Talk:Oranges and Lemons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In India...[edit]

This is completely not relevant at all, but in India we used to play the same game with different lyrics:

Oranges and lemons, sold for a penny,
All the school girls are so many!
The grass is green and the rose is red,
Remember me when I am dead-dead-dead-dead-dead!

And on the last "dead", you bring your hands down, like the chopper. The school girl reference is weird, but trust me, this is a real game. Gaurav 19:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Yep! Except I thought it was "All girls! School girls are so many!" I went to an all-girls school, maybe that's why? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.167.234.40 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Hey for the trivia section: wasn't that rhyme used in a recent popular fiction novel? i want to say a Dan Brown book but i am not sure. --Kstrubb 05:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was used in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four. I don't recall it being used in Angels & Demons or The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. -- Mcmvanbree 22:57, 30 November (UTC)

Yes! That's the one! Thanks; I don't know how i got those books confused but yes, I did encounter it in 1984. In any case, that should be added to the trivia portion.--Kstrubb 05:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to add a referece to nineteen eighty-four where this rhyme plays a big part

never mind.--Acebrock 23:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

St Clement's[edit]

I just read in Bamber Gascoigne's Encyclopedia of Britain that St Clement, Eastcheap is near the docks where the citrus fruit would be unloaded. Is Bamber right, and if so is this the origin? --Bonalaw 14:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav's trivia is quite interesting, would it be possible to integrate it into the article? As children we always sang 'when I grow old for' the Bow line though I don't know if the article will benefit from the addition of endless variants as with the pop goes the weasel article. Empty Hat

It is not by any means universally accepted that St Clement's Eastcheap is the right church (see its own article). It is in fact the bell of St Clement Dane's which play the tune. Sasha 12:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't certain which of the two churches is the correct one. Both churches could have been taken into account by the people who first sang the rhyme. The Eastcheap one, near London Bridge, is more towards the East End though, where children coming up with the rhyme are thought to have come from, although this is by no means certain. Orphan Wiki 21:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more information[edit]

Entering 'Oranges lemons' into a popular search engine I have encountered a great deal of information and background research on this old song, much of which is absent from the existing article. For obvious copyright reasons I cannot 'steal' it however someone more alert to the legalities of information on the internet might be able to examine and decide upon appropriate use of information such as at the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A696125) or here http://www.rhymes.org.uk/oranges_and_lemons.htm and especially here http://www.rhymes.org.uk/london-bells.htm. I believe that it is fair use to link to these articles in the context of a discussion. Clearly there is more to this song and its history than is currently conveyed in the article. Aethandor (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Early arrangement of lyrics[edit]

A different arrangement of the lyrics appears in "Tommy Thumb's Song Book for All Little Masters and Misses" (1788). An 1815 reprint of this book is available here: http://www.archive.org/details/tommythumbssongb00loveiala

Not sure whether these lyrics deserve a space in the article, or whether the book should be referenced? Neonpaul (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three farthings?[edit]

Is this really the most common version? I've always heard it sung as "five farthings". I would guess that the most common London version is probably five too; we're only a short train ride to central London from here. Five seems to fit the rhythm of the song better too. But maybe it's just inflation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.125.217 (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, it should be five farthings. I'll change it. 86.135.122.239 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen-Eighty-four uses "three farthings" which should be noted. --98.212.94.145 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Five farthings is the only version I have heard. Orphan Wiki 17:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origins and meanings is... meaningless![edit]

Under Origins and meanings, the last sentence of the first paragraph, even taken in context, makes no sense: "They may come from a tower in London with the names of all these bells." This probably was intended to mean that the bells mentioned are those audible from the Tower of London, significantly someone awaiting execution. Examining a map of the area, it overlooks other churches, but perhaps these were the most identifiable. I don't have time to make a good enough edit to the article right now.--Rfsmit (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent map; just what I wanted to see when I read the article, which I've added it to. :-) 92.25.15.35 (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tune[edit]

The tune is mentioned a few times in the article with no description of it. I intend to create an image of the sheet music.--Rfsmit (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church locations[edit]

It is good to see that we have information on the churches referred to in the rhyme. However, this is confined to only the shorter, modern version. It probably wouldn't go amiss to research exactly which churches were being referred to in the other lines, as they're all most likely to still be there today. I live in London, so I can find them, like I've done with the others. St Giles, St Peter's, Whitechapel, Aldgate, St Catherine's, St Anne's, St John's etc... I will look into it if I have time, but, as that in hard to come by, if anyone else feels interested.... Orphan Wiki 21:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fair point. I will try to have a look as well.--SabreBD (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶ I have never heard any of the bells described. I wonder if their ringing resembles the words ascribed to them. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why the second St Martin's is St. Martin's Lane and not St Martin-in-the-Fields, for which St. Martin's Lane is named, and where many of the money lenders attended services? I will do my best to research the other churches mentioned. There are several St. Anne's, but I haven't yet stumbled across St. Margret's. Sasouthcott (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Music: Japanese folk pop band[edit]

Do we know that the name of this band has anything to do with the nursery rhyme? Szarka (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another version of the game[edit]

The children go through single file: the two children of the arch decide quietly that one is 'gold/oranges' the other 'silver/lemons' - and when caught the child says one term or the other, and joins the relevant column: when all are assigned, there is a tug of war.

Probably, like jacks the children in each locality/school develops their particular version. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

st martin's[edit]

I just stumbled upon this page St_Martin's_Church,_Ruislip and that meant I came here - any chance this might be the one refered to - in which case should it go in with the other 2 possibles? EdwardLane (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty unlikely, given the location. What there some sort of claim somewhere I missed?--SabreBD (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autochthony writes: I concur with SabreBD. Ruislip is near the end (three stops away) of the 'Met' and 'Picc' Underground lines - indeed, it is in Metroland - so was almost a day's journey (on foot) into the country in the - say - Seventeenth Century. I would hazard a guess that there are other St. Martin's churches nearer to the City. Autochthony wrote. 20171217 2319Z 86.176.247.203 (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar games[edit]

I see that there is an article for a similar Korean game. Would other similar games be notable?

There is a very similar game in Denmark, with a totally different and very mysterious text 

Bro, bro, brille                         bridge, bridge, spectacle (for the yes)
klokken rigner elleve                    the bell rings eleven
kejseren står på sit høje, hvide slot    the emperor is standing on his high, white castle
så hvidt som et kridt                    as white as a chalk
så sort som et kul                       as white as a coal
fare fare krigsmand                      danger danger warrior
døden skal du lide                       death you shall suffer
den der kommer allersidst                who comes the very last
skal i den sorte gryde                   goes into the black pot
første gang så la'r vi ham gå            the first time we let him go
anden gang så ligeså                     the second time likewise
men tredje gang så ta'r vi ham           but the third time we take him
og putter ham i gryden                   and put him into the pot

At "take" the people, usually adults, forming the bridge close their arms. The child caught is placed behind one side of the bridge. At the end of the game there is a tug of war between two sides.

The most important thing is that a reliable source needs to state that it is similar or possibly linked. If so then I think it could go in, although if it has an article a link may do.--SabreBD (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure plate?[edit]

What is this ? Mentioned in Rules... 'stand on a pressure plate.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:FC05:2B1C:6B63:28AB (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense as far as I can tell from some quick research. The only online references to it are copied from this Wikipedia article. 124.149.143.82 (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, please....[edit]

'Problematically for these theories the last two lines,'

Please rewrite this sentence and remove the horrid word 'problematically'. It is a hideous American mis-usage, and it does not mean what you are trying to make it mean.2001:44B8:3102:BB00:A4EF:5A33:F518:812 (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the end?[edit]

When I was a kid, we sang this, but it ended with: "And this is the end | says the bell of Big Ben." Anyone know this version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.20.22 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture[edit]

I used a site for a citation but there is probably a better one that could be found and used. A. Rosenberg (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source has to explain in what way knowledge of the nursery rhyme is enhanced. In any case, blogs are not counted reliable. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the change with 2 more objective citations. A. Rosenberg (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The intrusively listed item has again been reverted per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The artice here, as noted above, is only about the nursery rhyme, its meaning and continuity. As a popular item, every single time someone has quoted it would be irrelevant and impossible. But there is an added reason why it does not belong here. Rather than Orwell's quotation providing useful information about the rhyme, its use in the novel works the other way. The mention of the rhyme provides a theme and meaning in the novel and it is in the article about the novel that the use of the rhyme should be discussed. That is what the source and the WP:ROC guideline make clear. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could the same not be said for any “In Popular Culture” page on Wikipedia? Many people have only heard of the rhyme from Nineteen Eighty-Four. I see no harm in adding a reference to it. It seems fully in accordance with WP:IPCEXAMPLES. A. Rosenberg (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Claiming WP:OSE is no sort of an argument. The question being discussed is whether you, as a newish editor, are prepared to follow the editing guidelines cited above and play a part in improving WP. It might be a good idea to get to know better the policies and procedures with which you were greeted last year. This is not the first time you have had unconstructive edits reverted. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve had over 120 edits that were NOT reverted, so I don’t see what you are getting at. I’ve reviewed the guidelines for In Popular Culture sections have have viewed similar sections on other pages. I believe that this is a valid addition to the page. Can you give an example of a scenario in which it WOULD be appropriate to add the section in question? A. Rosenberg (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't read carefully, do you? Use of the rhyme would be most noteworthy under a discussion of 1984 (novel). It plays an important cultural role there, but knowledge of the rhyme itself is in no way enhanced by its use there. If as you claim (without a source), people have only heard of the rhyme because of its use in 1984, then they don't need to be told so in the WP article, do they? Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came here from the 3O request. I like the inclusion. The nursery rhyme has a strong presence in the book, and I think this is a good example of when "In popular culture" is useful, explaining how this old nursery rhyme has lived on in a modern cultural context. You can always add more sources, if needed, such as this. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrrho the Skeptic @Sweetpool50 Do we call an RfC? A. Rosenberg (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can make the edit you wanted. The other editor is welcome to submit an RfC if they still feel strongly about it. They are also welcome to offer a compromise of some sort. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweetpool50:: I see you have reverted. You should discuss here on the Talk Page, rather than continue to edit. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m gonna wait a few hours and then un-unrevert the edit unless we decide otherwise. A. Rosenberg (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I deplore your jumping the gun without waiting, @User:Asher Rosenberg. As you should have realised, your requested third opinion has come from a recent editor who may not be versed in the necessary guidelines. I'm not too familiar with dispute resolution myself but, looking at the RfC guidance, it seems that since we're already discussing the matter on the talk page, the next step should be an ANI, which is preferable since an administrator has more experience of guidelines. Let me repeat that the point at issue is where mention of the use of the rhyme is most appropriate. For you to be able to claim that Orwell's use advances knowledge of the rhyme significantly, you'd have to find a source that says so. We are NOT disputing the fact that Orwell did know and use the rhyme, which is all your sources establish. What is in dispute is whether pointing out he used it is at all significant, at a time when everyone knew that rhyme and played that game, in terms of this article. The most appropriate place to consider its significiance is at the article on the novel, which I have been appealing to you to do. Most of your sources (all of which already deal with the novel in question) seem to be about that.
If you're prepared to wait for the result of an ANI discussion, I'll go ahead and initiate it, or we can do so jointly. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can initiate the ANI A. Rosenberg (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweetpool50:: That is actually not the correct course of action. The next step would be an RfC, not Administrator intervention. This is far, far too early in the process for that. Please read the dispute resolution guidelines. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was on my way back after checking again; it was a DRN I meant. Are both of you happy to do that? Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. That's fine with me. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure A. Rosenberg (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Application for a DRN has been made and appears at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Oranges_and%20Lemons There's provision there for us all to provide our own summaries. Guidelines suggest that we check there regularly for developments and moderator comment and that we do not edit the article in question while the process is ongoing. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-DRN[edit]

@Sweetpool50:, given the 4th and 5th opinion, I propose we work together to write a satisfactory In Popular Culture section. [User:Asher Rosenberg|A. Rosenberg] (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, User:Asher Rosenberg, and thanks for taking up the suggestion. I'd already proposed a compromise that got shifted to one side in the 'discussion'. The points I tried to raise there were:
  • Since a nursery rhyme is by definition already part of popular culture, a better subheading noting its "1984" use would be something like "Literary reference(s)"
  • Mentioning the fact of Orwell's use of the rhyme should link to a consideration of the part it plays in his novel. An example would be the contrast between the indoctrination of Big Brother society and the older, more innocent state of mind before its imposition; oral tradition as against authoritarian imposition. If your first two sources don't already imply that, you'd need to look at other scholastic commentary.
  • Your first two study-guide sources establish that the rhyme is referred to in the novel, but that was never in question. But simply to mention as much would be merely anecdotal without more about its organic importance within the novel, the place for such discussion (per WP:OFFTOPIC) belonging more properly in the article on the novel.
  • The third reference was from an article on the novel's relationship to Dante's Divine Comedy. I'm not sure what is the purpose of mentioning the rhyme in that article's first page. I couldn't find that reference being taken up by the time I'd read half way through the rest.
If the subject really interests you as an editor (and I once helped edit an encyclopaedia in the past), the above seems a viable approach. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pop Culture is the correct label for the section. Anything different would not follow WP:MOS. There is no need for in depth analysis to include this rhyme. Nor are in depth analytical sources required for that. If you want to get more in depth- that is fine, but such depth is not a requirement for inclusion in this case. This is absolutely the correct place for an anecdotal mention of where and when this rhyme has been mentioned in pop culture. That is literally what a pop culture section is. The link to consideration of the part it plays is leaning towards WP:UNDUE- no need to turn the whole article into the appearance of this rhyme in one book. Just because the use of the rhyme in the novel was not in question does not make the two sources unnecessary. And since analysis of the purpose of this rhyme in the book (beyond a very brief and basic explanation of what sources say) is completely inappropriate- those two sources are just fine. And, just curious- why, on 20 August 2020 did you delete dozens of pop culture references- some of them cited with acceptable 3rd party sources- yet you labeled them as primary? BBC news is not primary, Indiewire is not primary, and, for undisputed facts- primary sources are fine. Would you care to explain why you are fighting pop culture references being added to this article so much? I'm confused. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will start working on it tomorrow, as I am busy today for obvious reasons. A. Rosenberg (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oranges_and_Lemons&oldid=1209533485"