text:
Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 2

You have yet to answer the charge that White is generally considered to be a nutcase.

No, not at all. No evidence has been presented for that, so why should I even consider answering such a plump ad hominem attack?

 * Gee, I dunno, Eloquence (or plain ol' Erik) ...more to the point, why should any of us expect someone egotistical enough to give himself such a nom de plume. who thinks he should be paid for his contributions, and who states at the outset that he has an ax to grind, to even bother? There has been evidence given -- Michael points out that, among historians of the period, White's theories are discredited.   Moreover, one of the duties of anyone who wants to be considered a good historian is ethically obliged to consider the events and actions of the people he studies in the context of the period in which the occurred.  You don't do this.  White didn't, either.  Finally, we rely on common sense, when we don't have primary sources to tell us something.  Everything Axel has said makes sense; his conclusions are logical and fit in with what we know about peole in general.  All you have is a pathetic dependence on a discredited historian.  You should pay us.

So is there an actual argument you are trying to make here? I'm not seeing anything of the sort. Nor do I see any evidence against White in general, or the quote in particular. By the way, I'm completely open to alternative explanations of the historical incidents in question, as long as they are listed as such, or even to replacing particular statements, as long as good reasons are cited. So far it looks like you don't like the facts, nor do you want to do any work. Of course, if you pay me, I'll dig into the revisionist claims myself. :-) -- Eloquence

Sorry -- what point didn't you get?

You are posing as an historian (basically, since you are commenting on and writing on an historical topic), yet you insist on relying upon the work of someone who has been discredited by the academic community. Your refusal to accept that this is true because there is no "proof" (what do you want? You have first-hand knowledge from members of his peer group). This is just troll-like behavior.

You refuse to approach this from an NPOV, which is non-wikipedia behavior. It's also bad history. You justify this by saying that organized religion is a destructive force -- something that can be argued successfully in either direction, depending on the facts one pick and chooses. However, that isn't the subject of the article, nor a justification for your approach.

since what you have written is not good history, nor NPOV, AND since you don't seem to have any respect for the fact that there are others out here who actually might have a clue and aren't just dilletantes, the fact that you think you should be paid is pretty silly.

Clearer?

yet you insist on relying upon the work of someone who has been discredited by the academic community. Your refusal to accept that this is true because there is no "proof"

Exactly. A simple statement by someone else is not enough. I do not care about credentials, only about facts and logic. Your use of troll is merely a killer phrase to avoid argument.

You refuse to approach this from an NPOV

Absolutely not. I want the article to present all reasonable sides of the debate. As I said, feel free to add to the article if you think something is missing. -- Eloquence

 * E- as your entire contribution to this article is based on your a priori non-NPOV belief that orgainized religion is a destructive force, and because you have chosen largely to base your contributions on the work of one historian who has been discredited in the eyes of his peers (to a great extent because he did not write from a NPOV, and picked and chose facts to support his cause, rather than a greater truth), you may have to just lump it when this is re-written in a NPOV way.

"based on your a priori"

Incorrect, my beliefs are based on facts (as I perceive them) and logic (applied to these facts).

'''a priori' to your contribution, at least, and, as far as I can tell, to your doing any research -- note that I do not disagree with your perceptions nor your beliefs. However, to remain neutral, you must not allow your perceptions (colored by your a priori belief that organized religion is destructive) to exclude evidence with which you disagree.''

"non-NPOV belief"

How about some thinking before coming up with oxymorons like that? Or is this just your feeble attempt at playing with a killer phrase in order to evade discourse?

''For someone so "eloquent", you are not living up to your nom de plume -- in fact, you're just being rude. Non-NPOV is not an oxymoron, either -- it is a perfectly valid expression for the absence of a neutral point of view. That is, in the 'pedia, we strive for neutrality. If something does not bear up under the NPOV test, it is not- or non-NPOV. Not feeble, just logical. Hardly a killer phrase ''

"one historian who has been discredited"

No evidence whatsoever has been cited to support this allegation. Sorry...what kind of evidence are you looking for? I could point out that a disproportionate amount of the sites about White's works that come up on a Google search have an anti-religious or anti-Christian axe to grind. Not proof that he is discredited, but interesting that very few current scholars of the History of Science choose to cite him. Michael Tinkler offered the reaction of friends in the academic community. You may not like what he said, but other wikipedians would certainly say that Mr. Tinkler has always presented well-researched and defended arguments on the site, and has always acted in an ethical manner.

Having taken the time to read much of White's "Warfare" on the web, I can assure you that White did not consider his evidence in the context of the time, nor did he attempt to approach his subject with any neutrality. Such a work would not meet the requirements set for today's historians. Today, we are actually expected to discuss issues in depth, citing our sources and arguments to the contrary. White's work is little but a selection of quotations and citations chosen purely to suit his thesis. Moreover, he judges all of his subjects by the same measuring stick, no matter the time or location. You have every right to disagree personally, but when contributing to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia with (we hope) high standards, one might expect that those standards also matter to you.

"you may have to just lump it"

Try again, Sherlock. Take your lame attempts at historical revisionism somewhere where they will be appreciated.

'' Actually, I'm one of the least revisionist historians around. I study dead white people, mostly. I just happen to enjoy looking at what we know about actual circumstances (for example, the ones that Axel mentioned regarding Galileo's house arrest) than relying on historians who actually call Bishop Usher a "great mind". and you may not care about credentials, but actually Walking the Walk is advantage some of have over people who just barely fake the talk.''

Please provide a specific reference for the following statement. Otherwise it should be regarded as a speculation based on usual practice rather than a documented fact. The tone of Sobel's book makes Galileo's interaction with the church seem much less confrontational and not nearly so dangerous. --Ed Poor

 * Threatening him with torture, imprisonment and death on the stake, the show trial forced Galileo to "abjure, curse and detest" his work.

Ed, the statement you refer to (and indeed the entire section regarding Galileo and the Church) provides a seriously distorted view of the events. A complete rewrite is in order. -HWR

Thomas Möller --

Please do not remove perfectly valid statements just because you happen to disagree. You are not an expert in history. You do have an axe to grind. NPOV requires that other points of view be represented. I allowed this article to remain VERY unbalanced by leaving your ridiculously long quote from White in the body of the article. Whether or not you like it, many contemporary historians do not agree with White. This so-called revisionism (and it isn't, you know, just an advance in scholarship -- saying the Holocause never happened is revisionist) is simply the result of an effort by the last two generations of historians to write without allowing their personal biases to show. Perhaps you should try reading the most recent work by Larry Sanger on NPOV, because you certainly don't seem to respect the wikipedia guidelines. JHK

Eloquence is not merely failing to live up to Wikipedia guidelines, he is showing a total lack of basic personal integrity that we should demand of all contributors; he is deleting text that that the consensus clearly sees as valuable and accurate, and is continuing to do so after we have made this quite clear. He is not interested in making a good article, or in debating the issue honestly. --LDC

The statement in question will continue to be removed as long as you do not back it up with sources, as I have done with my additions to the article. Presentation of other points of view is fine, as long as it is actually accurate. You have not provided, and seem to be unwilling to provide, evidence that the statements in question are actually accurate. In fact, Hellman, which is cited, flatly contradicts these statements. This debate is similar to the one on Masculism, where lots of statements were attributed to "some feminists" etc., without actually saying who these people were and what their background was. The statement in question is not NPOV. Make it NPOV by properly attributing it and it will be retained. (Note that I have retained the "writing from an anti-clerical perspective" part, because that is uncontroversial, however, I would expect similar characterization in the case of the contrary view, e.g. "writing from an apologist perspective".) Otherwise you're just trying to push your agenda without actually backing it up with facts. You have shown a profound lack of understanding of what NPOV is. To quote:

 To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.

(Emphasis original.) As to my editing the text without prior notification in /Talk, the violation of NPOV in the removed paragraph is so obvious that no notification was necessary. Much as I would not help the "Flat Earth Society" put its agenda into Wikipedia, I will not help you find arguments and facts that support your skewed perspective, that is your duty, not mine; however, I will tolerate this perspective, as is required by NPOV guidelines, when presented in a proper fashion. Personal attacks only further weaken your case. -- Eloquence

Right. You want attribution? First, we have Axel's stuff on the actual source documents (above, somewhere -- I am preparing to teach the Renaissance at the moment, and do not have time to look for a specific source, but I trust Axel). Second, you have Michael Tinkler's word that he has spoken with colleagues. Third, I have spoken with colleagues. In this case, you are dealing with people who are professional historians. We are, in fact (at least IMO), qualified to speak for what we have been taught and what the prevailing opinion about the works of authors like White are. Unfortunately, the fact that this may be knowledge gathered through conversations with respected colleagues at meetings and parties may not satisfy your very strict interpretations, but it is a form of attribution. You might note that the offending quote does not say, "so-and-so specifically refutes White;" rather, it merely states a current consensus. I don't think I have done anything so far to make people disbelieve me or doubt my integrity. However, if you wish for a quick citation, might I point out the Rice university Galileo link and its connections to Sobel's recent book and the letters of Galileo's daughter? Were you to read the timeline, you would see that Galileo was formally threatened with torture (this was a normal part of the Inquisition's process), but not that he was actually threatened. if you read the letters from Maria Celeste to her father that coincide with his imprisonment, it is clear that G. was allowed outdoors, corresponded almost daily with his daughter, who sent him delicacies and recieved the same in return, and in general show nothing to suggest deprivations other than of movement from a situation of house arrest. Unless there is a concensus on the site that the paragraph that so offends you should go, I suggest you leave it in. JHK

Your scholastic standards are less than satisfying, and I hope we can keep the article free of hearsay.

Galileo was formally threatened with torture (this was a normal part of the Inquisition's process), but not that he was actually threatened.

Uh-huh, just a formal, normal threat. I can imagine what it must have been like. "See, Gally-buddy, we must show you the instruments of torture, we do this every time we deal with heretics, and it's really just a relic from the days when we did things the old-fashioned way, so don't be frightened too much. Say, aren't these thumbscrews just bea-uu-tiful! Now, would you please try out the iron maiden .. haha, just kiddding!" Really, those Inquisition folks were actually very nice and sophisticated, and oh, burning Bruno, oh yeah, well, Bruno was, as one apologist source writes, "just too outrageous".

Reality was that the Inquisition's threat to torture Galileo was only unrealistic because of Galileo's obedient behavior. It was not the torture itself that was unthinkable, but Galileo contradicting the Inquisition. Had Galileo contradicted the Inquisition and proudly held up the Copernican view, he might have been tortured and even killed (of course they would have tried to reason with him at first because of the bad PR), just like Bruno was. And you can be damn sure that many of Galileo's clerical enemies wished nothing more. The notion that the threat was "only formal" is just one of many instances where the influence of catholic historians on the contemporary view of Galileo's case becomes visible (cf. also Norman Cantor's book about medievalists, a different time period which is equally filled with propaganda), it is what Chomsky called a manufactured consent.

If you read the letters from Maria Celeste to her father that coincide with his imprisonment, it is clear that G. was allowed outdoors, corresponded almost daily with his daughter, who sent him delicacies and recieved the same in return, and in general show nothing to suggest deprivations other than of movement from a situation of house arrest.

That the house arrest was just that, house arrest, is uncontroversial (the way you portray it is not: how would you like being imprisoned in your own house and being forbidden most social contacts for the rest of your life, because of something you wrote or said, after recanting it in the most obedient fashion thinkable?). The critical period which was debated here is the time Galileo spent in the offices of the Inquisition. Galileo's daughter writes nothing about the "comfort" of said chambers:

 Signor Geri [Bocchineri -- Sestilia's brother and the Grand Duke's private secretary] informed me of the conditions imposed on you on account of your affair, Sire, that alas you are detained in the chambers of the Holy Office; on the one hand this gives me great distress, convinced as I am that you find yourself with scant peace of mind, and perhaps also deprived of all bodily comforts ..

At least here we have a primary source confirming that Galileo was not imprisoned in a dungeon at that time (White only says "imprisoned", so this is not in contradiction, but the term may suggest certain conditions, so I have replaced it with "detained"), however, as to the comfort of said chambers, I will leave out any attribute such as "comfortable" which has been given here. The only source which uses this is not Sobel / Celeste but Von Gebler, from 1879, i.e. from the same time period where Dickson wrote, which is cited by modern apologists (I mention this only because Tinkler so proudly referred me to more current sources, whereas those do in fact rely on a 19th century historian themselves for the critical passages), and from the citation it is unclear how this valuation was reached.

I think the current version of the article, minor errors notwithstanding, should please all sides -- I have removed reference to Sobel's book because it does not seem to add anything to the particular controversial questions. The letters are certainly interesting, but the article already points to the website. -- Eloquence

 * Herr Moeller -- what you think is perhaps only a consequence of your demonstrable arrogance. Despite the fact that several contributors object to the relatively large chunk of White's book that you insist upon including, we have left the quote intact.  You have continually refused to allow the statement that some (in fact, many) current historians do not accept White's characterization.  I am not sure why this bothers you so much, but it is standard practice among qualified historians to note such objections.  Moreover, the weight of the article supports the version of events and interpretation you prefer -- at least until those of us who are employed have time to do the extra research necessary to refuting White properly.

Yes, the article tends to present the events in the way in which it presents them until you present them in a different way. I would ascribe a certain degree of obviousness to this statement. You want to avoid doing your homework by referring to your credentials. Sorry, but in the interest of accuracy, I cannot allow that. (Addition to clear up possible misunderstanding: What I am asking for is an argument against one or several of White's claims, or a properly attributed characterization of the interpretation of the events by historians (e.g. the apologist arguments), which could possibly be contrasted with yet another recent interpretation. Arguments why White in general is "not reliable" may also be interesting, but I have taken a look at some of them and I doubt that they can be convincing enough to remove the quote.)

 * Until that time, I would suggest you stop being quite as insulting as you seem to find necessary.

I play tit for tat. I'm willing to cooperate. Calling me "demonstrably arrogant" may not be a good start, but I take it as a compliment.

 * I have been to your web site

Thanks. I always appreciate visitors. I haven't had the time to put out an English version yet.

 * and, although I find your command of the English language admirable, see nothing to suggest that you have a field of specialization in History or the History of Science, nor that you have even moved beyond study to actually teaching. Perhaps you have, but that is doubtful, considering your approach. What you obviously have not learned is how to treat colleagues (which is what many of us would be -- if you have earned your Promotion). None of us have resorted to the type of snide comment you seem to rely upon -- if you are so sure that you are better qualified, why do you find it necessary? JHK

I do not think anything particular about my qualification or yours. There is certainly a wide array of subjects about which you could (or do) write many interesting things (although, given my knowledge about medieval studies, I'm afraid the perspective would be somewhat skewed in many cases, but that's not your fault), about which I do know little or nothing (and vice versa). The international system of degrees and credentials has limited meaning to me and should have relatively little meaning in the context of Wikipedia. The scientific method is universally applicable, by anyone. Present the facts, and we can talk about them. That means backing them up with sources and attribution (Sobel does not seem to be relevant here). As to my tone, as I said, I'm playing tit for tat.

 * Last for tonight -- what you have placed in the article is not fact, it is an interpretation by one historian. Sobel is as relevant, if not more so, because his book offers primary sources on the subject -- primary sources are always what historians rely on for evidence.  The scientific method, as you call it, may not be exactly what HISTORIANS use.  We rely on many kinds of primary sources, as well as the context in which they were written and the purpose for which they were written, to base our interpretations.  History is very complex, and seldom black or white.  THe fact that, as a member of the academic community, I know from conversation what other people think about White, is a type of primary evidence.  All of those people could be wrong.  You may not agree with them.  But the fact is that I based the qualification of White's work on 1) my training in how to deal with a biased secondary source and 2) and a general consensus among historians that sources that are blatantly biased should be taken with a grain of salt,  is perfectly valid in terms of what historians and people who work in the Humanities (where little is black and white) consider a requirement for scholarship.  Historians must consider the source.  It's one of our basic rules. JHK

I absolutely agree that the nature of sources must be considered! That's why I also want to know if a historian is a Catholic, or has received grants from a Catholic University, or is heavily influenced by Catholic sources, for example. I get the impression that you would prefer a source whose bias is not disclosed or disguised and then pretend that it is "unbiased". In the interest of neutrality, we should consider the nature of all sources, and disclose it where necessary, much as in the Global warming article. In the case of White, this has already been done with the qualification "writing from an anti-clerical perspective" -- if you have more information about White that may be worth adding, feel free to do so. The situation gets problematic when you argue that White is wrong because of his bias: that would be a first-class ad hominem argument, but I'm sure you're not trying to make such an argument (or an argument from authority -- he is wrong because so-and-so disagrees with him). -- Eloquence

 * Context. You are offended by the Catholic Church's denial of scientific method which, as you see it, makes the Church wrong and somehow a bad thing.  You have chosen to quote from a scholar who wrote at a time where history could be legitimately twisted (or not seen in context of the time) to prove an anachronistic point.  You don't seem interested or ethically motivated (as are trained historians today) to look at other interpretations and relate them -- you merely demand that others do the research to disprove your source - a source which screams, "take me with a giant grain of salt because I am biased."

 * By today's standards, I do understand that you want to see this as a bad, repressive Church against enlightenment and the new churh of the scientific method. I'm sorry, but it just is not that simple.  At the time, in Italy, and for Galileo himself, the Catholic church was the only game in town.  It must have torn him dreadfully to have known as a scholar that he was right, and for a time he must have felt compelled to argue for what we now know to be true.  We really don't know that the sole impetus for his recantation was the threat of torture -- since he was friends with high-ranking cleics and statesmen, is it not likely that there was also much more subtle pressure brought to bear -- perhaps that his work threatened the Church he devoutly believed in?
 * The article as written demonstrates none of the questions that historians normally would try to ask and answer, perhaps because we would rather work on other topics. The article thus retains a tone heavily biased toward White's (and your personal) view that Galileo is less important as a person or scientist than as a case study for the repression of science and knowledge by the bogeyman of Catholicism.  As for the pertinence of Sobel's book, I should think a reference to the book and a general precis would be in order, since his is arguably the most recent work on the topic.
 * Since White is not the topic of the article, and since his methods are representative of those now considered by historians worldwide to be less legitimate, I see no harm in pointing that out. If you would like a list of scholars with whom I have personally studied who would support the notion that history is of course an interpretation, but that one may not simply choose the facts that support one's views and ignore other facts and their interpretation, I can provide a list.  I cannot, unfortunately, prove in any scientific manner that this is the norm or what is accepatable -- among historians (as among most scholars I know, even in the sciences), these things are considered so self-evident that I can't give you a quote.  It's kind of like asking me to prove that most people generally consider lying to be bad.
 * As for personal biases, I can only say that some of us learn early on not to push them in our work. My own dissertation changed dramatically in character as I became more familiar with the sources.  It was certainly not the dissertation I set out to write -- rather, it was the dissertation that was supported by the evidence.  My work here is based on years of study -- if I feel unsure, I generally go and look something up, and not just through the google searches so popular, but in legitimate scholarly works.  I'd appreciate it if you backed off on any implications otherwise. JHK

--

The Dominican Father Caccini preached a sermon from the text, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" Acts 1:11 marg.

Acts 1:11

11 who also said, Men of Galilee, why do ye stand looking into heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall thus come in the manner in which ye have beheld him going into heaven. Acts 1:11 (1890 Darby Bible)

11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven. Acts 1:11 (American Standard Version)

11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." Acts 1:11 (English Standard Version)

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Acts 1:11 (King James Version)

11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why are you standing here staring at the sky? Jesus has gone away to heaven, and some day, just as he went, he will return!" Acts 1:11 (Living Bible)

11 They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." Acts 1:11 (New American Standard: 1995 Update)

11 "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Acts 1:11 (New Internation Version)

11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." Acts 1:11 (New King James Version)

11 They said, "Men of Galilee, why are you standing here staring at the sky? Jesus has been taken away from you into heaven. And someday, just as you saw him go, he will return!" Acts 1:11 (New Living Translation)

Jesus, a peaceable Jew, an advocate regarding Peaceable Jewish Mosaic Contract Law, whom was conceived via virtue of the HolyGhostSpirit, born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, dead and buried, descended in Hades direction, then literally resurrected from the dead and ascended regarding Heaven. 1 John 2:1.

an omegaXY ™ event 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:6; 22:13,18.

biblical inerrance: remove a rib, XY lesser than XX ™ GenesIs 2:20-23.

title: Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 2


text:
Ergotism

Ergotism (pron. ) is the effect of long-term ergot poisoning, traditionally due to the ingestion of the alkaloids produced by the Claviceps purpurea fungus—from the Latin clava "club" or clavus "nail" and -ceps for "head", i.e. the purple club-headed fungus—that infects rye and other cereals, and more recently by the action of a number of ergoline-based drugs. It is also known as ergotoxicosis, ergot poisoning, and Saint Anthony's fire.

Signs and symptoms
Ergotism is the effect of long-term ergot poisoning. The symptoms can be roughly divided into convulsive symptoms and gangrenous symptoms.

Convulsive
Convulsive symptoms include painful seizures and spasms, diarrhea, paresthesias, itching, mental effects including mania or psychosis, headaches, nausea and vomiting. Usually the gastrointestinal effects precede central nervous system effects.

Gangrenous
The dry gangrene is a result of vasoconstriction induced by the ergotamine-ergocristine alkaloids of the fungus. It affects the more poorly vascularized distal structures, such as the fingers and toes. Symptoms include desquamation or peeling, weak peripheral pulses, loss of peripheral sensation, edema and ultimately the death and loss of affected tissues. Vasoconstriction is treated with vasodilators.

Causes
Historically, eating grain products, particularly rye, contaminated with the fungus Claviceps purpurea was the cause of ergotism.

The toxic ergoline derivatives are found in ergot-based drugs (such as methylergometrine, ergotamine or, previously, ergotoxine). The deleterious side effects occur either under high dose or when moderate doses interact with potentiators such as erythromycin.

The alkaloids can pass through lactation from mother to child, causing ergotism in infants.

Identification of agent
Dark-purple or black grain kernels, known as ergot bodies, can be identifiable in the heads of cereal or grass just before harvest. In most plants the ergot bodies are larger than normal grain kernels, but can be smaller if the grain is a type of wheat.

Prevention
Removal of ergot bodies is done by placing the yield in a brine solution; the ergot bodies float, while the healthy grains sink. Infested fields must be deep-ploughed; ergot cannot germinate if buried more than one inch (2.5 cm) in soil and therefore will not release its spores into the air. Rotating crops using non-susceptible plants helps reduce infestations, since ergot spores live only one year. Crop rotation and deep tillage, such as deep mold-board ploughing, are important components in managing ergot, as many cereal crops in the 21st century are sown with a "no-till" practice (new crops are sown directly into the stubble from the previous crop to reduce soil erosion). Wild and escaped grasses and pastures can be mown before they flower to help limit the spread of ergot.

Chemical controls can also be used but are not considered economical, especially in commercial operations, and germination of ergot spores can still occur under favourable conditions even with the use of such controls.

History
Epidemics of the disease were identified throughout history, though the references in classical writings are inconclusive. Rye, the main vector (route) for transmitting ergotism, was not grown much around the Mediterranean. When Fuchs separated references to ergotism from erysipelas and other conditions in 1834, he found the earliest reference to ergotism in the Annales Xantenses for the year 857: "a great plague of swollen blisters consumed the people by a loathsome rot, so that their limbs were loosened and fell off before death".

In the Middle Ages the gangrenous poisoning was known as "holy fire" or "Saint Anthony's fire", named after monks of the Order of St. Anthony, who were particularly successful at treating this ailment. According to Snorri Sturluson in his Heimskringla, King Magnus II of Norway, son of King Harald Sigurtharson, who was the half-brother of Saint King Olaf Haraldsson, died from ergotism shortly after the Battle of Hastings. The 12th-century chronicler Geoffroy du Breuil of Vigeois recorded the mysterious outbreaks in the Limousin region of France, where the gangrenous form of ergotism was associated with the local Saint Martial. Likewise, an outbreak in Paris around 1129 was reported to be cured by the relics of Saint Genevieve, a miracle commemorated in the 26 November "Feast of the Burning Ones".

The blight, named cockspur owing to the appearance of infected grains, was identified and named by Denis Dodart, who reported the relation between ergotized rye and bread poisoning in a letter to the French Royal Academy of Sciences in 1676 (John Ray mentioned ergot for the first time in English the next year). "Ergotism" in this modern sense was first recorded in 1853.

Notable epidemics of ergotism occurred into the 19th century. Fewer outbreaks have occurred since then owing to rye being carefully monitored in developed countries. However, a severe outbreak of something akin to ergot poisoning occurred in the French village of Pont-Saint-Esprit in 1951, resulting in five deaths. The outbreak and the diagnostic confusion surrounding it are vividly described in John Grant Fuller's book The Day of St Anthony's Fire.

Ergot sclerotiums were found in the gut of the Grauballe Man, a bog body dated the late 3rd century BC.

When milled, the ergot is reduced to a red powder, obvious in lighter grasses but easy to miss in dark rye flour. In less wealthy countries, ergotism still occurs; an outbreak in Ethiopia occurred in mid-2001 from contaminated barley. Whenever there is a combination of moist weather, cool temperatures, delayed harvest in lowland crops and rye consumption, an outbreak is possible.

Poisonings due to consumption of seeds treated with mercury compounds are sometimes misidentified as ergotism. There have been numerous cases of mass-poisoning due to consumption of mercury-treated seeds.

Salem witchcraft accusations
The convulsive symptoms from ergot-tainted rye may have been the source of accusations of bewitchment that spurred the Salem witch trials. This medical explanation for the theory of "bewitchment" was first propounded by Linnda R. Caporael in 1976 in an article in Science. In her article, Caporael argues that the convulsive symptoms such as crawling sensations in the skin, tingling in the fingers, vertigo, tinnitus aurium, headaches, disturbances in sensation, hallucination, painful muscular contractions, vomiting, and diarrhea, as well as psychological symptoms such as mania, melancholia, psychosis, and delirium, were all symptoms reported in the Salem witchcraft records. Caporael also states that there was an abundance of rye in the region, as well as climate conditions that could support the tainting of rye. In 1982, historian Mary Matossian raised Caporael's theory in an article in American Scientist, in which she argued that symptoms of "bewitchment" resemble the ones exhibited in those affected by ergot poisoning.

The hypothesis that ergotism could explain cases of bewitchment has been subject to significant debate and has been criticized by several scholars. Within a year of Caporael's article, historians Nicholas Spanos and Jack Gottlieb refuted the idea in the same journal. In Spanos and Gottlieb's rebuttal to Caporael's article, they concluded that there are several flaws in the explanation. They noted that if ergotism was present in Salem, the symptoms would have occurred by household, not individual. Whole families, and particularly all the young children in a household, would have shown symptoms, but this was not the case. In general, the proportion of children affected was significantly less than in a typical ergotism epidemic. Spanos and Gottlieb also state that most of ergot poisoning's symptoms, like crawling and tingling sensations, vertigo, tinnitus, vomiting, and diarrhea, do not appear in the records of events in Salem. Lastly, they note that convulsive ergotism epidemics only take place in communities suffering from vitamin A deficiencies; they argued that residents of Salem, living in a farming community with ample access to dairy, would have had no reason to be deficient in vitamin A. Therefore, an outbreak of ergotism as the cause of the Salem epidemic was unlikely. Historians published in the early 21st century continue to stand by Spanos and Gottlieb's conclusion.

Historian Leon Harrier has argued that only some members of a household might have shown symptoms because they had underlying conditions. Being chemically similar to lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), ergot would not survive in the acidic environment of a typical human's stomach, especially in properly cooked food. But if some residents of a household were malnourished and had bleeding stomach ulcers, those individuals would have had a heightened risk of absorbing the toxin (even with properly cooked food items) through the stomach lining, offering a direct route to the bloodstream. Only those with these preexisting conditions would have been affected by ingesting contaminated grains, leaving the majority unaffected.

Anthropologist H. Sidky noted that ergotism had been known for centuries before the Salem witch trials and argued that its symptoms would have been recognizable during the time of the Salem witch trials.

In 2003 it was pointed out that ergots produced by different strains of Claviceps purpurea, as well as those growing in different soils, may produce different ergot alkaloid compositions. This may explain the different manifestations of ergotism in different outbreaks. For example, an alkaloid present in high concentrations in ergots from Europe east of the Rhine may have caused convulsive ergotism, while ergot from the west caused epidemics of gangrenous ergotism.

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

title: Ergotism


text:
First language

A first language (L1), native language, native tongue, or mother tongue is the first language a person has been exposed to from birth or within the critical period. In some countries, the term native language or mother tongue refers to the language of one's ethnic group rather than the individual's actual first language. Generally, to state a language as a mother tongue, one must have full native fluency in that language.

The first language of a child is part of that child's personal, social and cultural identity. Another impact of the first language is that it brings about the reflection and learning of successful social patterns of acting and speaking. Research suggests that while a non-native speaker may develop fluency in a targeted language after about two years of immersion, it can take between five and seven years for that child to be on the same working level as their native speaking counterparts.

On 17 November 1999, UNESCO designated 21 February as International Mother Language Day.

Definitions
The person qualifies as a "native speaker" of a language by being born and immersed in the language during youth, in a family in which the adults shared a similar language experience to the child. Native speakers are considered to be an authority on their given language because of their natural acquisition process regarding the language, as opposed to having learned the language later in life. That is achieved by personal interaction with the language and speakers of the language. Native speakers will not necessarily be knowledgeable about every grammatical rule of the language, but they will have good "intuition" of the rules through their experience with the language.

The designation "native language", in its general usage, is thought to be imprecise and subject to various interpretations that are biased linguistically, especially with respect to bilingual children from ethnic minority groups. Many scholars have given definitions of "native language" based on common usage, the emotional relation of the speaker towards the language, and even its dominance in relation to the environment. However, all three criteria lack precision. For many children whose home language differs from the language of the environment (the "official" language), it is debatable which language is their "native language".

Defining "native language"

 * Based on origin: the language(s) or dialect one learned first (the language(s) or dialect in which one has established the first long-lasting verbal contacts).
 * Based on internal identification: the language(s) one identifies with/as a speaker of;
 * Based on external identification: the language(s) one is identified with/as a speaker of, by others.
 * Based on competence: the language(s) one knows best.
 * Based on function: the language(s) one uses most.

In some countries, such as Kenya, India, Belarus, Ukraine and various East Asian and Central Asian countries, "mother language" or "native language" is used to indicate the language of one's ethnic group in both common and journalistic parlance ("I have no apologies for not learning my mother tongue"), rather than one's first language. Also, in Singapore, "mother tongue" refers to the language of one's ethnic group regardless of actual proficiency, and the "first language" refers to English, which was established on the island under the British Empire, and is the lingua franca for most post-independence Singaporeans because of its use as the language of instruction in government schools and as a working language.

In the context of population censuses conducted on the Canadian population, Statistics Canada defines the mother tongue as "the first language learned at home in childhood and still understood by the individual at the time of the census." It is quite possible that the first language learned is no longer a speaker's dominant language. That includes young immigrant children whose families have moved to a new linguistic environment as well as people who learned their mother tongue as a young child at home (rather than the language of the majority of the community), who may have lost, in part or in totality, the language they first acquired (see language attrition). According to Ivan Illich, the term "mother tongue" was first used by Catholic monks to designate a particular language they used, instead of Latin, when they were "speaking from the pulpit". That is, the "holy mother the Church" introduced this term and colonies inherited it from Christianity as a part of colonialism. J. R. R. Tolkien, in his 1955 lecture "English and Welsh", distinguishes the "native tongue" from the "cradle tongue". The latter is the language one learns during early childhood, and one's true "native tongue" may be different, possibly determined by an inherited linguistic taste and may later in life be discovered by a strong emotional affinity to a specific dialect (Tolkien personally confessed to such an affinity to the Middle English of the West Midlands in particular).

Children brought up speaking more than one language can have more than one native language, and be bilingual or multilingual. By contrast, a second language is any language that one speaks other than one's first language.

Bilingualism
A related concept is bilingualism. One definition is that a person is bilingual if they are equally proficient in two languages. Someone who grows up speaking Spanish and then learns English for four years is bilingual only if they speak the two languages with equal fluency. Pearl and Lambert were the first to test only "balanced" bilinguals—that is, a child who is completely fluent in two languages and feels that neither is their "native" language because they grasp both so perfectly. This study found that

 * balanced bilinguals perform significantly better in tasks that require flexibility (they constantly shift between the two known languages depending on the situation),
 * they are more aware of the arbitrary nature of language,
 * they choose word associations based on logical rather than phonetic preferences.

Multilingualism
One can have two or more native languages, thus being a native bilingual or indeed multilingual. The order in which these languages are learned is not necessarily the order of proficiency. For instance, if a French-speaking couple have a child who learned French first but then grew up in an English-speaking country, the child would likely be most proficient in English.

Defining "native speaker"
Defining what constitutes a native speaker is difficult, and there is no test which can identify one. It is not known whether native speakers are a defined group of people, or if the concept should be thought of as a perfect prototype to which actual speakers may or may not conform.

An article titled "The Native Speaker: An Achievable Model?" published by the Asian EFL Journal states that there are six general principles that relate to the definition of "native speaker". The principles, according to the study, are typically accepted by language experts across the scientific field. A native speaker is defined according to the following guidelines:

 * 1) The individual acquired the language in early childhood and maintains the use of the language.
 * 2) The individual has intuitive knowledge of the language.
 * 3) The individual is able to produce fluent, spontaneous discourse.
 * 4) The individual is communicatively competent in different social contexts.
 * 5) The individual identifies with or is identified by a language community.
 * 6) The individual does not have a foreign accent.

Translanguaging
Translanguaging connects languages to help learners build an understanding of new languages. In multilingual settings, learners can benefit from using what they already know, such as grammar, and spelling pronunciation, to support understanding of new words.

title: First language


text:
Talk:Pop-punk/Archive 1

First Wave of California Punk
In the article it states that the first wave of the Califronia punk scene started when Green Day came about. However Fear and X both came out of Califronia long before Green Day was ever in existence.

ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE?!
Guttermouth, No use for a name, I admit isn't very hard, but ti's NOT POP PUNK! The offspring is comertialised yeah, but not POP! NOFX, Me first and the gimme gimmes? What the f...-That does not even remotely resemble pop! I don't care if the frekin topic is controversial THEY SHOULDN'T BE ON THE LIST! And what's american Hi-Fi doing there? They're NU metal if you ask me. Even if a band sucks it should at least catagorised properly! I understand how you could have gotten some No use for a name songs mixed up in to pop punk, but the NOFX thing...that is just WRONG

My comments deleted, see above--FilthMasterFlex 01:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of the bands on the "List Of Recognised Pop Punk Artists/Bands" section. And I think the second genre of pop punk, which is the So-Cal/Nofx style, should have it's own page and simply be linked to this page. I would call that type of punk Skate punk, or melodic punk. Fans of the true Ramones/Lookout type pop punk would agree, and most of them heavily dislike the Blink 182 style that is mentioned. True pop punk means "poppy", fun sounding, bubblegum type music and the second genre means "popular", melodic. See the difference. It's a shame that they are confused with each other and both thought as "pop-punk". User:Milk May-23-04

The images on this page has been added by User:Weezer76(Talk), which is also almost certain "michael". Should they bee removed??

I don't understand your concern. Surf on over to the heavy metal page, which has been there for some time. That is where I got the idea.

I read the posts about this user. Kind of amusing. From what I gather, he can't write quite like I do.

CAN SOMEONE help me, I apologize, but I just read the plethora of copyright information, and since I borrowed heavily from some copyrighted sources (offline), I would appreciate if someone could revert the page back to March 23 and delete the subsequent content. I tried to do this myself but someone then switched it back. I don't want anyone to get in trouble. Again, sorry for the confusion. Best regards, User:Weezer76

OK, is it the text or the images? The use of the images is considered to be under fair use, as we are not doing this for profit, and because we are commenting on the albums. Just edit the image page saying who owns the copyright, etc. -- Jim Regan 19:31 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, I meant it was textual. Thanks. User:Weezer76

-- From Votes for Deletion
 * pop punk archived content for July
 * I am a newbie and borrowed from some offline textual sources without permission before really getting into and understanding your copyright files. Another user helped revert the page back, but I would like the cached stuff for July permanently deleted.  I read that I had to request this here, but I am not sure if I have to do this myself; I am not very tech savvy so I wouldn't have a clue how to anyway.  My sincerest apologies. -- weezer76
 * I presume one of the developers could selectively remove all the July history for this article. The other option would be to delete and then replace the stub. But that would remove the record of edits by 68.100.238.156  and Ams80. Anyone got thoughts on this? -- sannse 20:30 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Isn't Weezer a name that was used by one of the banned users?

Good rewrite. I wrote a lot of stuff for this page as it was very small when I found it and whoever has written this new one has managed to successfully expand on what I said, making it some thing bigger and more complete without completely destroying it. Good job!Motown Junkie 14:55, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Pop Punk, An oxymoron?
I don't believe its fair to classified some punk as pop punk. Wouldn't it be more accurately called Pop Rock? The reason I bring this up is that Punk is notorious for their lyrics against much of the mainstream industry. Though their is no actual so called "punk" standard, I still believe that Pop punk shouldn't be a term to classified any band that makes it big.

--You are very right. Mainstream rock bands that have punk influences shouldn't be considered pop-punk. The commercialization of the term pop-punk to mean any band with kids in it who sing about broken hearts and dye their hair black is a bastardization of the term. An argument could be made about certain bands that cross over from the punk scene, such as blink-182, but several of the bands listed, such as Simple Plan, Sum-41, were never part of any punk scenes before they were used by records labels as profit machines. A band selling out is one thing, but this selling out of an idea is quite another.

- This page has gotten better since I last posted here, but there are still some weird things about it. I shortened and moved the Emo comparison because it had many POV sentences and should not be so high up in the definition. It should be an added note at the bottom, like how Ska punk is. Secondly, the Australian bands section should merely be a link to it's own section and not be incorporated to the very broad and general article on Pop punk. I deleted the Australian bands in the "list of recongnized bands" because 1. they are already listed above in the paragraph and 2. they are not very recongnized outside of Australia, with the exception of some. I deleted the paragraph on Me First because it is a POV statement, saying they were 'one of the more interesting bands to develop during this time'. They are however linked at the bottom of the page. I agree with the above statements on the oxymoron, mainstream listing of pop punk bands like Sum 41 and Avril Lavinge. They should be under there own "mainstream pop punk" section. Someone should add on a section like this, where it talks about punk crossing over into the mainstream in the mid-90s with Green Day and Blink-182. Milk 01:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This whole article should be shortened and merged with the pop-rock article since it is an oxymoron.

--Alright, I'm not gonna get into the definition of pop punk here, suffice to say that Avril Lavigne doesn't belong on that list. Everything else is debateable, but Avril Lavigne is a pop singer no matter how you look at it. There isn't an drop of punk in her blood, much less in her songs. So... Permission to remove her from the list?

Also, Rancid is in no way Ska Punk, and the description of emo is obviously unresearched, at points blatantly false, and definetly not well written. So... If no one has any problem with it, I'm gonna rearrange and rewrite a couple things towards the end. Speak up soon if you object. DenBez 17:22, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Emo
Ummmm... Emo isn't related to pop-punk. At all. Did anyone bother to read the emo page?

DenBez 00:48, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne
I see that this is an ongoing conflict, but I don't see the reason for it. Pop punk means nothing other than popular punk music. Thus, these are punk bands which soften their punk elements in order to become mainstream. Nevertheless, bands such as The Offspring and Alkaline Trio (just to give a few examples) still keep a certain heaviness on their songs, as do all other bands from the genre. Avril Lavigne's only resemblance with the punk music style is the use of simple riffs repeated constantly. She bears closer resemblance to North American pop singers than with band such as, say, MxPx, wouldn't you agree? The fact that she has a band behind her means nothing. She is still simply Avril Lavigne, she is not even Avril Lavigne and Her Band. So, I will ask that you reasond beyond your liking for her music, because she doesn't belong to this musical genre. --Sn0wflake 00:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see the relevance of Avril's band not being credited alongside her, but hey. Thank you very much for actually being prepared to debate this - there are way too many idiots who'd simply respond with the standard "Avril is a poseur bitch" (which is becoming a very lame punk rock cliche in itself now). As you said, Avril's uses punk-styled riffs in her music, which contains the energy and agression of punk. Some of her lyrics are poppy and radio-friendly but IMO, she retains the 'heaviness' and sly wit that seperates her from 'mere pop stars'. She's certainly at the lighter end of the spectrum - but I feel that she merits inclusion in this list (it's a very broad genere after all) - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all that. Also, considering that Sum41 and Simple Plan have been included here, there is absolutely no reason why Avril should not be on the list.
 * I welcome your opinions on this - no incoherent ranting about 'poseurs' and 'sellouts' please, guys - let's keep this vaguely civilized. Kurt Shaped Box 07:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) 07:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The poser concept is a very broad and complex one, and when it comes to punk music it's even harder to draw the line correctly. A truly punk band is impossible to find on the mainstream market nowadays, since being punk is not just playing a certain kind of music or dressing in a certain way; it's a way of life. Thus this is, in theory, a genre entirely made up of posers. So I don't think that's really the matter here. The issue is mostly fanbase related, I think. You could assume that a fan of The Offspring also listens to, for example, Pantera. The same could not be said about an Avril Lavigne fan. Pop punk is the fine line between heavier music and mainstream teenager music. I'm not trying to say that Avril is a manufactured singer, though. I mean, she was inthe beggining of her career, her singing was hideous live, but things have changed with time. What I'm trying to say is that she isn't an entry point to heavier bands, as it happens with most pop punk bands.

 * Well, that's my POV anyway. I don't care either way, since I'm not very into mainstream North American bands and such. I like Thrice and maybe Autopilot Off. So if after what I said you still think Avril is pop punk, then at least put her name on alphabetic order. :P --Sn0wflake 18:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's a little unfair to judge an artist based upon the actions of certain fans - all bands have followers who do incredibly stupid things from time to time, which the artist may not want to be associated with. As someone has been to several of Avril's gigs, I can assure you that the stereotype of the majority Avril's fanbase being 14-year-old teenybopper sheep is incorrect. This may indeed have been the case at the beginning of her career - I have no idea, but it certainly wasn't when I saw her. Quite a large number of Avril followers seem to be fans of other, less mainstream female punk bands such as The Donnas and Sahara Hotnights - I don't see why she couldn't be just as much of any 'entry point' to the harder stuff as any of the other bands listed...

 * First of all, it's nice to see an intelligent debate about this subject and not the usual "Avrils a posuer!" "No she r0x0rs!" that goes on far too much. However, I still don't believe Avril Lavigne needs to be put in here. Musically speaking, Lavigne has more in common with the likes of Pink and Michelle Branch (though moreso the former than the latter) than Sum 41 or even Simple Plan- most of "Let Go" and "Under My Skin" are clearly singer/songwriter pop music than the more traditional, heavier pop-rock that Sum 41 and Simple Plan are associated with. Mind you, musical differences are subjective, but I see enough of a difference between Lavigne and Sum 41 to say that they do 'not' belong together.

 * However, if we're labelling Lavigne based on attitude- which has nothing to do with the music, which is what I think we should be sticking to- then we need to talk about other pop stars with "rebel" attitudes and "rockish" music, like Kid Rock and the aforementioned Pink, because they're in the same category as Lavigne. Perhaps a rewrite should say that "despite her debateable connections to punk, Lavigne's appearance onto the music scene solidified what many punk fans saw as a 'watering down' of the punk image, making into something that could be marketed and exploiyed", because that did happen. The current version isn't that bad, but it still leaves a lot out. -RomeW

 * I'll re-add her to the list - point taken about alphabetizing. :) 23:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Kurt Shaped Box 23:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but just because a certain someone is a fan of Avril Lavigne and believes that she has an "edge" to her music, doesn't mean she is categorized into Pop Punk. I'm sorry, but no one other than you automatically thinks of her has a forerunner in this category. The All Music Guide classifies her into rock, with styles of Pop Rock, Teen Pop, and loosely Adult Alternative. Sure, she may have a punk rock edge to her appearance, but it has nothing to do with her music. She sounds nothing like the Pop punk genre. Therefore I am suggesting a deletion to her name in the list of Pop punk bands. 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) -User: Alahan]

I second this, Avril has no place on any punk rock listing. Her music doesn't even bare the slightest resemblance to any form of punk rock. Pop - yes, Punk - no way. 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) -User: CelticJobber]

Full Rewrite
OK everybody, Ive just done a full blown rewrite of this article due to the calls from certain people that it should be merged with the punk pop article. Undoubtably we will not all agree on the accruracy or whatever of this article but please do not simply revert it back to the old one. Personnally I think that if everybody chips in we can make this an article that will satisfy everyone equally and that it can be a good article potentially.Motown Junkie 18:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Now
I edited the topic and someone changed it back. I'm a music critic in England for 30 years now. I saw the rise and fall of punk, it's alpha and omega, and I can say for sure that this article has no point in existing. Pop punk is a completely wrong label. The sound of Blink 182, Green Day, Athreyu and others like them has nothing to do with the sound punk really is. The right label for it should be Power Pop or Pop Rock. Anyone with a medium knowledge of true rock know this. By allowing an article like this, Wikipedia only shows it's complete lack of credibillity, and, when one trys to correct it, you take it back the way it was. I think there should be a review of the topic and people should be able to correct something when it's not right! What kind of free encyclopedia you are if you allow only your views? This topic is wrong and I, with my 30 years of experience in music, demand a review or extinction of this topic.

Johnatan Wilkin, Music Critic

I think this article should be deleted and forwarded to Punk Pop
The Punk pop article is much better written and more broad in its description of pop punk. This is too heavily focused on the post-Dookie era where "true" punkers began to despise poppunk.

ok
ok, guys I have merged the two articles and with your help I will make the quality better. After a couple of days I'll delete the punk pop article, because two articles about one theme is something completely stupid and redundant. If you have some new ideas for the article - please help me. I think we'll make better work together. But I'm firm on my decision of the removal of punk pop. If you disagree (it's a wonder why, especially after the two articles have been merged), please say it here or in the discussion page. But please don't revert my work without any word, because I get angry when a bunch of fuckos start to revert my work. It's bad and I am certainly unhappy about that. Thank you very much for your atention. Painbearer 21:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't wait for your update. The delete marker on Punk pop has been removed, it should be a redirect, as the term is a valid one (though I've more widely heard Pop Punk).  Just promise that Green Day's Dookie is not considered the first wave of pop punk... Davetron5000

Whats wrong with you people?!
Ok, i've been dealing with this catergorizing, name-calling, whiney, Bla Bla-Punk-bla bla -poser crap since forever, and d'you what i gotta say to all of that? GET A LIFE! who cares? serously, why should anyone? its just music! so what if someone actually has a melody in there songs, of gets rich because alot of people dig their music? Do you think they care? Hell no! I don't. This whole argument is Stupid. It's all a load of crap and wasted effort over NOTHING. If you like the music listen to it, if you dont, then you dont. Don't get pissed because A million other people do. Does anyone really beleive Johnny Rotten when he sings " i wanna be Anarchist, again im pissed, Destroy!!" Ohh ya, Sex pistols really had something to say...basically they acted like assholes. That was how they got people to listen to them. IT was an fing act. Plus, i dont understand how you can hate a band for wanting to experiment. The Clash, everyone agrees that they're Punk right? they has some poppy songs and experimented with Reggae, Latin Beats, and Gospel. Plus less than Angsty lyrics: "theres a solitary man crying,'Hold me!' Its only because hes Lonely..." Also too, Mike Jones and the lead singer were known to give a heartfelt smile once in a while. Bring on the Flames people, bring on the flames..

Whats wrong with you people?!
Ok, i've been dealing with this catergorizing, name-calling, whiney, Bla Bla-Punk-bla bla -poser crap since forever, and d'you what i gotta say to all of that? GET A LIFE! who cares? serously, why should anyone? its just music! so what if someone actually has a melody in there songs, or gets rich because alot of people dig their music? Do you think they care? Hell no! I don't. This whole argument is Stupid. It's all a load of crap and wasted effort over NOTHING. If you like the music listen to it, if you dont, then you dont. Don't get pissed because A million other people do. Does anyone really beleive Johnny Rotten when he sings " i wanna be Anarchist, again im pissed, Destroy!!" Ohh ya, Sex pistols really had something to say...basically they acted like assholes. That was how they got people to listen to them. IT was an fing act. Plus, i dont understand how you can hate a band for wanting to experiment. The Clash, everyone agrees that they're Punk right? they had some poppy songs and experimented with Reggae, Latin Beats, and Gospel. Plus less than Angsty lyrics: "theres a solitary man crying,'Hold me!' Its only because hes Lonely..." Also too, Mike Jones and the lead singer were known to give a heartfelt smile once in a while. Bring on the Flames people, bring on the flames..

Um, that's MICK Jones. And the lead singer of the Clash was Joe Strummer (RIP).

hahaha what a idiot. the clash actually had the punk ethos while greenday etc. are just pish pop music

Pop-punk and Britpop
Considering the big breakthrough of pop-punk was in the mid-1990s, wouldn't there be obvious ties between pop-punk and Britpop, considering the sound was not that far apart? I'm thinking specifically of how Supergrass were originally considered the U.K. equivalent of Green Day, and how their I Should Coco album, their only album which enjoyed U.S. commercial success, came out about the same time as "Dookie" and no doubt appealed to the same people. When similar sounding musical genres emerge at the same time, one must look at some sort of connection. Also, would The Hives be in the pop-punk category? One could make a case for them being in this category as well as the garage rock category. Some of the acts listed, such as The Groovie Ghoulies, could arguably be included in garage rock lists as well.

Proposal - removal of 'Notable pop punk artists/bands' section?
Although this entire article seems to be a magnet for vandalism and edit-warring, the 'Notable pop punk artists/bands' section gets hit (mainly by anonymous users) much more often than anything else. I believe that the major issue with this list is the issue that blights most punk discussions, i.e. the (in my opinion utterly pointless) poseur/sellout debate and differing opinions as what constitutes 'punk'. Whilst I would like to keep the list in some form, due to the emotions and the various factions involved, I do not realistically see any way for it to be anything other than a continued edit war/vandalism/POV nightmare - to the detriment of the article and the encyclopaeda itself.

Thus, I propose that the list be removed. Punkmorten has suggested that the list be moved to its own separate entry but I feel that this would only be moving the problem somewhere else. Opinions please, ladies and gentlemen. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Pop dosen't mean the music is bad.
Yeah Punk Pop dosen't mean Pop or Punk. Punk Pop means punk with pop like songs, like stuff about teen agnst and school. And Pop dosen't mean boy bands, Pop means music that is popualr, so Offspring is pop, they had some popular songs. Green Day, Sum 41 and every other band that has had a popular song is pop. So stop whinning because Pop dosen't mean its bad.

Dude

And what about bands like 999, the Adicts, the Adverts, the Boys, etc.?
I mean for me they're the real pop punk, and the 90s and 00s "new school" stuff this page talks about is more like "Epi-Fat crap" or even "mainstream crap".

Am I the only one with this point of view? Or is there a page with a different title for "original"/"classic" punk bands with a lighter sound?

If not, I think a section should be added acknowledging this. OK, I admit it's not a clear classification, so we can't write much about it, but at least it could be a nice collection of these bands.

BTW it's not just British bands. The Ramones, for example, would certainly fit in here. And really, how are the Descendents or even the Adolescents hardcore? (compared to, say, the Dead Kennedys or Black Flag???)

a. 80.98.158.218 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Distinction Between Lookout/Bubblegum and New School
I'm not going to do any edits, because it is pointless when people are constantly editing and re-editing the page because (right or wrong) they are angry that a musical descriptor has hijacked a word which describes a beloved ethos or they don't understand overlapping musical genres (for more on this, see infra). To begin with, to describe how the article takes the wrong tack, therefore, I begin by questioning this curious statement: "Some of the Lookout! bands broke through into the mainstream in the 1990s." As it happens, only Green Day "broke through." Maybe because it was a relatively new, catchy sound really unlike bubblegum punk and therefore unlike anything else on Lookout before or since (other than B.J. Armstrong's side project(s) on Lookout of course), and newly-receptive MTV and alternative radio gave it to the masses. Who knows why it broke through, maybe because it made people feel good despite its lack of serious lyrical content.

This error is symptomatic of the main problem with the article, that it fails to clearly present the fundamental distinction between the two general strands of pop punk, 1) bubblegum punk (e.g. The Ramones, Lookout Records, early Donnas, Groovie Ghoulies, etc.), which borrows from 50s and 60s teenybands, surfing music, and general 70s punk, and 2) the California or "new school" sound, for lack of better descriptors, which borrows from or follows Hüsker Dü (umlaut) and The Descendents (e.g.. Green Day, Blink, NOFX, etc.). The Descendents' song "Clean Sheets," for example, sounds remarkably like early Green Day, but goes back to the mid-1980s. Download it sometime and take a listen. Moreover, members of both Green Day and Blink are quoted in several early articles as giving credit to these two bands. Having several thousand new school cd's and vinyl, I'd have to agree, since nothing besides Hüsker Dü and The Descendents even comes close to the new school sound.

Of course, there are lighter and heavier expositors of each strand, and bands that mix and match with ska/emo/classic punk/Britney Spears/whatever (e.g. Avril Livigne, who tends to generate more heat than light than anyone else in connection with this subject). And some bands even stray into pop punk for one song, like "Monkey Wrench" by the Foo Fighers, which is, in my opinion, about as pure a new-school confection as one can get. Thus, the Foos, Rancid, Avril Livigne, etc. are not pop punk per se, but they definitely have a pop punk component at times, and therein lies all the taxonomic controversy. It makes no sense to say 'well, there's a multi-dimensional musical spectrum and therefore we shouldn't label certain parts of the spectrum because nothing's concrete. I think Rancid's punk and you think they're ska, he thinks they're emo, and she thinks they're hardcore, therefore none of these labels could be true.' This thinking ignores overlapping musical genres.

Lastly, pop punk is a musical characterization, not an ethos, which is why Sum 41 is pop punk but not punk in the sense of anarchistic or DIY or ultra-individualistic. It is too bad that pop punk hijacked the word "punk" as a musical descriptor, but that's just how the language has developed. The invisible hand guides language as much as other aspects of human interaction, perhaps following the path of least resistance, much to the dismay of the grammar gods and the philosophically pure. Even so, anyone who cares about the "true" punk ethos, whatever that may be, should think it obvious to those who care that something described as "pop" punk has nothing at all to do with a philosophical position.

Additionally, it would be great if someone could describe the actual musical structures differentiating 70s/classic punk, hardcore, bubble gum, and new school.

READ THIS SHIZ NIT
Okay, Since I just got done listening to Slipknot, I might be a little one-sided. But We'll see how it goes. Okay, these are a few Pop Punk bands from the 90s and 2000s:The Offspring, Green Day, Rancid(although they were not that popular, they were getting sold out arenas), blink 182, Fall Out Boy, New Found Glory, Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, Sum 41, Bowling For Soup(not very popular), The All American Rejects, American Hi-Fi, Yellowcard, Relient K, and Sugarcult. Avenged Sevenfold is a metal band I think. But I think they will be big this year. What something you need to ask yourself is "Am I going to be listening to this in 20 years again?" I mean, My pastor looked at my friends "back in black" t-shirt during a class and started singing the first verse and chorus. I mean seriously, are those bands at the top going to be classics? The only bands up there at the top that will be mentionable for a while, would be(in my opinion)The Offspring, Green Day, blink 182, Fall Out Boy(i see a good future for them), and possibly Good Charlotte for a little more time. Those other groups(although i like Rancid and Sugarcult) arent the next "Nirvana". Thats something, that I am looking for. The next "Kurt Cobain". Here is a question you should ask yourself "What face do I think of when I think of Present-Day Rock?" What I think of is Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day. I want the new Nirvana to appear. It might be Green Day. But what I want by the end of this decade is the end of Rap and Pop music. (im not talking about Pop-Rock). I want the mainstream to be controlled by Rock bands again like the early nineties.

Rock On!

NO ONE SHOULD LISTEN TO THIS PERSON BECAUSE IT LISTENS TO SLIPKNOT AND SAYS ROCK ON

Classic pop-punk acts
In addition to the "First-Wave" acts, there should be a section listing classic late-70's/early 80's pop-punkers like The Ramones, The Undertones, The Rezillos, The Boys, The Buzzcocks, and The Descendents.

Just an idea.

 * ...and it's a brilliant one, actually. This article, to me, disregards some very important concepts.  First, most of your early seminal bands in any style are trying to be popular. (Call it the Me and the lads, we've got this new thing we made, and we really like it, and we hope that you'll really like it too syndrome.)  Second, a Punk Pop article already exists.  Third, this article seems just a little to focused on the post grunge pop music world.  Remember, Green Day wasn't marketed as punk rock, rather as Alternative.  (New Wave doesn't mean shit. Claude Bessey said that, remember...)  Anyway, for the love of punk, please consider incorporating the more useful bits into Punk Pop or delete this article wholesale!!!! Two halves 21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

70s - not 80s
For some reason, the intro paragraph said that pop-punk began in the late 1980s, but obviously it began in the 70s, as the article later states, with bands like the Sex Pistols and the Ramones. Maybe just a typo on someone's part. Either that or a misconception.
 * Well, that's a pretty big mistake. The Descendents, Adicts etc. were around in the early-mid eighties. I also wouldn't say the Pistols are pop-punk though. Popular, definitely, (#2 single on their first(only) album) but not sugary melodic punk like the Ramones were. We're getting into the argument about "popular" and "bubblegum pop-influenced" punk again. While some bands might be both, I think the article should clarify more the difference between these two meanings of pop-punk. The Ramones weren't nearly as popular as the Pistols, but they're more pop punk. 203.208.72.234 12:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's more than just two meanings of "pop-punk" and "pop" for that matter too. Even if you completely set aside the popularity or how "mainstream" they are factors, there are different definitions of what would musically be considered "pop."  You're using the "bubblegum pop-influenced" definition.  But I think music can be considered pop if it has catchy melodies - songs that tend to get stuck in your head and with a fast (but not super fast) tempo - even if it doesn't resemble the 50s/60s bubble-gum pop much at all.
 * Although the Sex Pistols were popular (and crappy too) they are not what I would call pop-punk. Ramones probably were though. The Ungovernable Force 02:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Britany Spears and *NSYNC Pop Punk???
When they are listing pop punk bands of the new millennium they listed bands like Simple Plan and Fall Out Boy (Which I totally agree with) then they go on to list Britany Spears and N'SYNC. That is not pop punk. Pop Punk is a genre of punk rock music that is pop. Accually most real pop punk bands hate pop. Ex. In blink-182's music video of All The Small Things they are mocking pop boy bands like N'SYNC. For example two blink-182 quotes...

Ultradrummer528 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)ultradrummer528
 * "I think it's incredible how there are all these boy bands out there like the backstreet boys and N'SYNC. They're all so bad! It hurts me, I've cried."
 * "I don't get boy bands these days. They don't write their own songs and everything is choreographed from their dance moves to how they have sex with eachother after the show."

This whole article needs to be deleted and redone
I'm sorry, this is the sorriest excuse for an article.

Green Day is first wave California punk? Huh?

Seriously, has nobody heard of Jawbreaker?

There are so many things wrong with this article, I just don't know where to begin. Jlee562 07:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. It doesn't seem to be written in an encyclopaedic style. Though I have admittedly never heard of Jawbreaker (sorry), this actually reminds me of the Green Day article, which used to read like a fan's heaven. (Thankfully, someone's gone and NPOVed it a bit. Is NPOVed a word? It is now.) People will never agree on what's pop-punk and what isn't, so the safest thing to do at this stage would be to simply have a small list of bands everyone should be able to agree on (Simple Plan, Good Charlotte and so on). Plus: California had waves of punk? What the?! Someone, please, redo this article!! -- Sarsaparilla39 12:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * One of these days I might just redo the whole thing. But this article is wholly inaccurate from top to bottom.  Pop punk draws its roots from the Ramones, but was fleshed out by bands like the Descendents and Jawbreaker, not Green Day. Jlee562 09:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jawbreaker admitted they took their sound from Hüsker Dü, and Billie Joe Armstrong has stated that Hüsker Dü was one of Green Day's main influences. Hüsker Dü in turn were influenced by the Ramones, the Descendants and The Last.

The pop punk bands list is a joke
Seriously, it should be completely redone if not simply erased. Just one pathetic example : The Larry Arms, pop-punk ? Please ! Frankff 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

POV?
Fine. NPOV banner goes on. No one ever agrees on anything. If we can come to some consensus, I'll get rid of it. However, since all that gets done is incessant arguing over the inclusion or removal of bands in the list, you leave me little choice. -- Sarsaparilla39 09:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ramones certainly isn't pop punk! Stupid people.

No realy they are,I realise they have a big significant part in the formation of the whole punk movement (inventers, initiators, kickstarters, populerisers, whatever you want to call them) but Surf pop vocals over simple catchy hooks? yeah that's pop punk. Did the ramones themselves not call themselves Pop with teeth or something?

My Chemical Romance is not nor have they ever been pop punk
Atticus, why do you insist My Chemical Romance is pop punk? They are not? Show me the online review or bio that claims this and you can keep it in and I will admit I am wrong. Until then, do not add it back in. Madangry 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Atticus, there is no way I'm going to play a stupid delete/vandalize/delete/vandalize game with you. I give up and I still say you're dead wrong--you have not yet verfied nor proven that My Chemical Romance play pop-infused punk rock music and I doubt that you ever will. Madangry 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The best way to end this insane discussion
We need two seperate articles, because this one just won't do. We need one for Pop Punk (Popular Music) which would be mainstream bands who have brought punk to a larger audience and one for Pop Punk (Poppy Punk Music) which is a genre of punk which sees 50's Bubblegum pop as a major influence.

If not, the wars about these lists will never end. Madangry 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Ideally, I think the article should be written by people like Mitch Clem, eg., people in the punk scene who like pop punk specifically. I think people not involved in the punk scene should not be coming here (and saying OMG NOES TEH RAMOONS WER TEH TRU PUNX NOT PAWP PUNK LOLZ NOFX R SO PUNK RAWK I HAEV NEVER EVEN HERD OF THA ADICTS HOO R DEY). I mean, if you haven't heard the Descendents, you don't know enough about pop-punk to be a contributor. But I digress. I think it is indeed necessary to split the article into pop punk and punk pop. Also, people rambling about how modern pop punk bands aren't pop punk but "new school" punk... Resist were around at the same time as NOFX, okay? That was modern punk. --Switch 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi-five. I whole heartedly agree with you. Madangry 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * In an effort to help things along I have taken out the POV pop punk/punk pop paragraph, created a disambiguation article as well as a Punk Pop article. This should make things a lot easier and less confusing. Madangry 20:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

-I whole-hearteldy disagree with the removal of the pop punk/punk pop paragraph. The new seperate 'punk pop' article clears nothing up. The bands listed as Punk Pop are also included in the Pop punk section. What the removed paragraph importantly explained is that you cannot draw a definitive line between pop punk and punk pop, yet the article helped to set out some general guidlines through which a judgement can be made. -It is referred to as POV. I understand that articles are meant to be neutral. But what wikipedia and all of us must accept and note is that for abstract issues such as this neutrality is immpossible. I am a cultural studies student and I would strongly reccomend you read Geertz's work on the interpretation of culture. What this highlights is that trying to describe and understand culture will always be subjective. There is no concrete definition, no truth we can uncover. Cultural phenomina, like the term pop punk, means only what a person close to the 'movement' thinks it means. And I know it is argued that pop punk is just a style of music and has nothing to do with culture. However, logic will tell one this is false; music is the expression of the soul, of the spirit, of the values of a person. So in this case Pop punk is clearly the expression of a certain modern punk cultural movement. -With this in mind I suggest a new attitude to this whole topic. Lets stop the elitist "I understand the culture/music better than you so I'm going to delete everthing you say" and embrace a new attitude which accepts that anyone close to the music/culture can offer a reasonable interpretation of the term. It should be made explicit that this is an opinionated article and different (possibly contradictory) understandings must be allowed to proliferate freely and debated sensibly! As long as opnions are justified let them flourish! 84.9.179.147

 * I agree, Wikipedia should not be about opinion, rather about fact. Hence why that entire paragraph was removed. It was purely opinion with no sourced information. If you would like to re assert such information (or attempt to re-clarify the difference betWeen the two), please do so under the new article for punk pop--but only if you can verify and source it or it to may be deleted by other users. As for the bands being listed under both punk pop and pop punk---obviously I have no choice but to leave that list under this article as the bands can be considered as pop punk and punk pop. With such a grey area I cannot simply delete it from this article. Madangry 22:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The best way to end this insane discussion is for people to reference sources on the subject. Right now it feels like people are arguing from their own viewpoints rather than using some sort of authority's argument as an example. WesleyDodds 11:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Allmusic.com defines Punk Pop as a post-grunge strand of alternative rock that combines power-pop melodies and chord changes with speedy punk tempos and loud guitars. For example, the Ramones type of rock (or punk) has nothing to do with grunge or alternative rock. It is deemed Pop Punk because it is punk which sees 50's Bubblegum pop as a major influence...furthermore these pop punk bands rarely see any mainstream success, again the Ramones are a good example, and thus yet another distinction between Punk Pop and Pop Punk. The two are NOT one and the same. Not even close. Madangry 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * As I said in the Punk pop talk page, Allmusic doesn't make a distinction between the two. Find a source that does.  WesleyDodds 09:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

See: Cite sources and Verifiability. Hyacinth 10:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pop punk or punk pop
I removed this section, as it served only to direct the user to the disambiguation page. Isopropyl 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pop-punk/Archive 1


text:
Bai Shouyi

Bai Shouyi (February 1909 – March 21, 2000), also known as Djamal al-Din Bai Shouyi, was a Chinese ethnologist, historian, social activist, and writer who revolutionized recent Chinese historiography and pioneered in relying heavily on scientific excavations and reports. A Marxist philosophically, his studies thus take a very class-centric view and reasoning. Born a son of a Hui merchant in Kaifeng, he became literate in Arabic from his mother and aunt.

Bai argued for the need for increased awareness of Islam and Muslims by the Chinese population in general in 1937, since Muslims numbered 50 million in China alone and western works were the only works available for non-Muslim Chinese to study Muslims living right with them in China. He said Muslims in Western China could either stand as a "defensive wall" or "hinder ...national defence", depending on whether conduct to them was good or bad.

He died in Beijing at the age of 91.

title: Bai Shouyi