This is an archive of past discussions about Guy Fawkes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You pretty much nailed the matter on the head. I'm sure there have been many "tributes to Guy Fawkes" of one form or another over the centuries, and I don't see what sets this apart. Nev1 (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it would add much to be honest, it's just been done for publicity and doesn't have a substantial link to Guy Fawkes. Because it's a recent event it may have media coverage, but that doesn't mean it's actually significant to Guy Fawkes himself. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess the only way to know is to wait for a credible source to tell us. There are people who make things happen, there are people who watch things happen, and there are people who ask, "What happened?" Guy Fawkes made things happen, and thankfully, he didn't wait for Wiki editors to approve it. :) Peace. USchick (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The only thing he managed to achieve, as part of a conspiracy involving people far more important than himself, was even worse conditions for those whose suffering he sought to alleviate. If you're looking for a role model, you can do a lot better than Guy Fawkes. Parrotof Doom19:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There defiantly needs to be an image of a protester in the Guy Fawkes mask and a small paragraph in the legacy section explaining how his image has become a symbol of anti-capitalism. Seems extremely ridiculous that this is not even mentioned since this is what the wider world know him more for rather than the Gunpowder Plots. Shows how out of touch with the world wikipedia is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.235.145 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Only on the internet could someone be accused of being "out of touch" for actually being aware of the importance of Guy Fawkes and putting the use of a tengentially related mask in perspective. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you the owner of this article or Wikipedia in general? Popular culture has surpassed gunpowder and moved on to newer technology. USchick (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The fact is that the British author and illustrator of the comic book V For Vendetta, Alan Moore and David Lloyd, based the mask worn by the main character, V, on Fawkes, who Lloyd described as "our great historical revolutionary". After the film based on the book was released in 2006, the mask was taken up by anti-establishment groups. In my view this information should be set out in this article, but in the meantime it's at Gunpowder Plot in popular culture. Comments in the discussions above that "the Guy Fawkes mask ..... has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes" are, quite simply, wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Why Fawkes?
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
The article says: "Although he was only one of 13 conspirators, Fawkes is today the individual most associated with the failed Plot." But it doesn't say why Fawkes became the one name most associated with it. Do we know? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Because I don't have the answer. That's why I asked the question. If it's in the Fraser book, and you have that book, it would be useful to include that information in this article, because at present the article leaves an obvious question unanswered. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It isn't in the Fraser book, she explains the history of the day from p349 onwards but she doesn't address your point. It's obvious that his name persists because it was his effigy that was burnt on the bonfire and therefore his character that became engrained in English culture, but nobody really knows why his effigy replaced the pope anyway. To include that would be original research, which is why the following few sentences mention Guy Fawkes Night. Parrotof Doom11:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The inference from sources like this (you would know better than me how reliable it is) is that he was regarded as "the great devil of all" (a term that may be worth including) because he was the one caught redhanded. The public knowledge of that fact might explain why it was his effigy, rather than any of the others, that was burnt. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Fawkes was barely mentioned at all in the decades following the plot's failure. His name doesn't appear in sermons, and never in print before 1800. Parrotof Doom11:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
In that case I'm even more confused, given that by 1841 books were starting to portray him in "a generally sympathetic light". Some versions of the verse starting "Remember, remember the Fifth of November" mention him (but not the other conspirators) by name, but it's surprising if no later 17th or 18th century sources mention him or treat him as a hate figure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It's very likely because of the change in attitude toward English Catholics, but that's speculation only, and since the authors used as sources in this article (and the GFN article) don't spend a great deal of time on it, I didn't think it worthy of inclusion. History is about reading between the lines, but there aren't many lines here. Parrotof Doom12:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
In reply to His name doesn't appear in sermons, and never in print before 1800. Sometimes it takes a while. Jesus didn't have much of a following right after his death either. It took 300 years before anyone took notice and started writing down what he taught. (I hope this doesn't open a new can of worms... I'm just saying.) USchick (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Cobblers
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
It is said that the cobbler's children go barefoot and here's an example. I was just looking over the much-disputed Legacy section and wondered at the presence of Paul Kruger and Margaret Thatcher. Did they wear Guy Fawkes masks? Did they try to blow up Parliament? The supporting source doesn't explain the connection - it doesn't seem to even mention them. The idea seems to be that they were unpopular like Guy Fawkes and have been burnt in effigy too and so they are part of his legacy. Obvious, innit? Who is responsible for this idiosyncracy which seems to have passed without notice at the FA review? Try this. Warden (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the OP: to keep a consistent approach to cruft, the link to Kruger and Thatcher is too tenuous to retain (notwithstanding the new reference). --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Explanation of celebration?
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why is this date remembered, as some wit has remarked:
Guy Fawkes Night - are we celebrating him getting caught or him having a go?
Indeed, although this articles goes on at some length regarding the conspiracy what is fails to do is give any context as to why the event is remembered? I mean there have been plenty attempts to assassinate the monarchy so why does this one stick out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.123.188 (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article states that Guy Fawkes died of a broken neck from jumping off the scaffold. The topic box on the right hand side lists the cause of death as hanging. So. which one is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.166.31 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Both, as hanging either results in a broken neck or asphyxiation, depending on how it's done. In Fawkes's time scaffolds didn't have a trapdoor that was released; instead they climber up a ladder, for instance, with the rope around their neck and the ladder was then removed, leaving them to hang. Fawkes jumped before the ladder was removed, and the force of his fall resulted in the noose breaking his neck. MalleusFatuorum00:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 5 November 2011
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 12 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion
In Alan Moore's V for Vendetta the main character 'V' draws his inspiration from Guy Fawkes, and uses Guy's image to create his famous mask which is synonymous with the internet group Anonymous today. Yet there is no mention of either in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.174.242 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I certainly think that a direct reference to V for Vendetta and Anonymous is necessary. For the rest of us who aren't from that part of the world, we would never have heard of this man without either the movie or the activists. I was quite surprised too not to find a reference, and at first thought I must have gotten the wrong guy (pun intended). 87.64.21.23 (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Because this article is significant in the context of V for Vendetta (as the OP describes), but V for Vendetta is not significant in the context of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but that's what I'm trying to explain, that for the rest of us non-UK, non-historian, young people, the most notable thing about Guy Fawkes is his depiction in V for Vendetta and the subsequent use by Anonymous. Take this kind of article, if the writer didn't spell it out, I might not have understood what "Guy Fawkes wannabes" are referring to. I'd look it up on Wikipedia, but it wouldn't make any more sense either. 87.64.21.23 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a very old argument, you could save yourself a lot of time not rehashing old questions by simply reading the talk page archives. Parrotof Doom23:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see indeed. About eight requests for it being at least mentioned. Shot down or ignored each time. My apologies, I didn't mean to stain your page with those references. You might want to put a warning on top of the talk page though, so idiots like me who can't possibly mean well don't waste your time anymore. 87.64.21.23 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's very difficult to take seriously anyone who apparently believes that the most notable thing about Guy Fawkes is his depiction in V for Vendetta, in which he isn't actually depicted at all. MalleusFatuorum02:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is a problem that there is no mention of V for Vendetta and Anonymous and maybe also the upcoming ACTA demonstrations. I came here to read about the person depicted on the mask and also thought that I maybe got the wrong page. I know that there is a page about the mask but would still like to read something about how the historical person relates the to current use of the mask. Especially with the ACTA demonstrations getting momentum Bgst (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Then perhaps you may be able to explain what the mask has to do with Guy Fawkes? Is it your argument that the mask is an accurate representation of Fawkes's appearance? Or that Fawkes was some kind of social warrior who went around in a mask that looked nothing like him? The bottom line is that the current fashionable use of the mask relates only to the comic book story and the film, and not at all to the real person. If you came here to read something about the historical person behind the mask then it's difficult to see how you might have been disappointed, as you were clearly already aware of the mask. And a little historical perspective might have led you to discover that a credible case has been been made that the inspiration for V wasn't Fawkes at all, but Oscar Wilde. Or are you perhaps arguing that a sentence or two should be added to explain why V has nothing at all to do with Guy Fawkes? MalleusFatuorum23:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If the historical person has no relation the use of the mask then yes, a sentence or two explaining that there isn't any connection would be helpful. Bgst (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The comic book and movie should absolutely be mentioned. FIRST we have ... William Harrison Ainsworth's 1841 historical romance Guy Fawkes; or, The Gunpowder Treason, portrays Fawkes in a generally sympathetic light and transformed him in the public perception into an "acceptable fictional character". Fawkes subsequently appeared as "essentially an action hero" in children's books and penny dreadfuls such as The Boyhood Days of Guy Fawkes; or, The Conspirators of Old London, published in about 1905. It has been set up that he has been fictionalized based upon an ideal image. You allow fictional books which few people have heard of to remain, yet refuse to even link to a comic book and movie which are LITERALLY influencing a worldwide revolution. They were inspired by Guy Fawkes masks used for for Guy Fawkes night. The comic book was influenced by a holiday bearing his name. "When this notion was enthusiastically received, he decided to buy one of the commonplace cardboard Guy Fawkes masks that were always readily available from mid-autumn, just to use as convenient reference. To our great surprise, it turned out that this was the year (perhaps understandably after such an incendiary summer) when the Guy Fawkes mask was to be phased out." Guy Fawkes is THE FIRST person to be shown on the screen in the movie. He is played by Clive Ashborn. I am actually baffled that you are attempting to make the case that a comic book and movie revolving around his historical legacy is not mentioned in the legacy section of this page. The whole point of a legacy section is not to show historical examples of the man, but instead describe how he continued to exist as an idea. This omission is inexcusable. 24.118.168.217 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Those instances exist because they were mentioned by the most authoritative, reliable sources we have on the subject, whereas V for Vendetta is not. The point of any Wikipedia article is to reflect its sources, not what its readers think is important. Don't re-insert it, it will be removed immediately. Parrotof Doom09:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
"A Cultural History of Guy Fawkes Day" is about Guy Fawkes Day. It was released in 2005 the same year as the movie. I would not expect it to mention the movie. I did cite a source. This source, written by Alan Moore (the author if V for Vendetta), outlines the history of Guy Fawkes Day. It is relevant to the legacy section of this article considering half the article is about Guy Fawkes and Guy Fawkes Day, not V for Vendetta. "The point of any Wikipedia article is to reflect its sources, not what its readers think is important." This is not true. The article was not only newsworthy, but a reflection on how Guy Fawkes Day inspired further culture. This is an example of two editors Malleus and Parrot trying to override consensus. Wikipedia is about consensus not what you think should be included based on a single source. "Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy." If you take the time to read what I have written, the article, and the two lines I have added to the article, I believe you will see I am pushing a neutral point of view. I vote to include but keep the mention to a minimum. First user who ctrl+f the page will be taken where they intend to go. Second I only mentioned that it is inspiration for a novel and later a movie. There is no mention of anonymous or occupy movements. There is no mention of Guy Fawkes as a character in the novel/book (previous edits claimed he was the main character) EVEN THOUGH he is the first person shown in the movie. The movie shows him in the cellar with explosives, caught and then hung. These are facts. In this sense the movie is fairly accurate. 24.118.168.217 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You're wrong about sourcing, and consensus isn't a vote or popularity contest, no matter how much you'd like it to be. The simple fact is, nobody who believes that V for Vendetta is relevant to this article has ever pointed to scholarly source material which agrees with you, and I would put money on the reason for that being that such material does not exist. I've researched and written the articles of all the Gunpowder Plotters, if I'd come across such works then I'd have said so.
I will therefore revert your changes. If you reinsert them, I'll revert again, and I will do so until you present decent source material on Guy Fawkes or the Gunpowder Plot that demonstrates the significance of V for Vendetta to this topic. If you think something is missing from this article, that it isn't deserving of it's FA status, then take it to WP:FAR. Parrotof Doom21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
I have provided a very good reason. That you choose to ignore it is your problem, not mine. Still, the template was amusing, thanks for that. Parrotof Doom22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I am happy I bring you a little humor concerning our disagreement. Glad to be of service
Consensus is that this article is not improved by the edits you suggest. It detracts from the article because it is not about Fawkes. J3Mrs (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
It is about Fawkes. The article cited is about Fawkes. He is in the movie. He is the first character shown on screen. Legacy sections exist to describe a persons legacy. Other Guy Fawkes fictional depictions are mentioned in the legacy section. I used a reliable source.24.118.168.217 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Since there is a separate article on the Guy Fawkes Mask, and that article is referenced from the Guy Fawkes article (from the Legacy section), and since the Guy Fawkes relationship with V for Vendetta and Anonymous have more to do with the mask than with Guy Fawkes himself, I don't see why they need to be mentioned here. pabramstalk 08:35, 12 April 2012 (EST)
Edward Doubleday
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Recently I created a article for the 1614 MP for Westminster Edmund Doubleday and discovered that this person played a key part in the arrest of Guy Fawkes. It is he that is named in the well-known painting of the arrest. He was a close friend and business associate of Knyvet and appears to have been a redoubtable strong man who was useful when heavy-handed arrest was called for. In a twist to the story it is said that he just restrained himself from killing Fawkes after Fawkes grabbed him. It therefore seemed not unreasonable to volunteer this information for the benefit of Wikipedia readers interested in Guy Fawkes. The material I incorporated was in bold as follows.
The King ordered Sir Thomas Knyvet to conduct a search of the cellars underneath Parliament, which he carried out with Edmund Doubleday - described as "a man of great stature, valour, gravity and activity"[1] - in the early hours of 5 November. Fawkes had taken up his station late on the previous night, armed with a slow match and a watch given to him by Percy "becaus he should knowe howe the time went away".[2] He was found leaving the cellar, shortly after midnight, and arrested. He gripped Doubleday "very violently" by the fingers of the left hand. Doubleday in reaction was about to stab Fawkes but thought better of it. Instead he up-heeled Fawkes, searched him and tied him up with garters found in Fawkes pockets.[3]
This was supported with two sound references - one an old book proviing direct quotes from original sources, the other a link to the UK Parliament website. I was therefore rather surprised when it was reverted within minutes with the pompous pontification "I don't think this rather poorly-written source can be considered as on a par with the others used here"
Given that there were two sources, I wonder which is the cause of complaint. I repeat - one was the UK Parliament website although I would now replace the reference given with UK Parliament Website - Who Captured Guy Fawkes but that makes little difference. The other was a book by Charles Gatty primarily about the manor of Ebury but containing numerous orginal extracts including "Anglorum Speculum", Dr Gardiner - "Testimony of Knyvet and Doubleday" and "The arraignment of John Selman" 1613 BM Catalogue. Since when has the quality of writing in the source been a criterion anyway? The verifiability policy says that information in articles should be supported by reliable sources. That does not as I understand it dictate that it has to meet one editor's subjective opinion on the quality of writing
I think it is also interesting to compare the sources provided with "the others used here". The vast majority of references are to books that are not directly visible on line from the article and so who knows what the quality of wrting is in them. Some references are spam links to a website that charges for access. Ainsworth - a historical romance appears to be non-fiction. Merriam Webster is a dictionary. The Gunpowder plot society is frequently cited, but is it in any way an official site? York museums gives no citations. And there is a link to the House of Commons Info office which after several seconds wait delivers a 2005 archive of material which is actually available up to day in the UK Parliament Website which I cited.
Frankly I don't give a damn if this material is included, but I cannot help thninking that there are many other editors and readers who would value it . I also imagine the information is also available in the sources that do cut the mustard if someone cares to look for it. Motmit (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Motmit! There are a few points I'd like to make with regards to your post. First, this is a featured article, which means its sourcing should be above the basic requirements of WP:V/WP:RS - the criteria specify "high-quality reliable sources". There is no requirement that sources be free to access, available online, or otherwise easy to get to, so long as they are published. Websites that charge for access are not (necessarily) spam, and indeed many academic journals and databases that are highly respected include such charges. You can find information about the Gunpowder Plot Society here, if you're interested. The dictionary of word histories is appropriately used to cite the history of a word. Ainsworth is used to cite its own existence. Archiving links is used to prevent WP:LINKROT. Now, looking at the sources you've providing, the "UK Parliament Website" from the original addition is actually a transcript of a tour, with no indication of who the tour guide is. The Gatty book was published in the 1920s, is apparently a work of fiction, and provides no indication of the reliability of either the author or the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Gatty book quotes original documents including "Anglorum Speculum", Dr Gardiner - "Testimony of Knyvet and Doubleday" and "The arraignment of John Selman" 1613 BM Catalogue. which are probably available on the web and if not then surely accessible in some acceptable private collection.Motmit (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an article on Guy Fawkes, not Edmund Doubleday, and the lines you added aren't particularly relevant here. Furthermore, the account of Doubleday's involvement in Fawkes arrest isn't something I've read in any major source on this topic, so either it didn't happen as described, or most people consider it irrelevant. If the latter is true (and I suspect it is) then his involvement certainly wasn't "key".
Secondly, I'm sorry if you don't like sources that aren't available online, but since I have most of those sources in a bookshelf next to me, that isn't my problem. There are no spam links here, and if you don't have access to the sources that require registration, again, it's tough luck for you. Ainsworth's inclusion here is obvious to anyone who cares to read the article (and associated sources), as is the Merriam Webster link. The thrice-cited Gunpowder Plot Society has the distinction of concurring with print sources wherever I've checked it for accuracy. York Museums I'm not particularly attached to (although it covers nothing particularly contentious, as is also the case with the House of Commons source). Parrotof Doom22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
2002 poll
Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
I'm not sure why my edits have been reverted as Parrot of Doom's last edit contained no summary, but I think that the information that was removed was notable and relevant. If 400+ years after the fact, a man who attempted to blow up the English Parliament and murder everyone inside is listed in a BBC poll as one of the 100 Greatest Britons, ahead of the likes of Boudica and Charles Dickens, then that's relevant, and certainly something suitable for a "Legacy" section. I'll remove alchemipedia as a source and revise the text accordingly, but there's no reason to leave it out entirely. The fact that the poll is mentioned in the articles of scores of other individuals featured on the list also gives pause for thought.
Hi Summigoul, thank you for coming to the talk page to discuss. This article is a featured article, which means its content has been extensively reviewed, and it's meant to reflect the most reliable sources available on the topic. Thus, it's helpful to discuss additions (and not use sources like alchemipedia, which aren't reliable). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Guy Fawkes may be relevant to the poll's article, but given the wider historical context, especially the several centuries of 5 November celebrations, a rather insignificant poll isn't particularly relevant to Guy Fawkes. Parrotof Doom08:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please explain why it isn't "particularly relevant". I'm all for recognizing the wider historical context and several centuries of history; the fact that he features in a list of the "100 Greatest Britons" after such time is precisely what makes it notable. In the end, it ticks all the boxes (it's notable, it's reliably sourced and so on). Again, the poll is mentioned in numerous other articles, so the community on the whole apparently doesn't think that it is "rather insignificant". Summigoul (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Because it's trivial. All the major points are already covered, and his notability stems not from some obscure poll, but from his appearance as an effigy for several hundred years. Just because something is relevant to something else does not mean that relationship has to be reciprocated. Parrotof Doom15:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's trivial, and for the record, never said that his notability stems from the poll. But what is notable is that "400+ years after the fact, a man who attempted to blow up the English Parliament and murder everyone inside is listed in a BBC poll as one of the 100 Greatest Britons". It is sourced, it is notable, it is relevant to the section, and it breaks no rules. You have yet to explain why these things are "trivial" and not "particularly relevant". Calling the sun a frisbee does not turn it into a frisbee. Thank you. Summigoul (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's you who has to demonstrate notability. You can start by seeing what more reliable publications on the subject have to say, such as the print sources already used in the article. If I recall correctly, none of them say anything about such a poll. What you think is important matters not, else we might as well revert this article to the trivia-laden nonsense it once was. Parrotof Doom16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The source shows that Guy Fawkes is still remembered after 400 years, going further than that with a single survey (and the list doesn't seem to draw any conclusions itself) is problematic. Is that a gap in the article? You could argue that it shows Fawkes is the only member of the plot still remembered, but the article already says as much ("Although he was only one of 13 conspirators, Fawkes is today the individual most associated with the failed Plot") and mentioning the poll might be venturing into original research as the source doesn't draw the link itself. To sum up, I don't think the poll is that important. Nev1 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Parrot of Doom, it is trivia. This is a well researched article on a significant historical character and the populist tv poll is irrelevant.J3Mrs (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a fair observation, but that article and this have different purposes. I don't think the existence off the poll is enough to mention here; it needs to inform in some way so what does it add that isn't already in the legacy section? Nev1 (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
@Nev1/Ghmyrtle: Point taken. I still favor the addition of the information regarding the poll and maintain that it is notable, but them's the breaks. Summigoul (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: Biased removal of submitted comment!
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I submitted the following text as an edit to the above article and it was deleted in a matter of seconds:
Masks of the face of Guy Fawkes are available to protest movements that pursue social revolution. Wearing the mask is in itself an act of public revolt.
This protest movement and a brief movie representation of the death of Guy Fawkes was presented in the movie "V for vendetta" internal link: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film). From the end of the movie thousands of people, all wearing the mask of Guy Fawkes and his costume, descend on the British parliament building to watch as it is blow up in an act of social revolution from neoconservative fascism, which had become the dominant social force in the film.
This fictional social protest tactic has recently been copied by dozens, or even hundreds of people from the recent occupy Wall Street movement; who have been seen wearing the 'mask of Guy Fawkes' as a public disguise to avoid persecution by the authorities. Recent media attention to this movement has intensified this reaction. (reference:http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/)
I believe this deletion was a direct act to sabatoge wikipedia,that was taken to stifle an alternative point of view that the deletor disagreed with. As such, I believe this deletion is biased and should be reviewed by a third party, to ensure neutrality. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added byRepent (talk • contribs) 6 November 2011
Well, your first place to go is the article talk page rather than here. The editor reverting your contribution indicated in his edit summary that material from blogspot.com isn't reliable (which it isn't, see WP:RS) and that it's just somebody's opinion. I suppose some mention of Guy Fawkes masks in the article might be called for, but it needs to be based on reliable sources and be presented in an encyclopedic manner. Also, constructions such as "direct act to sabatoge wikipedia" are not helpful. That is a fairly serious charge, you know. We don't talk like that here. Herostratus (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand, though, you are wanting to contribute in good faith. When you're new, it can be a little bit rocky as you learn the ropes, and the best advice is to remain cool. I now see that there is already an exposition on the masks, but rather than in Guy Fawkes it is in the Gunpowder Plot in popular culture article, here: Guy Fawkes mask. As you can see, the material is restrained and descriptive, and well-referenced with multiple references to reliable sources such as the Guardian and the beeb. This is the sort of effect we are trying for, here. It takes time to get in the swing of things. Under your inspiration I did add a sentence re the masks to the Guy Fawkes article, and thank you for the inspiration. Cheers,Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Since Fawkes was arrested on 5th November 1605, surely the nationwide celebration of 5th November mentioned in the article could not have started until 1606? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.229.117 (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Bonfires were lit in the immediate aftermath of the plot's failure, but official observances were enforced by an Act of Parliament passed in the following months. Guy Fawkes Night gives more detail. Parrotof Doom20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
King James a Protestant ?!
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The open sentence of the Gunpowder Plot section reads:
"In 1604 Fawkes became involved with a small group of English Catholics, led by Robert Catesby, who planned to assassinate the Protestant King James"
This oversimplification is incorrect; King James was the king but his power base, the English aristocracy, was largely was Protestant. As a result he instructed many protestant reformist actions but he himself was essentially a Roman Catholic. The Catesby group were an extremist group of Roman Catholics who viewed James I as a traitor to his religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vman2000 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Name the reliable sources please. James I was the son of a Catholic, baptised and raised a Catholic and all his children were raised Catholic. When was his conversion? He was responsible for a lot of pro-protestant laws of course but he had a difficult job keeping his noblemen content. He was constantly infuriated by the actions of the more extreme Catholics as their actions were blocking his ultimate goal of returning the Anglican Church to Rome. He needed Rome to reform a little for this to happen but that’s a long way short of being a protestant. To simply describe James as a protestant is incorrect, so the opening paragraph is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.167.209 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
His "conversion" happened at 1 yr old, when he was permanently removed from his mother, & raised as a Presbyterian under the direction of the Scottish Parliament. Read his bio, and those of his children too, like the Protestant heroine Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Addition of V for Vendetta Reference
Latest comment: 12 years ago42 comments12 people in discussion
I have included some information here on the "V" character in V for Vendetta, his choice by Alan Moore, and his relationship to Guy Fawkes. Also a note about Anonymous commemorating Guy Fawkes day of death. It would seem apt some mention of it is made on a page about Guy Fawkes! Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Reinserting this section. Please do not remove until the issues is discussed here on the talk page. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I have checked the archives, there seems to be a solid case for inserting a reference to V for Vendetta into this article, and ample number of authors who have supported it. However it was not included. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I apologise for cutting in here but I have two points to make
One. Concerning the masks made popular by the film V for Vendetta which I have not seen..
That mask ,worn by an anarchistic type figure wanting to destroy the British Parliament is an almost exact copy of the masks available around November 5th ,sold in newsagents etc when I was a child (I was ten in 1945) Some of these original type masks are probably still around.The main difference is the colouring which in the originals was more red and florid.The V for Vendetta mask is also slightly more stylised in its features.
Two. The article ignores a feature of Guy Fawkes night /day etc which was that many children boys and girls took a dolls pram or real but old pram or handcart and made an effigy of Guy Fawkes of their own,dressing him up in old clothes etc They then went around the streets stopping people and saying --'Penny for the Guy Sir/Madame' etc
This was of course a form of begging so the practice was found among poorer children but not entirely and many children from middle class homes did this ,to the horror of their parents.There was great competition to make the most realistic Guy and the whole thing was planned weeks in advance and was really a great adventure.Interestingly its one activity where the girls played as great a role as the boys
Penny for the Guy Mister could be heard up to the seventies..it seems to have died out about then becoming too unsophisticated for the new young and also because of the fear of children talking to strangers that developed about that time
Its interesting that in Eastern Europe at about this same time of the year,,small villages have similar scarecrow /effigy figures life size standing in front of peoples doors with pumpkins etc laid out before them. There is I am sure again competition to create the best figure.
I do not know the origins or reason for this custom but its interesting that it takes place at about the same time as the British Guy Fawkes night suggesting these events have links throughout Europe and really go back to a symbolic offering to the spirit of winter that it will not be too hard and cruel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.113.13 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to be clear that my editing of the section to remove unWikiness in a featured article was in no way support for inclusion of the content: I edited it because it seemed to have been written by a non-native speaker of English, and I didn't remove it altogether only because I noticed that its inclusion was in dispute. I too have checked the talk page archives, and am totally convinced by the arguments made there that V for Vendetta is in no way part of the "legacy of Guy Fawkes", and neither is the Guy Fawkes mask. --RobertG ♬ talk12:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi – I have asked in my edit comments to please refer to this talk section after the removal of my inclusion of a reference to V for vendetta, however there is no discussion here and with the ongoing edit war over the inclusion of the reference I was banned for 3RR.
As the edit warring editors won’t discuss it here, and so as to avoid further edit warring, seems my next step as per Wikipedia guidelines, is to open a WP:DR.
Please comment here if you are interested in the topic.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
There is an article on V for Vendetta and this isn't it. The relationship between this article and the character or mask featured in the other is far too tenuous to be worth even a mention here. In exactly the same way, if you examine the article on Ice hockey, you'll find a complete absence of any mention of Friday the Thirteenth there. --RexxS (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how the parallels are similar. One is the relationship between a sport, and a character in a movie wearing an item of sporting gear.
The other is an historical figure, and a character in a film based on and representative of him, with the storyline also reflective of the character. There is more to the relationship between the two than simply the fact character “V” in V for Vendetta wore a mask.
If Hockey was a sport where people called Jason wore Hockey masks and attacked each other with Machetes…then it would be a good parallel!...and probably something I’d watch
The character of V is not "based on" Guy Fawkes; the character of V has adopted a Fawksian appearance. The mask is not a 'Guy Fawkes mask', it is a 'V For Vendetta' mask. And Guy Fawkes never wore a mask, so far as I am aware. Does not belong in this article. Cheers Keristrasza (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
V didn't simply adopt his outside aspect. V has based his life around his idealized view of Guy Fawkes, and the plot revolves around blowing the Parliament like Fawkes did, and honoring his memory. The real Fawkes had very different motivations, of course, but V is convinced that Fawkes would have been proud of him.... --Enric Naval (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I know exactly what inspired Alan Moore's mask: I was wearing them long before you were even born. The link to Guy Fawkes mask is sufficient. I disagree that these are specifically "Guy Fawkes" masks; they are tie-in merchandise, exact copies of the mask worn by V, a movie/comic book anarchist, marketed and sold as such, and worn to imitate and/or represent the movie/comic book anarchist V, not to imitate or represent or commemorate the historical personage of Guy Fawkes. Your analysis of V's character, incidentally, seems to be OR, and not backed up by anything I've seen written by the character's creator, Alan Moore. Moore himself has spoken of it as "the V for Vendetta mask... a multipurpose icon [adopted] by the emerging global protest movements." (my emphasis.) Keristrasza (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see now that you are saying, basically, "the character V wears, within the fictional universe of V4V, a Guy Fawkes mask." Yes, I agree on that specific point alone. All subsequent use of the mask as political protest symbol etc (as the proposed section by Deathlibrarian - in Re: Biased removal of submitted comment! - above reads) is not connected to G.F. Keristrasza (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The representation of the historical character in this film should be referenced in this (or some) article for Guy Fawkes, in the same sort of way it is for any historical figure that is represented on film. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
To put it simply, the wearing of Guy Fawkes masks as a means of protest, is a social phenomonenon, just the same as people burning effigies of Guy Fawkes is. Certainly the effigies may have been burnt for longer - but they are both social phenomena that relate to Guy Fawkes and *BOTH* should be referred to in this article. The masks are Guy Fawkes masks, not "V for Vendetta masks....in fact, there is no such thing as a "V for Vendetta Mask". As Alan Moore wrote in "Behind the Painted Smile"
"Re. The script: While I was writing this, I had this idea about the hero, which is a bit redundant now we've got (can't read this next bit) but nonetheless . . . I was thinking, why don't we portray him as a resurrected Guy Fawkes, complete with one of those papier mache masks, in a cape and conical hat? He'd look really bizarre and it would give Guy Fawkes the image he's deserved all these years. We shouldn't burn the chap every Nov. 5th but celebrate his attempt to blow up Parliament!"
The moment I read these words, two things occurred to me. Firstly, Dave was obviously a lot less sane than I hitherto believed him to be, and secondly, this was the best idea I'd ever heard in my entire life. All of the various fragments in my head suddenly fell into place, united behind the single image of a Guy Fawkes mask. "
So here, Alan Moore clearly refers to it as a Guy Fawkes mask.
There is a perfectly good article on Guy Fawkes in Popular culture - use of the masks in protests doesn't really tell us anything about Guy Fawkes the historical person. If it did, I'd expect to see it mentioned in scholarly works on the subject. Most usages of a historical person in films or books do not get coverage in those person's articles - it's just that simple. You need secondary sourcing of some depth to tie these masks into the main Fawkes article. I'm not seeing it. Ealdgyth - Talk15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) My point exactly. The burning of effigies *also* doesn't tell us anything about the historical character of Guy Fawkes either, however it is mentioned. They are both social phenomena connected to Guy Fawkes, and both belong in this article. Just because one is more recent doesn't makes it any less mentionable. In terms of sources, I have quoted Alan Moore himself above discussing the Guy Fawkes mask, and given the reference.Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No. The wearing of V For Vendetta masks as a means of protest is a social phenomonenon. And not connected at all with Guy Fawkes, apart from the fact that the mask they have chosen - that of an anarchist in a comic book/movie - was originally based upon a Guy Fawkes mask. Which Alan Moore specifically refers to as the V For Vendetta mask in this piece for the BBC here. I don't disagree that back in the 1980s Alan Moore David Lloyd drew the character of V wearing a stylised Guy Fawkes mask. I disagree that the mask now used in political protests is a "Guy Fawkes mask" - it is a V mask. Most of those fucking idiots wearing it have never even heard of Guy Fawkes. So yes: Guy Fawkes masks exist, hence a link to Guy Fawkes mask. And no, Guy Fawkes masks are not worn as a means of protest, V masks are. It just happens to be the case that V masks are based on a stylised version of a Guy Fawkes mask. And have no place in this article. Keristrasza (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The key word there is "secondary" - Alan Moore (the creator of the mask, right?) is a primary source for the information. For coverage of it, we need secondary sources that find it compelling enough that it ties directly to GF and is as important or MORE important than the other usages of GF in popular culture throughout the last 400 years since GF died. If we only cover the masks here, we give undue weight to the them in relation to the whole entirety of GF's usage in popular culture for the last 400 years. The burning of effigies has gone on for almost 400 years - that's a significant impact on popular culture. The use of a mask derived from a film derived from a comic book in the last 20 years is much less significant than the effigy usage over 400 years. Treating the mask with the same amount of coverage as the effigies would be recentism. Ealdgyth - Talk16:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with Ealdgyth. I don't think under Wikipedia Guidelines it should be given the same weight as the burning of effigies (clearly a wider phenomena and longstanding tradition). I'm just saying they should both be mentioned, but yes treating the Guy Fawkes mask the same would be recentism. Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It deserves no mention because it is entirely unconnected to Guy Fawkes. A few years ago some people wore a V mask because of a 4Chan meme. It looked cool and funny and edgy. The end. Absolutely sweet-fuck-all to do with Guy Fawkes. Keristrasza (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Keristrasza Apart from the fact that I have posted Alan Moore talking about the mask being tied to Guy Fawkes, you may also want to read this excerpt describing a protest:
LONDON (AP) ” Several hundred protesters wearing masks have gathered outside the British Parliament to mark Guy Fawkes night.
The protesters Monday were supporters of Anonymous, a loosely-organized movement of cyber rebels and activists.
Anonymous draws much of its iconography from the story of Fawkes, and the anti-hero's ghostly white mask is a staple of the online movement's demonstrations.
The date of the latest protest, Nov. 5, coincides with that of Fawkes' failed 1605 gunpowder plot to blow up the House of Lords.
There were fireworks and bonfires throughout much of England to mark the anniversary.
BIESECKER, MICHAEL "Anonymous movement protests on Guy Fawkes night." AP Top News PackageAP NewsMonitor Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 9, 2012).The Associated, Press. 2012.
Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Good grief. Absolutely meaningless space-filler from some ill-informed hack. "Anonymous draws much of its iconography from the story of Fawkes..." WTF? He's clutching at even fewer straws than you are. Keristrasza (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
And this has been now happening for how many years dude? What was that? Just this year. Hey! That's just fantabulous, let's get this rich tradition recorded in the Guy Fawkes page immediately! I mean, dude, this has been firmly established in London for, oh, over a week now! Keristrasza (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure... except that was a localised, specific, anti-Parliament demonstration involving gunpowder, the Palace of Westminster, symbolic blowing up of the Palace and symbolic Guy Fawkes... A specific use of Fawkesian symbolism. They could hardly have dressed as Ronald-freaking-Macdonald and made the same point, could they? Keristrasza (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Keristrasza you said that Alan Moore didn't connect the mask to Guy Fawkes and I've given you a reference where he does. Then you said there was no connection between the protesters and Guy Fawkes and I gave you a reference for that. Then you said that protest was too recent, so I've given you a protest that was older. You are now saying that protest was too specific!. Why am I getting the opinion that what ever I provide is not going to convince you?Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 22:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I said that I know where Alan Moore & David Lloyd got the idea for the mask from. My point is that the mask used in public protests since 2008 is not worn to represent, imitate or commemorate Guy Fawkes, but is based on a 4chan meme and imitation/representation of the character of V. Where was the mask used as a means/symbol of protest in 1982, after it first appeared in v4v? Or 1983? How about the Miners' Strike in 84/85? Did it turn up at the Poll Tax Riots in 1990? No, it didn't appear anywhere. Not in the US, not in Canada, not even in England, the most likely place for it to turn up... Then they released the movie in March 2006. Did this symbol of public protest appear at that year's immigration reform protests? How about the January 27, 2007 anti-war protest? September 15, 2007 anti-war protest? No. It finally popped up in 2008 worn by 4chan outside some religious places. What exactly were they wearing it for? To demonstrate that they were fervent Roman Catholics? That they were monarchists? That they wanted to overthrow the legitimate monarch and install a puppet on the throne? Or was it to show that they were from 4chan, knew the EFG meme, didn't want their faces photographed, and thought V looked cool? Where exactly was Guy Fawkes in all that? It then became the height of protest fashion. Hey, 4chan wore it and it looked cool, let's copy them! Anonymous organised a protest at the Houses of Parliament this year; did they call it Operation Guy Fawkes? Operation Gunpowder Plot? No, they called it Operation Vendetta. By all means, link to Guy Fawkes mask from Guy Fawkes. But what you are proposing is blatant recentism and undue. Keristrasza (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
When someone presents a reliable, high-quality source that includes a significant mention of V for Vendetta or the Guy Fawkes mask, then it will appear in this article. Until that happens, it never will. And if Wikipedia's policies remain unchanged, that, is that. Parrotof Doom00:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No, they are not. They simply don't know much about Fawkes, a trait you obviously share. Malleus's additions, however, appear to come from someone who does understand Fawkes's legacy, and that's why they can stay. Parrotof Doom09:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. In an effort to break this impasse I've added a little bit to address the iconography of Guy Fawkes, and the "usurpation" of his image by postmodern anarchists. MalleusFatuorum01:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully PoD agrees with you. The issue was always about putting V for Vendetta in a proper frame of reference that tells us something about Fawkes's legacy, not just including it as yet another piece of trivia. I think we've done that now with the postmodern anarchist connection, and hopefully we can now put this issue to bed. MalleusFatuorum02:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes hopefully all the people contributing to this discussion agree....so far so good. I think your suggestion much better than lengthy mediation..they are not pretty! Yes I know what you mean about it fitting into the article, other articles have that hodge podge collection of connected facts that would not suit the way this is written. Good work on finding that article too, I had been hunting for something like that, but didn't see that one.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Re: Biased removal of submitted comment!
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As the main problem with the above content (which discusses Guy Fawkes and the Guy Fawkes mask as a symbol of protest) seems to be that it had inadequate references, I have located the references and re inserted the section, with slight modification.
Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"Hanged, drawn, and quartered"
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
"Drawing" refers to the disembowelment that followed partial hanging, not the process of dragging the victim to the gallows, as asserted in the current draft of the article. "Drawing" is what Fawkes sought to avoid by his act of jumping from the gallows to his death. Gilgamesh4 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilgamesh4 (talk • contribs)
I know, I wrote it, and only put other instances in there to present both sides of the argument. Ian Mortimer has it right, if you look at medieval instances of hanging, drawing and quartering, the "drawing" part is the first stage. "Drawn" for treason, "hanged" for homicide, "disembowelled" for sacrilege, "beheaded and quartered" for wishing the king dead. The modern use of HD&Q lists the punishment in order of importance - hanged to kill, drawn to embarrass, quartered to warn others not to do the same. Similar instances may be found in French history. David Cressy, another experienced and knowledgeable historian, also writes that drawing means dragging, not evisceration. Parrotof Doom14:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
As I say, you need a note explaining this interpretation. You might have sais this in reply to the initial query. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Having done a great deal of work on both articles (and other, related articles), I'm afraid that the amount of grief I've received for doing so means that I am entirely unsympathetic to criticisms. I have no interest in adding notes to this article. If people disagree with anything written here, they can do it by presenting reliable sources to support their views. Parrotof Doom18:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps if you took a different attitude, you'd get less grief (or perhaps not). As it is, there are no doubt plenty of RS that would disagree, from the OED down, & sooner or later someone may start using them. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom - Sorry to have upset you - this looks like an interesting difference of opinion between Ian Mortimer, OED and others. Either I caught you on a bad day or your wikipedia work has become a chore, rather than a pleasure. Hope that's not the case.Gilgamesh4 (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
History often gets repeated until people (like Mortimer and Cressy) care enough to investigate the matter properly. In the absence of any contradictory research, theirs is surely the most accurate account, especially since many contemporary records list the execution as "drawn, hanged, embowelled, quartered".
What annoyed me was the fact that you presumed this article's authors hadn't bothered to check their facts, and simply stated your case without any supporting research. Parrotof Doom13:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
My apologies - I'd not intended to be annoying. I've added something to the 'Hanged, drawn and quartered' talk page as that seems to be a better place for "OED vs Mortimer" talk. Looking at the archive talk pages there I can see why you might be a bit fed up with this topic! Gilgamesh4 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On 5 November 1605 Londoners were encouraged to celebrate the King's escape from assassination by lighting bonfires, "always provided that 'this /testimony/ of joy be /carefully/ done without any danger or disorder'".
122.161.232.12 (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Not done: I assume that this is a request to change spelling to modern English spelling of "testimony" and "carefully". No justification has been provided. —KuyaBriBriTalk17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
New Image
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
The image is of low quality and there is already an image present in the section. It is degrading to the rest of the article and clearly does not need to be in the article. Admiral Caius (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It may have slightly grainy quality due to its age, but it does enhance the article by showing an effigy from the 20th century, and provides a better representation of the bonfire preperations than the other image. Note that the file I added was a photo, not a drawing. Flin the flan warrior (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
it's an interesting but poor quality image, which immediately weighs against its inclusion, but more importantly, such an image should be from the UK, nowhere else. Parrotof Doom18:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Per the festively-timed mini edit war just now, we are discussing whether the lead should include reference to the fact that the traditions emanating from Guy Fawkes led to the widely popular colloquialism "guy" meaning "man". Noone is disputing the fact (it is clearly sourced in the article), so the debate is whether it is notable enough for the lead.
For my part, it seems to me that it is quite an achievement in fame or infamy for one to become the eponym for any word, let alone one as popular and fundamental as "guy".
It's certainly noteworthy, which is why the article mentions it, but it pales into insignificance compared to the lasting effects of the Gunpowder Plot and the resulting celebrations of its failure. Parrotof Doom11:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps "pales into insignificance" is not an exaggeration for someone living in England. But for the rest of the English-speaking world, the only remnant in popular culture is the word "guy". It might surprise you to realise that most Americans, Indians, Canadians and Australians do not celebrate, and have not heard of, Guy Fawkes night. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't surprise me at all. But why would someone interested in the meaning of the word "guy", unfamiliar with this subject, come to this page? Surely they'd head to guy, and if they were intrigued, follow the link in that article to Guy Fawkes Night? Parrotof Doom12:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Guy Fawkes actually died from jumping off the scaffold. While being led to his execution, he jumped from the gallows, broke his neck and was killed instantly. Hence, he was never hung, drawn and quartered.
He also was only involved with the Gunpowder Plot because of his knowledge of gunpowder and explosives. It was not his idea.
I read about this in Fraser, Antonia (2005) [1996], The Gunpowder Plot. They tried to keep them alive by hanging them only for a few seconds. If they liked the victim, they would hang him longer and make him unconscious so he wouldn't suffer. They kept doing the drawing and quartering even if he was dead. It was all a symbolic thing, a show for the people. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The short drop method of hanging was used. People sentenced to this method of punishment were strangled to death, their necks weren't snapped as in the long drop. When hanged drawn and quartered, the hanging was designed only to invoke pain and suffering, death was usually denied them at that stage in the punishment. Parrotof Doom20:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The article could do with a bit more explanations. Fraser gives many differences between the deaths of each conspirator. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
PerrysFan - the important thing to know is that Fawkes chose to jump and avoid the full rigors of the sentence - being partially hung, disembowled and then quartered. Your wording does not bring this out at all. Without knowing that he was facing mutilation before death, it makes no sense why he would jump off seconds before being hung. Ealdgyth - Talk01:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, stale though this is, please note that it was not PerrysFan's wording. It was User:Getsmart8699 as part of the article feedback tool. PerrysFan simply posted it to talk. Pedro : Chat 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
While Fawkes was, indeed, quartered he did not die by hanging as indicated in the sidebar of the article as of 3:46 PM 5 November, 2013 (UTC). Fawkes cause of death should probably read "suicide" though he was, of course, jumping to avoid the pain and ignominy of death at the hands of the state. Killfile (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Corbett gives no citation that he was in fact hanged. To the contrary the article clearly sates Fawkes jumped off the scaffolding (in order to avoid a more severe punishment - torture), thus committing suicide. The sidebar should not contradict the article thus cause of death is suicide.Nxxus (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
the article does no such thing. It states "Weakened by torture and aided by the hangman, Fawkes began to climb the ladder to the noose, but either through jumping to his death or climbing too high so the rope was incorrectly set, he managed to avoid the agony of the latter part of his execution by breaking his neck." It does not definitively state he jumped intentionally - and even if he had, his cause of death would have been hanging - i.e. breaking his neck. Suicide is not a "cause" ... at best it's a motivation for the actual cause of death. Ealdgyth - Talk15:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Information on how exactly Fawkes died is vague, hence the sources that discuss his life also tend to be vague. He either jumped from the ladder with no noose, jumped from the ladder with a noose, or was turned off the ladder with the noose set too high. But whatever happened, his cause of death was not suicide, since suicide cannot be a cause of death. He was in the process of being hanged and the hanging is therefore the cause of death, no matter how it arrived. Parrotof Doom16:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
IS THIS A BOGUS CITATION IN THE ARTCLE FOR A BOTTLE OF BOOZE?
Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion
Fawkes gave his name as John Johnson and was first interrogated by members of the King's Privy chamber, where he remained defiant. When asked by one of the lords what he was doing in possession of so much gunpowder, Fawkes answered that his intention was "to blow you Scotch beggars back to your native mountains."[37]
The reference above cites Northcote Parkinson, C. (1976), Gunpowder Treason and Plot, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-77224-4 - on the quotation above it cites p.91-92 and in another place there is a reference to p.74 for the same author and book.
I have that book and I cannot find that quotation or anything like it on the pages cited - or any other pages.
Is this a bogus quotation that has been inserted and then copied all over the Internet? I cannot find any other source for this quotation. Not only that but Scotch is a drink, and Scots are a people. So is this jokester really pulling everyone's chain, because a lot of Internet web cites have copied this nonsense from Wikipedia.
It's not a bogus quotation, and that's exactly as it appears in William Cobbett's A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland (1857). Which predates the Internet by more than 100 years, so I don't think this article can be responsible. EricCorbett16:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Eric! I was looking for a source, so will you please correct the article since it has bogus references in it. I am looking for a precise and exact quotation by source title, author, date of publication and page number. Thank you once again because I could not find it anywhere on the Internet - where did you find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.161.233 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It isn't a bogus citation, it's a missing citation. Here's the relevant edit, made by me. I don't have the Northcote Parkinson book but it appears that at the time I was chopping much of that paragraph down to size, I assumed that the remaining citation (under dispute) covered the all the text therein. Obviously it doesn't, so I think we probably just need to add the relevant citation in it's place. Of course, it may be the case that the Fraser citation now covers the entire paragraph. I shall check. Parrotof Doom22:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Fraser says "Guido even had the ultimate bravado to tell some of the Scots present that his intention had been to blow them back into Scotland: his xenophobia remained unswerving." (page 209). So my suggestion is to find the best source of the original quote and cite it accordingly. Parrotof Doom22:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
First it should be noted that by Wikipedia standards of NPOV, this quotation comes from a writing that is way off the scale and into the red line of POV! It is anti-Protestant and anti-Scot (Scotch) in tone - VERY anti as in a diatribe that brands all Jews as mean or all Moslems as bombers! THAT kind of mean and prejudiced.
Second, it paints Catholics as victims having nothing to do with the attempt to kill James and the Parliamentarians. It admits that the Plotters were Catholics, but that they were justified and pushed over the edge. We keep hearing that same justification today from all sorts of groups.
Third, and most important it attributes this statement about "Scotch beggars" to a "Scotch Lord of the Council" - presumably meaning in context, James' Privy Council in London. But WHO was this person? What is the SOURCE for his statement that this is what Guy Fawkes said this? I read the previous Parkinson source and discovered that the quotation is not in there, and this new source is POV and un-sourced itself!
Obviously this throws into question a LOT of what has been written about this event because what remains is the glorification of a terrorist act every November 5. That is not PC, that is applying the same standards of editing that would to issues involving the IRA; PLO or jihadist groups because according to the new source cited, the author is claiming the SAME justification for Guy Fawkes actions. Yes he was Catholic - but he was pushed into extremism.
Think what that means in the context of the Irish; Jews and Moslems!
"because what remains is the glorification of a terrorist act every November 5" - I don't think you understand why 5 November is commemorated. Nevertheless, authors who have written about the Gunpowder Plot have only a limited amount of evidence to use, and even that evidence has to be viewed with an eye towards cynicism. Some of those authors have referenced the quote we're discussing; if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Parrotof Doom10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I am very aware of the history of celebrations regarding November 5, so let's not make this personal because I have probably more years of life on this Earth, and therefore more years of understanding of this topic that history than you. But be that as it may, my main gripe with Wikipedia is in what you have just stated:
Because only rubbish exists - rubbish will be repeated because original research is forbidden! On a totally different subject I can think of a classic example where rubbish has been republished by Wikipedia for the same reason - or lack of a commonsense reason. But here, in this quotation, is such a biased bit of work that is attributed to a nameless person as to render it nothing short of religious hate by those who believe in PC. I therefore wonder if the person who cited the new book for this source has read the book they are sourcing? I have - much, much more of it since posting my last comment. I suggest you do too and then have a rethink about not only the very biased quotation attributed to Fawkes by a person who is not named (in the book), but I suggest a rethink and a rewrite of the article itself for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.161.233 (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The only rubbish I can see here is coming from you. The reason I used Cobbett as a source was precisely because it's so old, giving the lie to your earlier assertion that this article was the font from which all the rest of the Internet had copied. But as PoD says, many sources give this same quotation. As to your further comments concerning religious hate and so on they're unworthy of reply. EricCorbett12:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Obviously you have not read the book and your reliance upon personal abuse in defense of your views speaks volumes. I succeeded in removing the original bogus source which you admit that your careless editing put there. This second one is anti-Protestant; anti-Semitic and anti-Quaker. If you believe that these are views that Wikipedia can endorse - either Wikipedia should disown you, or you should remain quiet. I thanked you for correcting your earlier mistake, but now you are putting yourself in a box that I do not wish to associate with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.161.233 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you'd do well to consider that many experienced Wikipedia editors are as far from children as your argument is from logic. And I sincerely doubt anyone will take your word over that of Antonia Fraser. If you wish to rewrite this article, feel free. But do it in your own sandbox and when the time comes, ask for input before copying it over. Parrotof Doom15:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see "defense". Just another American clot then. Why not try writing about baseball games or something else you might understand. And where's this supposed admission of mine that I was responsible for this "careless editing"? Do you make a habit of inventing stuff 213.104.161.233? EricCorbett15:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll add that either 213.104.161.233 hasn't actually read the book or he completely misunderstands it, as it's a series of letters, not a polemic against any religion or sect. EricCorbett15:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Eric you are rude! I am British and in Britain and writing on a computer I used in the USA. I have bought the book and I have read the book and the book is a pro-Catholic rant which you would know if you had read it. It is anti-Protestant (all); and anti-Jewish; anti-Quaker and even anti-American and it bases all of the problems on the creation of the Bank of England by Scots under the influence of Jews. You would know this if you had read the book. I read comments on your Talk page and discovered that many others have also found you to be very rude and using your rants to cover up your own immature lack of knowledge. Thank you for admitting your original error and I have no desire to write further on this matter by wasting my time with someone who needs to understand that human beings communicate by friendly conversation and not by soap box ranting that says please look at me because I am an important person. No you are not Eric, you are just an ill-bred and ill-informed human being likely to start a fight with someone. In person I would imagine that you are shunned by most people and find sanctuary online where you can pretend to be a big person - but Eric you know and the world knows that you are a very small person indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.161.233 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
What's up with the personal attacks? Please behave well to each other. Discuss the content, not the editor. This is basic social stuff, I am not even going to link wikipedia's guidelines on civility. And the smears based on nationality? Let's not assume things of people only because of nationality. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting that this anonymous person from Falkirk gets away with these personal attacks, yet I would by now have been blocked for doing the same. Has this troll even been warned yet? EricCorbett00:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Next time you get insulted by him, you should ignore him or reply politely. As opposed to, you know, escalating the smears by calling him "Just another American clot" (whatever that means) because of his spelling. Also: losing your cool, going down to their level, opening yourself to being called uncivil, losing the high moral ground, not leading by example, reporting the uncivility will be fruitless because you also displayed it, losing the argument in the eyes of other editors, moving the focus of the thread away from content, etc. Did I mention being dragged down to their level and getting beaten up by him, and then getting chided for fighting while the other editor gets away calmly? This applies to a lot more places than just wikipedia. Please reflect on this the next time you get insulted online. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It's quite obvious he is another American clot. He pointed out that there was a problem with the article, a missing citation we very quickly fixed. He then went on a silly rant about what he thinks should be in the article, as opposed to what's now written there. But it's obvious he has no intention of acting on my suggestion of re-writing it to suit his preference, so you're left with a gobby little nobody who wants to impress the world with the dictionary he just swallowed whole. I see nothing wrong in pointing that out, as Eric has. Parrotof Doom14:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Let me just add to that if that if 213.104.161.233 has the balls to come down to Manchester I'll be more than happy to knock the shit out of him. EricCorbett00:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: I assume that this is a request to change spelling to modern English spelling of "testimony" and "carefully". No justification has been provided. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
