosi's Dead", released in 1979, is considered to be the proper beginning of the gothic rock subgenre. The Cure's "oppressively dispirited" albums including Pornography (1982) cemented that group's stature in that style and laid the foundation for its large cult following.

The key British alternative rock band to emerge during the 1980s was Manchester's the Smiths. Music journalist Simon Reynolds singled out the Smiths and their American contemporaries R.E.M. as "the two most important alt-rock bands of the day", commenting that they "were eighties bands only in the sense of being against the eighties". The Smiths exerted an influence over the British indie scene through the end of the decade, as various bands drew from singer Morrissey's English-centered lyrical topics and guitarist Johnny Marr's jangly guitar-playing style. The C86 cassette, a 1986 NME premium featuring Primal Scream, the Wedding Present and others, was a major influence on the development of indie pop and the British indie scene as a whole.

Other forms of alternative rock developed in the UK during the 1980s. the Jesus and Mary Chain's sound combined the Velvet Underground's "melancholy noise" with Beach Boys pop melodies and Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" production, while New Order emerged from the demise of post-punk band Joy Division and experimented with disco and dance music. The Mary Chain, along with Dinosaur Jr., C86 and the dream pop of Cocteau Twins, were the formative influences for the shoegazing movement of the late 1980s. Named for the band members' tendency to stare at their feet and guitar effects pedals onstage rather than interact with the audience, shoegazing acts like My Bloody Valentine and Slowdive created an overwhelmingly loud "wash of sound" that obscured vocals and melodies with long, droning riffs, distortion, and feedback. Shoegazing bands dominated the British music press at the end of the decade along with the Madchester scene. Performing for the most part in the Haçienda, a nightclub in Manchester owned by New Order and Factory Records, Madchester bands such as Happy Mondays and the Stone Roses mixed acid house dance rhythms with melodic guitar pop.

1990s

By the start of the 1990s, the music industry was enticed by alternative rock's commercial possibilities and major labels had already signed Jane's Addiction, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Dinosaur Jr. In early 1991, R.E.M. went mainstream worldwide with Out of Time while becoming a blueprint for many alternative bands.

The first edition of the Lollapalooza festival became the most successful tour in North America in July and August 1991. For Dave Grohl of Nirvana who attended the festival at an open-air amphitheater in Southern California, "it felt like something was happening, that was the beginning of it all". The tour helped change the mentalities in the music industry: "by that fall, radio and MTV and music had changed. I really think that if it weren't for Perry [Farrell], if it weren't for Lollapalooza, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation right now".

The release of Nirvana's single "Smells Like Teen Spirit" in September 1991 "marked the instigation of the grunge music phenomenon". Helped by constant airplay of the song's music video on MTV, their album Nevermind was selling 400,000 copies a week by Christmas 1991. Its success surprised the music industry. Nevermind not only popularized grunge, but also established "the cultural and commercial viability of alternative rock in general." Michael Azerrad asserted that Nevermind symbolized "a sea-change in rock music" in which the hair metal that had dominated rock music at that time fell out of favor in the face of music that was authentic and culturally relevant. The breakthrough success of Nirvana led to the widespread popularization of alternative rock in the 1990s. It heralded a "new openness to alternative rock" among commercial radio stations, opening doors for heavier alternative bands in particular. In the wake of Nevermind, alternative rock "found itself dragged-kicking and screaming ... into the mainstream" and record companies, confused by the genre's success yet eager to capitalize on it, scrambled to sign bands. The New York Times declared in 1993, "Alternative rock doesn't seem so alternative anymore. Every major label has a handful of guitar-driven bands in shapeless shirts and threadbare jeans, bands with bad posture and good riffs who cultivate the oblique and the evasive, who conceal catchy tunes with noise and hide craftsmanship behind nonchalance." However, many alternative rock artists rejected success, for it conflicted with the rebellious, DIY ethic the genre had espoused before mainstream exposure and their ideas of artistic authenticity.

Grunge
Other grunge bands subsequently replicated Nirvana's success. Pearl Jam had released its debut album Ten a month before Nevermind in 1991, but album sales only picked up a year later. By the second half of 1992 Ten became a breakthrough success, being certified gold and reaching number two on the Billboard 200 album chart. Soundgarden's album Badmotorfinger, Alice in Chains' Dirt and Stone Temple Pilots' Core along with the Temple of the Dog album collaboration featuring members of Pearl Jam and Soundgarden, were also among the 100 top-selling albums of 1992. The popular breakthrough of these grunge bands prompted Rolling Stone to nickname Seattle "the new Liverpool". Major record labels signed most of the prominent grunge bands in Seattle, while a second influx of bands moved to the city in hopes of success. At the same time, critics asserted that advertising was co-opting elements of grunge and turning it into a fad. Entertainment Weekly commented in a 1993 article, "There hasn't been this kind of exploitation of a subculture since the media discovered hippies in the '60s." The New York Times compared the "grunging of America" to the mass-marketing of punk rock, disco, and hip hop in previous years. As a result of the genre's popularity, a backlash against grunge developed in Seattle.

Nirvana's follow-up album In Utero (1993) was an intentionally abrasive album that Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic described as a "wild aggressive sound, a true alternative record." Nevertheless, upon its release in September 1993 In Utero topped the Billboard charts. Pearl Jam also continued to perform well commercially with its second album, Vs. (1993), which topped the Billboard charts by selling a record 950,378 copies in its first week of release. In 1993, the Smashing Pumpkins released their major breakthrough album, Siamese Dream—which debuted at number 10 on the Billboard 200 and sold over 4 million copies by 1996, receiving multi-platinum certification by the RIAA. In 1995, the band released their double album, Mellon Collie & the Infinite Sadness—which went on to sell 10 million copies in the US alone, certifying it as a Diamond record.

Britpop
With the decline of the Madchester scene and the unglamorousness of shoegazing, the tide of grunge from America dominated the British alternative scene and music press in the early 1990s. As a reaction, a flurry of British bands emerged that wished to "get rid of grunge" and "declare war on America", taking the public and native music press by storm. Dubbed "Britpop" by the media, and represented by Pulp, Blur, Suede, and Oasis, this movement was the British equivalent of the grunge explosion, in that the artists propelled alternative rock to the top of the charts in their home country.

Britpop bands were influenced by and displayed reverence for British guitar music of the past, particularly movements and genres such as the British Invasion, glam rock, and punk rock. In 1995, the Britpop phenomenon culminated in a rivalry between its two chief groups, Oasis and Blur, symbolized by their release of competing singles “Roll With It” and “Country House” on the same day on 14 August 1995. Blur won "The Battle of Britpop", but they were soon eclipsed in popularity by Oasis whose second album, (What's the Story) Morning Glory? (1995), went on to become the third best-selling album in the UK's history.

Indie rock

Long synonymous with alternative rock as a whole in the U.S., indie rock became a distinct form following the popular breakthrough of Nirvana. Indie rock was formulated as a rejection of alternative rock's absorption into the mainstream by artists who could not or refused to cross over, and a wariness of its "macho" aesthetic. While indie rock artists share the punk rock distrust of commercialism, the genre does not entirely define itself against that, as "the general assumption is that it's virtually impossible to make indie rock's varying musical approaches compatible with mainstream tastes in the first place".

Labels such as Matador Records, Merge Records, and Dischord, and indie rockers like Pavement, Superchunk, Fugazi, and Sleater-Kinney dominated the American indie scene for most of the 1990s. One of the main indie rock movements of the 1990s was lo-fi. The movement, which focused on the recording and distribution of music on low-quality cassette tapes, initially emerged in the 1980s. By 1992, Pavement, Guided by Voices and Sebadoh became popular lo-fi cult acts in the United States, while subsequently artists like Beck and Liz Phair brought the aesthetic to mainstream audiences. The period also saw alternative confessional female singer-songwriters. Besides the aforementioned Liz Phair, PJ Harvey fit into this sub group.

In the mid-1990s, Sunny Day Real Estate defined the emo genre. Weezer's album Pinkerton (1996) was also influential.

Post-rock
Post-rock was established by Talk Talk's Laughing Stock and Slint's Spiderland albums, both released in 1991. Post-rock draws influence from a number of genres, including Krautrock, progressive rock, and jazz. The genre subverts or rejects rock conventions, and often incorporates electronic music. While the name of the genre was coined by music journalist Simon Reynolds in 1994 referring to Hex by the London group Bark Psychosis, the style of the genre was solidified by the release of Millions Now Living Will Never Die (1996) by the Chicago group Tortoise. Post-rock was the dominant form of experimental rock music in the 1990s and bands from the genre signed to such labels as Thrill Jockey, Kranky, Drag City, and Too Pure.

A related genre, math rock, peaked in the mid-1990s. In comparison to post-rock, math rock relies on more complex time signatures and intertwining phrases. By the end of the decade a backlash had emerged against post-rock due to its "dispassionate intellectuality" and its perceived increasing predictability, but a new wave of post-rock bands such as Godspeed You! Black Emperor and Sigur Rós emerged who further expanded the genre.

Other trends
In 1993, the Smashing Pumpkins' album Siamese Dream was a major commercial success. The strong influence of heavy metal and progressive rock on the album helped to legitimize alternative rock to mainstream radio programmers and close the gap between alternative rock and the type of rock played on American 1970s Album Oriented Rock radio.

Post-grunge, post-punk revival, and emo
In the early 21st century, many alternative rock bands that experienced mainstream success struggled following the suicide of Nirvana's Kurt Cobain in April 1994, Pearl Jam's failed lawsuit against concert venue promoter Ticketmaster, Soundgarden's break-up in 1997, the Smashing Pumpkins losing its original members in 2000, L7's hiatus in 2001, the death of Layne Staley and the subsequent disbanding of Alice in Chains in 2002, and the disbanding of both the Cranberries and Stone Temple Pilots in 2003. Britpop also began fading after Oasis' third album, Be Here Now (1997), was met with lackluster reviews.

A signifier of alternative rock's changes was the hiatus of the Lollapalooza festival after an unsuccessful attempt to find a headliner in 1998. In light of the festival's troubles that year, Spin said, "Lollapalooza is as comatose as alternative rock right now". Despite these changes in style however, alternative rock remained commercially viable into the start of the 21st century.

Post-grunge
During the latter half of the 1990s, grunge was supplanted by post-grunge. Many post-grunge bands lacked the underground roots of grunge and were largely influenced by what grunge had become, namely "a wildly popular form of inward-looking, serious-minded hard rock."; many post-grunge bands emulated the sound and style of grunge, "but not necessarily the individual idiosyncracies of its original artists." Post-grunge was a more commercially viable genre that tempered the distorted guitars of grunge with polished, radio-ready production.

Originally, post-grunge was a label used almost pejoratively on bands that emerged when grunge was mainstream and emulated the grunge sound. The label suggested that bands labelled as post-grunge were simply musically derivative, or a cynical response to an "authentic" rock movement. Bush, Candlebox and Collective Soul were labelled almost pejoratively as post-grunge which, according to Tim Grierson of About.com, is "suggesting that rather than being a musical movement in their own right, they were just a calculated, cynical response to a legitimate stylistic shift in rock music." Post-grunge morphed during the late 1990s and 2000s as newer bands such as Foo Fighters, Matchbox Twenty, Creed and Nickelback emerged, becoming among the most popular rock bands in the United States.<ref name="allmusic postgrunge" /

Post-Britpop
At the same time Britpop began to decline, Radiohead achieved critical acclaim with its third album OK Computer (1997), and its follow-ups Kid A (2000) and Amnesiac (2001), which were in marked contrast with the traditionalism of Britpop. Radiohead, along with post-Britpop groups like Travis, Stereophonics and Coldplay, were major forces in British rock in subsequent years.

Third-wave ska
After almost a decade in the underground, ska punk, a mixture of earlier British ska and punk acts, became popular in the United States. Rancid was the first of the "third-wave ska revival" acts to break. From the mid-1990s to early 2000s, the Mighty Mighty Bosstones, No Doubt, Sublime, Goldfinger, Reel Big Fish, Less Than Jake and Save Ferris charted or received radio exposure.

Post-punk revival and garage rock revival
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, several alternative rock bands emerged, including the Strokes, Franz Ferdinand, Interpol, and the Rapture that drew primary inspiration from post-punk and new wave, establishing the post-punk revival movement. Preceded by the success of bands such as the Strokes and the White Stripes earlier in the decade, an influx of new alternative rock bands, including several post-punk revival artists and others such as the Killers, and Yeah Yeah Yeahs, found commercial success in the early and mid 2000s. Owing to the success of these bands, Entertainment Weekly declared in 2004, "After almost a decade of domination by rap-rock and nu-metal bands, mainstream alt-rock is finally good again." Arctic Monkeys were a prominent act to owe their initial commercial success to the use of Internet social networking, with two UK No. 1 singles and Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not (2006), which became the fastest-selling debut album in British chart history.

Emo
By 2000 and on into the new decade, emo was one of the most popular rock music genres. Popular acts included the sales success of Bleed American by Jimmy Eat World (2001) and Dashboard Confessional's The Places You Have Come to Fear the Most (2003). The new emo had a much more mainstream sound than in the 1990s and a far greater appeal among adolescents than its earlier incarnations. At the same time, the use of the term "emo" expanded beyond the musical genre, becoming associated with fashion, a hairstyle and any music that expressed emotion. Emo's mainstream success continued with bands emerging in the 2000s, including multi-platinum acts such as Fall Out Boy and My Chemical Romance and mainstream groups such as Paramore and Panic! at the Disco.

Other trends
American rock band Red Hot Chili Peppers entered a new-found popularity in 1999 after the release of their album Californication (1999), with continued success throughout the 2000s. Thirty Seconds to Mars experienced a notable rise in popularity during the latter half of the 2000s.

2010–present: The future
Most references to alternative rock music in the United States past 2010 are to the indie rock genre, a term that previously had limited usage on alternative rock channels and media. Radio stations in the 2010s have been changing formats away from alternative rock, but this is mostly motivated by conglomeration efforts coupled with advertisers seeking more Top 40/Top 100 stations for sales. While there have been conflicting opinions on the relevance of alternative rock to mainstream audiences beyond 2010, Dave Grohl commented on an article from the December 29, 2013, issue of the New York Daily News stating that rock is dead: "speak for yourself... rock seems pretty alive to me."

Trends of the 2010s
Contemporary mainstream alternative rock bands tend to fuse musical elements of hard rock, electronica, hip hop, indie, and punk while placing emphasis on keyboards and guitar. In 2010s, British rock band Muse gained a worldwide recognition with their album The Resistance and Drones which won Grammy Awards.

American alternative duo Twenty One Pilots blurs the lines between genres including hip hop, emo, rock, indie pop and reggae and has managed to break numerous records. They became the first alternative act to have two concurrent top five singles in the United States while their fourth studio album Blurryface (2015) was the first album in history to have every song receive at least a Gold certification from the Recording Industry Association of America. Twenty One Pilots also became the first rock act to have a song reach a billion streams on Spotify. Their breakout hit single "Stressed Out" was the twenty-fifth song to achieve the rare feat of at least one billion plays on the streaming platform. The milestone comes at a time when music genres represented on streaming platforms like Spotify are fairly homogeneous, being dominated by genres such as hip hop, EDM, and adult contemporary-styled pop.

Alternative pop
Alternative pop, also known as alt-pop, is pop music with broad commercial appeal that is made by figures outside the mainstream, or which is considered more original, challenging, or eclectic than traditional pop music. The Independent described alt-pop as "a home-made, personalised imitation of the mainstream that speaks far closer to actual teenage experience", and which is commonly characterized by a dark or downbeat emotional tone with lyrics about insecurity, regret, drugs, and anxiety.

According to AllMusic, the alternative scene's "left-of-center pop" failed to experience mainstream success during the 1980s, although the UK alternative pop band Siouxsie and the Banshees saw success in that decade. Canadian singer Avril Lavigne's success in the early 2000s, including her hit single "Sk8er Boi", helped set the stage for a subsequent generation of female alt-pop singers. In the late 2000s, American singer Santigold established herself as an "alternative pop hero" due to her apparent artistic conviction.

In the early 2010s, American singer Lana Del Rey developed a "cult-like following" with her "cinematic, beat-heavy alt-pop", which was characterized by an "alluring sadness and melodrama". New Zealand alt-pop singer Lorde achieved global success in 2013 and 2014, topping charts and winning awards. In 2022, American singer Billie Eilish was credited with marking the "ascendence" of alternative pop in the mainstream with her dark, downbeat pop.

title: Alternative rock


text:
Pax Britannica

Pax Britannica (Latin for "British Peace", modelled after Pax Romana) was the period of relative peace between the great powers. During this time, the British Empire became the global hegemonic power, developed additional informal empire, and adopted the role of a "global policeman".

Between 1815 and 1914, a period referred to as Britain's "imperial century", around 10000000 sqmi of territory and roughly 400 million people were added to the British Empire. Victory over Napoleonic France left the British without any serious international rival, other than perhaps Russia in Central Asia. When Russia tried expanding its influence in the Balkans, the British and French defeated them in the Crimean War (1853–1856), thereby protecting the weak Ottoman Empire.

Britain's Royal Navy controlled most of the key maritime trade routes and enjoyed unchallenged sea power. Alongside the formal control exerted over its own colonies, Britain's dominant position in world trade meant that it effectively controlled access to many regions, such as Asia, North America, Oceania, and Africa. British merchants, shippers and bankers had such an overwhelming advantage over those of other empires that in addition to its colonies Britain had an informal empire.

History
After losing the Thirteen Colonies, a significant part of British America, in the American Revolution, Britain turned towards Asia, the Pacific and later Africa with subsequent exploration leading to the rise of the Second British Empire (1783–1815). The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain in the late 18th century and new ideas emerged about free markets, such as Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (1776). Free trade became a central principle that Britain practiced by the 1840s. It played a key role in Britain's economic growth and financial dominance.

From the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until World War I in 1914, the United Kingdom played the role of global hegemon (most powerful actor). Imposition of a "British Peace" on key maritime trade routes began in 1815 with the annexation of British Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Under the British Residency of the Persian Gulf, local Arab rulers agreed to a number of treaties that formalised Britain's protection of the region. Britain imposed an anti-piracy treaty, known as the General Maritime Treaty of 1820, on all Arab rulers in the region. By signing the Perpetual Maritime Truce of 1853, Arab rulers gave up their right to wage war at sea in return for British protection against external threats. The global superiority of British military and commerce was aided by a divided and relatively weak continental Europe, and the presence of the Royal Navy on all of the world's oceans and seas. Even outside its formal empire, Britain controlled trade with many countries such as China, Siam, and Argentina. Following the Congress of Vienna, the British Empire's economic strength continued to develop through naval dominance and diplomatic efforts to maintain a balance of power in continental Europe.

In this era, the Royal Navy provided services around the world that benefited other nations, such as suppressing piracy and blocking the slave trade. The Slave Trade Act 1807 had banned the trade across the British Empire, after which the Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron and the government negotiated international treaties under which they could enforce the ban. Sea power, however, did not project on land. Land wars fought between the major powers include the Crimean War, the Franco-Austrian War, the Austro-Prussian War and the Franco-Prussian War, as well as numerous conflicts between lesser powers. The Royal Navy prosecuted the First Opium War (1839–1842) and Second Opium War (1856–1860) against Imperial China. The Royal Navy was superior to any other two navies in the world, combined. Between 1815 and the passage of the German naval laws of 1890 and 1898, only France was a potential naval threat. Apart from the Crimean War, it did not engage in any major warfare from 1815 to 1914.

The most decisive event emerged from the Anglo-Egyptian War, which resulted in the British occupation of Egypt for seven decades, even though the Ottoman Empire retained nominal ownership until 1914. Historian A. J. P. Taylor says that this "was a great event; indeed, the only real event in international relations between the Battle of Sedan and the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war". Taylor emphasizes the long-term impact:

 * The British occupation of Egypt altered the balance of power. It not only gave the British security for their route to India; it made them masters of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East; it made it unnecessary for them to stand in the front line against Russia at the Straits....And thus prepared the way for the Franco-Russian Alliance ten years later.

Britain traded goods and capital extensively with countries around the world, adopting a free trade policy after 1840. The growth of British imperial strength was further underpinned by the steamship and the telegraph, new technologies invented in the second half of the 19th century, allowing it to control and defend the empire. By 1902, the British Empire was linked together by a network of telegraph cables, the so-called All Red Line.

The Pax Britannica was weakened by the breakdown of the continental order which had been established by the Congress of Vienna. Relations between the Great Powers of Europe were strained to breaking point by issues such as the decline of the Ottoman Empire, which led to the Crimean War, and later the emergence of new nation states in the form of Italy and Germany after the Franco-Prussian War. Both of these wars involved Europe's largest states and armies. The industrialisation of Germany, the Empire of Japan, and the United States contributed to the relative decline of British industrial supremacy in the late 19th century. The start of World War I in 1914 marked the end of the Pax Britannica. However, the British Empire remained the biggest colonial empire until the start of decolonization after World War II ended in 1945, and Britain remained one of the leading powers until the Suez Crisis in 1956, during which British and French troops were forced to withdraw from Egypt under pressure from the United States and (to a lesser extent) the Soviet Union.

Sources and further reading

 * Albrecht-Carrié, René. A Diplomatic History of Europe Since the Congress of Vienna (1958), 736pp; a basic introduction, online free to borrow
 * Bartlett, C. J.  Peace, War and the European Powers, 1814–1914 (1996) brief overview 216pp
 * Bury, J. P. T. ed. The New Cambridge Modern History: Vol. 10: the Zenith of European Power, 1830–70 (1964)
 * Darby, H. C. and H. Fullard The New Cambridge Modern History, Vol. 14: Atlas (1972)
 * Ferguson, Niall. Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (2002),
 * Hinsley, F.H., ed. The New Cambridge Modern History, vol. 11, Material Progress and World-Wide Problems 1870–1898 (1979)
 * Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500–2000 (1987), stress on economic and military factors
 * Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy (1995), 940pp; not a memoir but an interpretive history of international diplomacy since the late 18th century
 * Rich, Norman. Great Power Diplomacy: 1814–1914 (1991), comprehensive survey
 * Seaman, L.C.B. From Vienna to Versailles (1955) 216pp; brief overview of diplomatic history online
 * Seton-Watson, R. W. Britain in Europe, 1789–1914. (1938); comprehensive history online
 * Ward, A.W. and G. P. Gooch, eds. The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, 1783–1919 (3 vol, 1921–23), old detailed classic; vol 1, 1783–1815; vol 2, 1815–1866; vol 3. 1866–1919
 * Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500–2000 (1987), stress on economic and military factors
 * Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy (1995), 940pp; not a memoir but an interpretive history of international diplomacy since the late 18th century
 * Rich, Norman. Great Power Diplomacy: 1814–1914 (1991), comprehensive survey
 * Seaman, L.C.B. From Vienna to Versailles (1955) 216pp; brief overview of diplomatic history online
 * Seton-Watson, R. W. Britain in Europe, 1789–1914. (1938); comprehensive history online
 * Ward, A.W. and G. P. Gooch, eds. The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, 1783–1919 (3 vol, 1921–23), old detailed classic; vol 1, 1783–1815; vol 2, 1815–1866; vol 3. 1866–1919
 * Rich, Norman. Great Power Diplomacy: 1814–1914 (1991), comprehensive survey
 * Seaman, L.C.B. From Vienna to Versailles (1955) 216pp; brief overview of diplomatic history online
 * Seton-Watson, R. W. Britain in Europe, 1789–1914. (1938); comprehensive history online
 * Ward, A.W. and G. P. Gooch, eds. The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, 1783–1919 (3 vol, 1921–23), old detailed classic; vol 1, 1783–1815; vol 2, 1815–1866; vol 3. 1866–1919
 * Ward, A.W. and G. P. Gooch, eds. The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, 1783–1919 (3 vol, 1921–23), old detailed classic; vol 1, 1783–1815; vol 2, 1815–1866; vol 3. 1866–1919
 * Ward, A.W. and G. P. Gooch, eds. The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, 1783–1919 (3 vol, 1921–23), old detailed classic; vol 1, 1783–1815; vol 2, 1815–1866; vol 3. 1866–1919

 * Primary sources

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

title: Pax Britannica


text:
Marie Vassilieff

Mariya Ivanovna Vassiliéva (Russian: Мария Ивановна Васильева), (1884-1957), better known as Marie Vassilieff, was a Russian-born painter and set designer active in Paris.

She was born on February 12, 1884 in Smolensk, Russia. She attended the Saint Petersburg Academy of Arts. She also studied at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, where she was taught by Henri Matisse.

In 1910 she co-founded the Academie Russe in Paris. Several years later she left that school and founded Academie Vassilieff also in Paris. Academie Vassilieff located in the 15th arrondissement of Paris (Montparnasse), became a popular place, and during World War I Vassilieff turned the property into a canteen (cafeteria) serving inexpensive meals to artist in the neighborhood.

Vassilieff died on May 14, 1957 in Nogent-sur-Marne, France.

Her property. Villa Vassilieff, at 21 Avenue du Maine has served as a gallery, a museum (Musée du Montparnasse), and study center.

title: Marie Vassilieff


text:
Talk:Pax Britannica

2003
This isn't something I know much about, but the Market House Dictionary of British History seems to think it is more about a general idea of maintaining peace than it is about one particular period. --Camembert 01:19, 10 January 2003
 * Yes, the British would think that. Well, compared to the Pax Dubya I am sure they did a better job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.82.58 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 January 2003

 * No, they wouldn't - at least not anyone who studied history. I think this article should cover some of the debates - it should certainly be longer than the one on the so called "pax americana". However... I can't remember any of them at the moment. :( However, the historical reference is definitely better known and more important than the wargame. Switched around. Wiki-Ed 20:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

This is not much to say about a period of 100 years when Britain ruled half the planet and all the seas!!!!! Considering all the flap about New Imperialism it is amazing that this earlier period got such short shrift.

Yep, the article is very thin. --Dumbo1 15:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Try British Empire... Wiki-Ed 20:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

New Imperialism (1870-1914)
New Imperialism (1870-1914) is the era following Pax Britannica (1818-1870). Waterloo and the Congress of Vienna ushered in Pax Britannica. New Imperialism is the consequence of the breakdown of Pax Britannica.

The article had earlier confused these two eras of British colonial expansionism, marked by Britain’s shift from informal colonialism to formal structures.

172 04:16, 23 April 2003 (UTC)

When colonies had the capacity
The sentence "When colonies had the capacity (but not the right) to trade directly with each other, challenges to central rule erupted, and New Imperialism largely arose as a response. " is very incorrect. First of all, it connects relations with what would become known as the Dominions with the scramble for Africa. The drive into Africa became known as New Imperialism -- it had nothing to do with the Dominions. Relations with the Dominions developed after Great Britain changed to a liberal trade policy in 1846 -- first in the case of Canada (being the first, 1840s/50s), later Austrialia, New Zealand, and South Africa (being the last in 1910). The sentence makes no historical sense and whoever believes in it could at least mention the Durham report which is a controversy in and of itself. Most importantly of all, it came in 1839, while "New Imperialism" did not come until the 1880s! "New Imperialism" was ultimately a result of the alteration of the international system in response to the unifications of Germany, Italy, and America (end of the Civil War). Germany defeated Austria and France, altering the continental balance of powering and pushing the others to expand their influence overseas.

I'm justgoing from memory here, but when I learned about about this in my history lessons at school in England, it was explained in a much more comprehensive and conceptual fashion. To put it in simple terms, I was taught that England told everybody to behave themselves and not to challenge the world order. Importantly, they reserved the right to interverne in the affairs of any nation that did not comply. Am I wrong? 69.159.196.56 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is stated on this article that the Pax Britannica began at the Battle of Trafalgar, although, according to the article on the United Kingdom, it began at the battle of Waterloo. Which is correct? --203.217.54.49 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * That depends on the definition of Pax Britannica which is almost self-contradictory in the article intro. After the Battle of Trafalgar there were no other countries with the naval strength to prevent British expansion overseas, which is given as one feature of this period. However, Europe would remain dominated by France until the Battle of Waterloo. Events on the European mainland were largely unconnected to British expansion once Britain regained control of the shipping lanes, and the article needs to specify whether the term refers to unopposed expansion outside Europe or British dominance over the "balanced" powers within Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.167.253 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 11 July 2007

Pax Britan.. What ?
So erm, various revolutions, the Italian Wars of Independence, the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, right here I'm having a hard time seeing what this "pax" Britannica is all about, besides, the British Empire is fine and all, but being an empire built overseas far far from the shores of Europe, hardly gave Britain control over the European continent. Is this term actually used with any frequency ? It really sounds self congratulatory and devoid of any real meaning to me. 212.27.60.48 (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Did you actually read the article? Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for asking. 212.27.60.48 (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And to avoid further snide remarks :
 * "Pax Brittanica" is modelled after "Pax Romana" says the intro, however, "Pax Romana", according to Wikipedia's entry "was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire". Yet, according to this entry here, "Pax Brittanica" refers to a period of "British expansionism", is derived from "europe's being relatively peaceful", but Europe was not in fact, particularly peaceful during that period, neither was it under British domination, the actual empire was overseas. I have to either question the actual usage of the term, or the way it is presented here. 212.27.60.48 (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the principal reasons for the general usage of the term Pax Britannica is not so much because of its military might at the time (although the threat of facing British naval might often led to nations even as powerful as France backing down instead of fighting a war they could not win- ie see Sudan) but because for much of the 19th century Britain had overwhelming economic dominance and had the hegemonic position in global finance right up until WW1 (everything was done in sterling). This led to the greatest financial stability the world had ever seen.--Willski72 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 * "the United Kingdom played the role of hegemon, where the balance of power was the main aim. It is also in this time that the British Empire became the largest empire of all time[1]. Imposition of a "British Peace" on key maritime trade routes began in 1815 with the annexation of British Ceylon[2]:pp.191 – 192. The global superiority of British military and commerce was guaranteed by dominance of a Europe lacking in strong nation-states, and the presence of the Royal Navy on all of the world's oceans and seas. "

 * This single quote is antithetic. If UK was "hegemon", "largest empire", "globally superior", "dominating europe lacking strong nation states" then there is absolutely NO "balance of power". It's just as silly as if someone said Napoleon aim was balance of power by conquering all europe. Totally inconsistent.

 * The whole article doesn't seem too much serious and, after the myth of "second hundred years war", the myth of Waterloo being mainly a British vicotry, and the myth of Napoleon being short, looks just like another stone to the wall of British fanboys propaganda to promote their nationalistically biased feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.196.55 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

no currency
Outside of a few obscure references (and a boardgame) this term doesn't really have a lot of currency. Jooler (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to you, however the Pax Brittanica is and was an important and fundamental historical reality for over one hundred years. If you take a moment and read the Pax Americana page which happens to be quite a long article although it's period has been relatively short I think you can be assured that Pax Brittanica has far more currency than you suppose.

The end of pax britannica
I am thinking this article is worded wrong, in the beginning, the pax britannica is defined as the relative peace between european powers, but doesn't say it ends when that relative peace ends - in WW1. So I'm editing the latter part unless someone tells me why it should be otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There wasn't peace between european powers anyway:
 * First Italian Independence War
 * First Schleswig War
 * Crimean War
 * Second Italian War of Independence
 * Second Schleswig War
 * Austro-Prussian War / Third Italian War of Independence
 * Franco-Prussian War
 * Not to mention wars involving the Ottoman Empire or minor conflicts such as during the revolutions of 1830 & 1848 or several civil wars. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of comments here that are missing the point - Pax Britannica is merely used to indicated a period of relative peace. Note, "relative". That is, between the indicated dates there was not a great war, or general European conflict. It was peaceful relative to a) the Napoleonic Wars, which convulsed Europe for an entire generation, redrew the map, caused empires to rise and fall, and altered world politics forever. At the other end of the time-line, the First World War, which cause millions of deaths, brought about the Russian Revolution, the end of several empires, and marked the beginning of the end of the era of European colonial power. Next to these two bookend events, the wars in the intervening years were comparatively trivial. Hence the use of "Pax".142.167.124.34 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll argue that the birth of Italy or Belgium, the rise of Prussia and the making of Germany, the decline of the Austrian Empire reshaped as a dual monarchy, the fall of the Second French Empire, or the second wave of European colonization were map redrawing, world politics altering events. Very relative notion indeed. It seems to me the only reason why this discussion is taking place is because Britain - rather than Europe - was "relatively" at peace during that period with the rest of Europe. Equendil Talk 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting of the paragraph
I did the rewriting of the paragraph because the wording: "The Empire's strength was guaranteed by dominance of a Europe lacking in strong nation states," is historically false, how can someone affirm that in XIX Century France, Russia and later Germany were not great and strong national states? And about the dominance of Britain over the continental Europe during the same period? In reality the first goal of Britain foreign policy during this period was the maintaining of the peace by a balance of power, not a dominance... thank you for your attention ---kayac71- (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by "great and strong". Compared to what they had been or would become they were fairly weak during this period. Moreover, it didn't say "Britain's strength", it said the "Empire's strength" - other European nations efforts to colonise and conquer overseas territories (as in beyond Europe) were much more limited. The wording was not perfect, but your edits did not change the emphasis accurately. I've adjusted it to reflect the fact that the balance of power was a key plank of the diplomatic strategy. However, the point has to be made that neither France nor Russia nor Germany were at any point pre-eminent during this period (that is, until the rise of Germany ended it). And note, this article is written in British English which means capitalisation of nouns and no 'z's where there should be an 's'. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Opium Wars?
There is no direct connection between Pax Brittanica and the Opium wars, I am removing it as it is completely redundant.Twobells (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

contradictions in this article
The lead of the article says that Pax Britannica is Latin for "the British Peace" and was the period of relative peace in Europe and the world (1815–1914). Where it says "the period of relative peace" it links to List of wars 1800–1899 which is quite a full list. It then states what major conflicts Britain was involved in during this time of British "peace", which includes the Crimean War where they used 250,000 soldiers and lost 21,097-22,000, and the two opium wars.  D r e a m Focus  07:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is like saying there was no Pax Romana because the Romans were fighting wars. Shii (tock) 08:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pax Romana had no major wars, and the 90 years of civil wars had ended. Totally different situation here.  They didn't have to send a quarter of a million troops to participate in a war.   D r e a m Focus  08:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The key word is "relative" and your definition of "major war" may be different to that of 19th century British historians. The conflict in the Crimea posed no threat to Britain itself, nor did any of the other expeditionary wars or continental conflicts that took place during the period, regardless of scale. Also, there is a sort of imperialistic arrogance associated with the phrase: an assertion that there were no major threats to civilisation during this period, the assumption being that Britain was the centre of civilisation. Conflicts on the periphery (even if those regions are now quite important in global affairs) were not a threat to peace in the centre. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Err ... sorry, Dream Focus, did you mistake this for a debating forum about the topic? As you well know (or ought to, anyway), Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions about improving the article, not for polemics about whether the subject's premise makes sense.  I'm sure you can find any number of venues where you can argue whether a "Pax Britannica" genuinely existed.  Wikipedia is not one of them.   Ravenswing   17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am discussing the article here, and what it says that seems to be a contradiction.  D r e a m Focus  17:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Errr ... I just want to make sure I have this straight: you're criticizing a sourced article based around a well-known concept because you disagree with the subject matter? Once again, this isn't a debating forum.  By way of example, I think that Holocaust deniers are the people at whom the lunatic fringe sneers, but that sentiment is irrelevant on Talk:Holocaust denial.  If you have some reliable sources which explicitly state that the concept of "Pax Britannica" is hogwash, sure, add those to the article, but that's as far as it ought to go.   Ravenswing   14:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (edited to reword it)You seem to have misread or not understand what I have said. Something in the article seemed odd, so I discussed it here to make certain it was accurate.  Now stop trying to turn this into a forum.  You start up a conversation that ended over a month ago, to mention something totally unrelated.   D r e a m Focus  23:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Pax Britannica" did exist and is relative to the 18th and 20th Centuries
There seems to be a bizarre set of comments above that pick on relatively minor wars and suggest that therefore the Pax Britannica did not exist. Contributors should contemplate the period 1914 - 1945 or the eighteenth century/19th C to 1815 and compare the global warfare that prevailed with the period 1815-1914. We have recently had a Pax Americana for similar reasons - any attempt at global war after 1945 would have been crushed by US military might.

Come on people, just put Pax Britannica into Google Scholar and have a look at a few of the couple of hundred thousand articles! Here are a few "off the top":

http://www.academia.edu/2013776/Pax_Britannica http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5301360 http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-rise-and-fall-of-england-8-pax-britannica http://www.hudson.org/research/10136-pax-britannica-a-nautical-chart-for-pax-americana- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.235.151 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What Was Pacified?
I am reading this article, and I feel that the introduction doesn't explain what the Pax Britannica actually did for continental Europe. Relative peace doesn't mean much, if it isn't explained which kind of conflicts disappeared. Reading the article, it would appear that Pax Britannica simply means "no British soldiers were deployed in Western Europe" and "GB ruled a lot of lands outside of Europe, as well as the seas themselves, and had the economic upper hand".

There were many European wars in this time, and they did redraw the political map of Europe. Just think of Italy and Germany coming up, with continental power shifting to Germany, or the Russo-Turkish war, changes in the Balkans, Greece, and so on. Many of them were part of larger series of wars. There also were the years 1848-1849. Maybe the definition "relative peace" should be changed to "lack of wars in Europe comparable in size to those of Napoleon".

There is a good paragraph from this page which could be used here: The entire era had a general lack of major conflict between the great powers, with most skirmishes taking place between belligerents within the borders of individual countries. In Europe, wars were much smaller, shorter and less frequent than ever before. The quiet century was shattered by World War I (1914–1918), which was unexpected in its timing, duration, casualties, and long-term impact.

The global police force meaning also isn't explained in the article, with the exception of impeding slave trade in West Africa (which alone isn't enough to be described as global).

If there will be edits to this article I suggest a read of this paper, which has a very balanced structure and shows with detail both strength and limits of the concept, and what it actually meant at the time from a practical and ideological point of view.

I think there is a mistake in the opening paragraph, in not limiting the definition to a certain area of use. "was the name used in XXX/ is the name used in XXX storiography/by XXX to refer to..."

Viny 95.237.98.109 (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Biased
The article is clearly biased, lack of information about criticism about the term. And about the affirmation that Britain helped the United States with the Monroe Doctrine i think it should not be here. How they "helped" USA is not clear, and this is controversial, Britain allegdly tried to stop American advance into the West, supporting natives, and there was a lot issues about territory between America and UK, that were peacefully resolved, but the "help" is not clear. USA was not a major ally how it is today, USA was a former colony expanding fastly, this "help thesis" is at least controversial, after all. I think it should not be in this article, and this is not oftenly cited as a major factor in the use of the term Pax Britannica.

 * There should be a criticism section, since that is consistent with the standard practice with looking at terms on Wiki that describe events or interpretations of events. On a related note, the article gloats about "stopping slave traders", which has zero to do with Pax Britannica as a term. It has more to do with what happened in the period of Pax Britannica, from that person's view. It's not clear why the part about slavery is in there otherwise, although it seems to be more of the same self-aggrandizement that permeates academia, based on a thick coat of gloss that hides power imperative under the illusion of moral imperative. I say this because stopping other countries from importing labor and producing with less overhead was going to help keep the UK on top, with no country with the wealth to build a fleet to challenge its own and take away its markets. How convenient. Actually, if anything is to be sourced and included, that bit should because at least instead of saying what happened during Pax Britannica, it reveals the sort of strategy that explains Pax Britannica's duration until the dreadnought era. What the article needs is a scrub, an explanation as to what Pax Britannica was, why it lasted and a criticism section which challenges the idea that there ever was peace to begin with - i.e. because everyone was figuratively chained by these imperialists, like those in the asbestos mines or diamond scam (ironic when we talk about "but they stopped slavery1"), or there was plenty of fighting going on, like putting down occupied populations. --Asdf12345sixseveneight (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pax Britannica


text:
Talk:Brain transplant

Comments
I agree with the objection to the merge. However, both articles are written in such a way that the two procedures could easily be mistaken for each other. I suggest editing both articles to remove this ambiguity and move all references to 'downloaders' to the current article. --Phils 14:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

redirecting 'downloading conciousness' to this page is wrong. there is another entire discourse on downloading conciousness that has nothing to do with growing new organic human bodies. It is quite possible to discuss downloading conciousness without discussing whole-body transplant, as only the ethical questions are related, the technical questions are likely not related at all.

-

Downloading (or uploading, as is prefered by transhumanists, et al.) does not consist of transfering a human brain into a robotic body, it consists of transfering the mind from an organic subtrate to a nonorganic substrate, often involving the replacement of neurons individually with computationally simulated equivalents until the entire brain exists within the simulation. - Augur

 * The page mind transfer covers all of these variants, and that's where "downloading conciousness" currently redirects. Bryan 02:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-

People might actually want brain transplants if they ever become available as the alternative is death. while i personally don't agree with that train of thought - the possible vampire-like taking of someone else's body for one thing. i thought it best to report what other people have said on the matter.

PMelvilleAustin 21:02 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

"Both goals are often derided as insane or unethical by religious and social leaders, who point deep to the disruption and inequality immortality of any sort is likely to cause."

What?? - Omegatron

Was it a monkey or a dog?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.171.46 (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

-

The second citation [2] in the article relates to *Head Transplants,* not brain transplants. None of the other citations seem to relate to a brain transplant either, but rather implanting new tissue into the brain - the eighth [8] indicates that this was done in 1998, and is composed of a link to a news story that doesn't mention whether the procedure succeeded or not. The seventh citation [7] is from 1982, and relates to implantation of neurons into a mouse - which was successful.

Human stem cell-derived neurons have been implanted into mice, resulting in reduced seizures. Combined with the seventh [7] citation, this seems to indicate the reverse of what the article suggests - that the brain is in fact an immunologically privileged organ, to the extent that it can integrate tissue from other species. Human-to-mouse tissue transplants are common in research, and so-called gyandromorphs are organisms where some cells that function as if they were male, and other cells that function as if they were female.

In the Immune privilege article, another citation seems to be used out of context; rather than denying immune privilege in the brain, the paper seems to indicate that the immune privilege is a result of the immune system of the body. This is supported by [2], [7] and the link to the Harvard article I linked to, which is from November 2014 - thus making it the latest citation.

Head transplants seem to be impossible because they include tissue other than the brain - a true brain transplant featuring only the transplantation of neural tissue would probably not be rejected. If nature can produce gyandromorphs by accident, and humans can insert neurons into their own brains, as well as the brains of mice, than it would seem that a brain transplant is well within the realm of possibility.

However, a critical issue isn't addressed in this article, which is addressed in the citations; reconnecting damaged nerves. Whether it was a brain transplant or a head transplant, the severed spinal cord would need to be repaired. This is the real limiting factor in both transplants, and a solution seems to be available. As well, the neural tissue of the spinal cord, or even the entire neural net - composed of the CNS and PNS - might be transplanted.

I would like to rewrite the article to reflect these facts. Please give me the go-ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.207.147.243 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Also, for the procedure to be practical, the age of the donated body must be sufficient: an adult brain cannot fit into a skull that has not reached its full growth, which occurs at age 9–12 years." This is a joke, right? It's under "existing challenges" with no citations, as I doubt any real surgeon was planning to steal kids' bodies to pop adults' brains into them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.166.240 (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal with head transplant
Whosyourjudas just proposed merging this article with head transplant. I don't think that's entirely appropriate, since a head transplant and a whole-body transplant are rather different things; whole-body transplantation is primarily the realm of fiction and philosophy, whereas head transplants have actually been performed on chimps and proposed as a serious medical procedure for use in the current real world. Some of the philosophical and moral issues are the same, but then they're also similar to some of the issues raised in Mind transfer so cross-linking the articles to refer to the discussion of them shouldn't be a problem. However, I can also see the point that these two procedures could indeed be similar enough to be worth covering in a unified manner, so I'm tossing the issue in here on talk: to see what other people think. Bryan 05:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it'd be unreasonable. Since the head transplant article is so small (not much more than a stub), it would probably be best to redirect the title here and put its text in as a section. BobGreenwade 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do know brain transplant is practiced by some such as child combat programmes and governments and maybe head transplant too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:F3B6:400:122:AA87:33A:D5F0 (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

BrainTrans hoax
There is this one site that claims it has been done, though it look legitimate, there are certain things in it that might give it away that it isn't. Of course our first reaction is that it is indeed a hoax. I'm wondering if we should add in some informaiton about this site and tell that that thought they have no proof that they have actually done it, that they offer brain transplants. BrainTrans http://216.247.9.207/bthtml/about.htm
 * This is a hoax/gag site. The main problem currently with WBTs is the nerve-healing issue (which I recently added in to the main article).  Before there can be a successful transplant this issue must be resolved (though from all I've read it really is the last hurdle to the possibility).  Still, a link to this site (probably at this link) with that disclaimer, explaining that it's what such a procedure might look like in the end, probably wouldn't hurt. BobGreenwade 19:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved to this section:

Is this site: here, a hoax, or is this operation possible? I think they are just scammers, but.... -- ChessManXI 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I added the link noting "hoax / humor". If the link is not appropriate as humor, then it may be as hoax warning.--Patrick 12:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Title Change?
Just out of curiousity, does anyone else think that 'Brain Transplant' would be a better name for this article? The two terms seem to be interchangable (judging from the first sentence), and brain transplant is less likely to confuse the average reader.
 * The term "Brain Transplant" already redirects here for those searching under that term. "Whole-body transplant" is (from what I've gathered) what the procedure is being called medically. BobGreenwade 18:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If "whole-body transplant" is the correct medical term (for some weird bizzare reason) then it should stay that way. Most people, however, would call it a brain transplant since you're taking the brain out of a person and putting it into another person.
 * The reason is not bizarre or weird. Think of it from the patients perspective: When you wake up from sedation you have a totally new body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.167.76 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 * And you wouldn't find that bizarre or weird? —Tamfang (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

human cloning vs. brain transplant
"The procedure seems to be a far-off goal. However, it should be noted that human cloning seemed equally impossible a generation ago."

I removed it and it got reverted so I offer discussion.

That human cloning used to seem impossible is an observation completely peripheral to an article about brain transplants. It's an observation one arguing a point may make in conversation, but not something an encyclopedia would add matter-of-factly. I could just as easily counter with the technologies in fiction or of futurists that have not come to fruition by the year 2006. I submit that the second sentence imposes a POV concerning short-term feasability.--Loodog 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The original quote said, "human cloning itself seemed impossible," so I misinterpreted your edit-out. (It wasn't exactly a revert so much as an alteration intended to fit the objection.)  And I have seen such statements in printed encyclopedias (such as World Book and Brittanica).  That said, your final statement is valid -- perhaps it could be changed to something like:  "Today, the procedure seems to be an unlikely if not impossible goal.  However, other technologies, such as human cloning, seemed equally impossible a generation ago."  BobGreenwade 18:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pointless info
"In the final level of Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, players are given the choice to either use their brain as a replacement for the damaged vault computer or with General Barnaky's." This is exactly what I was hoping to learn...just what levels of what videogames this subject relates to. I think I should spin off a "how it relates to obscure games" encyclopedia.--Openman 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed??
First paragraph, about brain transplants: "The necessary technology currently needed exists to fully and safely perform this procedure."

As far as I'm aware this is false, although I'd love to see a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.238.142 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also believe that the statement is false. I removed it, though I won't complain if the person who originally put the statement in wants to reinstate it (provided the same person supports it here).  BobGreenwade (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * good call!-- FUNK A MATIC      ~talk   00:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Has anybody attempted a brain transplant
After all it was not that long ago that any sort of transplant was deemed to be impossible 88.110.147.235 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. Robert White performed head transplants on monkeys in the 60s but the experiments were crude and pointless. Only the blood supply was connected. The head was kept alive but it wasn't able to control the body it was connected to since the nerves were completely severed. You'll have to find a way to reconnect the nerves for a head transplant to work. A brain transplant is much more difficult, as you will also need to reconnect the brain with the eyes, nose, mouth, etc. This is already mentioned in the article. 203.184.1.4 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Procedure that will never happen
The act of transplanting the brain of a human, weather it be the entire brain of just the essential conscious identity portions will never be undertaken. The reason for this is advances in stem cell technology which will eventually allow repair and regeneration of major organs and eventually skeletal and spinal tissue. And even certain brain tissue. Although neither is possible at present, the latter is obviously much easier and less risky. One would prefer if given the choice to simply regenerate the body they already posesses to a healthier younger state rather than the very dangerous procdure of transplanting their brain into a cloned (but brainless) version of their younger/healthier body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.53.8 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Can you be sure that you've eliminated all reasons for a brain transplant? Perhaps the original body is poisoned and needs to be cut away to protect the brain. —Tamfang (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A brain transplant could be useful for a person born with a genetic disease (ie. progeria (premature aging) & disorders of metabolism) for whom stem cell therapy is impossible. 203.184.1.4 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Stem cell therapy + gene therapy is another story, though. —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What about transgendered people?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.62.250 (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. A brain transplant would be great for those who want to change their gender. Although some people may also argue that the shock/trauma of not recognizing oneself in a mirror would negate the possible benefits. 203.184.0.142 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 * If the replacement body is a clone with one chromosome changed, the stranger in the mirror should look more like the original than some consumers of plastic surgery. —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about how useful it would be to transsexuals. Whole-body transplantation seems simpler than all the surgeries they have to go through, but I feel that the simplicity is an illusion. The brain is by far the most complicated organ in the human body, and no one really knows how well a human brain would adapt to a new body, let alone one of a different gender. Combine the medical challenges with the problems of getting a compatible donor's body, (and let's not forget the myriad of ethical and genetic issues that'd come with growing a brain-dead adult human clone) and it isn't such a neat solution anymore. If whole-body transplants become reality, I sincerely hope they will be restricted to life-or-death situations only. Prototypeone (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to add this aspect into the article, but it keeps getting removed. I could sit here all day trying to guess the exact format you want me to include it, or you could simply edit my changes to your satisfaction. Unless of course you just don't want this topic included in which case please let me know so I don't waste my time, and yours! If the issue is simply one of citation, then there are a myriad of articles on the subject, from a range of sources. I'm not sure which ones you would consider to be 'reliable' however. Besides the whole subject of human brain transplants is theoretical, there are no case studies and limited reasearch into the subject so its no more or less legimitate than the question of using dead criminals, depending on your own personal perspective of course. Nikiwiki246 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Who is "you"? Has it been removed by the same editor each time? —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

downloading

 * Similar in many ways to this is the idea of mind uploading .... However, while 'transplanting' sees the ultimate goal as being a new body optimized for that brain ... and a transfer of the brain to that body, in the almost equally speculative procedure of 'downloading', the brain itself moves nowhere and may even be physically destroyed or discarded; the goal is rather to duplicate the information patterns contained within the brain.

In this paragraph, do uploading and downloading mean the same thing?

Where the brain is copied (destructively or not) to a simulator, I think uploading is the apter word. To download is to copy a file from a bigger host (or a network) to a smaller (more local) computer. I wouldn't assume that it's possible to put a human mind in anything simpler than a human brain. (I suppose mind transfer could be considered "downloading" if the target is physically smaller than the original; would it be downloading to copy files from an old room-filling computer to a rack-mount server?)

The nearest thing to downloading that occurs to me in fiction is the practice of spinning off temporary subsets of a mind, to carry messages, e.g. the "ghosts" in The Bohr Maker by Linda Nagata; something similar appears briefly in (i think) Excession by Iain M. Banks. —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I can imagine "downloading" to a host that does not need the pieces of the human brain that manage balance and breathing, for example. —Tamfang (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarification
First of all, i’m absolutely ignorant in terms of medical training and such, so I apologize in advance if my question turns out to lack any sense. Here we go: in the paragraph “existing challenges” the brain is said to be “an immunologically privileged organ”. The ninth “external link”, though, has a comment stating that “the brain is no longer considered to be an immunologically privileged organ”. Unfortunately the link redirects to a non-existing page, so I’m not able to read the article and understand what this means. I looked around on the website but could find nothing. So, here’s my question: is the brain considered “an immunologically privileged organ” or not? In either case, I guess a part of the article needs to be modified, unless I got this all wrong and we’re talking about different things, or aspects, or whatever. (again, I have no medical training, so be patient if the question is silly, and if it’s not, I guess someone expert in the field should correct this article.) Thanks! Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 13:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

An answer to the above: "Immunologically privileged sites were thought to include: - the brain, but this is now known to be incorrect and indeed immune cells of the CNS contribute to the maintenance of neurogenesis and spatial learning abilities in adulthood" from the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_privilege The reference given for this in the article is: Ziv, Y.et al (2006). Nature Neuroscience, Immune cells contribute to the maintenance of neurogenesis and spatial learning abilities in adulthood 9, 268 - 275. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwnit (talk • contribs) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible move to brain transplant
As one can transplant parts of the nervous system (the nerves of skin, hands, and so on, together with the organs they belong to) so that they become parts of the physical basis of the perceptions — and that is, of the consciousness — of the receiver of the donation, it would appear logical that also a whole brain, when it is transplanted, could — yes — carry the consciousness of its former possessor with itself, but, on the other hand, also could be conquered by the consciousness of the person who all the rest of the newly combined body has belonged to. If no really good citation for the definition of the catchword is going to be provided, one could therefore ponder if this article should not be moved to brain transplant, which, at the moment, is a redirect to it.

It would then appear thinkable to use the catchword whole-body transplant for an article on the basis of sources on the possibility really to transplant the whole body — with the brain — to an other person, i.e. to the consciousness of this other person, which would very probably most likely be to be conducted by uploading the mind of the receiver of the transplant to the body of the donator, in a situation in which it would be determined that the donator's mind would, different than that of the receiver, not be able to hold the body to be donated together, any longer. Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting but don't we already know that consciousness exists in the brain and the brain only, as a result of studying paraplegics? Nonetheless 'brain transplant' probably is a less ambiguous title than the present one, which is strictly inaccurate as the brain forms part of the body, and a brain transplant is therefore by definition not 'whole body'.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I would not agree that we were sure consciousness did only exist in the brain. Looking at healthy people or at paraplegics — one only sees that the brain possesses a crucial role regarding consciousness. Phantom pains — which I know myself from some missing teeth — could, on the first glance, suggest that the brain is responsible for everything, but if one thinks about it more thoroughly, the existence of these perceptions questions such a one-sided concept, as it proves that perceptions can occur without a stimulation at the end of the nerves, so that our perceptions appear as something which goes to and fro, in both directions, within our nervous system. Also, the reports of hypnotized people who have been asked about the time before they were procreated by their parents tally so perfectly with what we hear of those who have been clinically dead for some minutes that it would, in the meanwhile, appear strongly inappropriate to persist in such a one-sided concept. Both the hypnotized and the clinically dead report, in many cases, that they have watched their bodies from outside (typically from above).

 * Given this, it would appear plausible to assume something like a consciousness circle. As the blood circle cannot function without the heart, such a consciousness circle could not function without the brain. But, like blood is, in spite of this, not only in the heart, but also in all the other blood vessels, consciousness would also be in all the other nervous structures (beyond just the brain); it would be some other substance and would also be able to be spilled.

 * Our new possibilities to compare historic figures enable us, since a few years, for the first time in history to check for the existence of possible regularities of such a consciousness circle, on a wider scale, and first hits like this one quite clearly suggest that such a search, conducted conscientiously, would deliver remarkable results.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of References to Fiction
All references to fictional accounts of this type of technology should be removed to another article, they serve no purpose other than to confuse the issue, as if to say this technology is utterly hypothetical and should be treated as fictional. Suffice it to say the technology to perform such a procedure exists, whether or not it's being used presently. Repeated citations of fictional accounts simply muddy the water and add grist to the mill for anyone who wants to engage in denialism on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.236.15 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Clearly the common name.Cúchullain t/ c 14:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Whole-body transplant → Brain transplant – Less ambiguous title. - --Relisted Cúchullain t/ c 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)  Relisted Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII  The Undertaker 20–0  06:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Rangoon11 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the ambiguity of the current title? Powers T 17:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The brain is part of the body, to a layman "whole-body" would include the brain. "Brain transplant" is wholly unambiguous however. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But if it included the brain, it wouldn't be a transplant at all. I can see the potential for some confusion, but not ambiguity.  Ambiguity with a non-existent thing is not ambiguity at all.  Powers T 15:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever one wishes to term it, the title is sub optimal in terms of clarity. Since a much clearer alternative exists, and is arguably more common (a very crude test - a Google search for "brain transplant" yields 314,000 results, one for "Whole body transplant" 295,000 results) a move seems to make sense to me. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Support If you're moving a brain from one person body to another, that's literally a brain transplant. The current title suggests (maybe?) moving the rest of a body from one person (brain?) brain to another. Philosophically, perhaps we have the same result, but the proposed title is more clear and descriptive of how the procedure would occur. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But the person moves with the brain, so it's not a transplant from one person to another at all. Powers T 17:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "person" in a metaphysical sense? I didn't, so I've edited my comment for clarity. New text in italics. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how else one might mean it. If you meant body, why did you write "person"?  Powers T 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Relisting comment It would be instructive to see how the sources refer to this procedure.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar gives 1660 results for brain transplant, 28 for whole body transplant. With -wikipedia, regular Google results skew the same way, 318,000 to 33,300. WP:COMMONNAME should be considered. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Support per BDD. Also, whole-body transplant sounds like a fancy name, while brain transplant looks like the "normal" name that normal people would normally use. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Immunologically privileged or not?
I noticed in the Immune privilege article that it says that the brain isn't actually immunologically privileged. Which article is saying the truth? - 89.70.239.244 (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is in many ways, but not completely in the same way as any other privileged organ. here and here, right?

(MaelstromOfSilence (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brain transplant. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927235236/http://www2.lakelandcc.edu/nora/events/iuser/news/newsmore.asp?ID=917 to http://www2.lakelandcc.edu/nora/events/iuser/news/newsmore.asp?ID=917

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) 14:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brain transplant