Jump to content

Talk:Gunpowder Plot in popular culture

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

From Guy Fawkes to Guy Fawkes Masks

[edit]

I think it's worth nothing that there are the distinctions that I've seen across entries round and about Guy Fawkes. Some distinctions:

  • There's the actual man Guy Fawkes... born, grew up, lived, did stuff, died,...
  • the Gunpowder Plot that he was part of,
  • the resulting historical (!) legacy of, say, burning effigies of him, shooting off fireworks, changing to effigies of other people, etc.
  • depictions of, or allusions to, him-as-Plotter in popular (!) culture, such as: Ainsworth's (once-)popular novel, but also such as...
  • the story V for Vendetta,
  • the movie version of that story,
  • the character named "V" in the story (before there was a movie showing him), who admires/etc Fawkes-as-Plotter, and...
  • V's wearing of the Guy Fawkes mask in the story (before there was a movie showing this)
  • In the story, other characters who wear the Guy Fawkes mask in support of some of the ideas of V (in their same story) and why/when they do this
  • In real life, the practice of wearing of the Guy Fawkes mask, as an allusion to (the spirit of) the character V— either directly him, or imitating the people in the story wearing the mask too, and those characters' reasons
  • Real-life instances with who/what/where/why people having the mask on (e.g., at some particular event with a particular purpose, and maybe or maybe not claiming a relationship with Anonymous, about Scientology, etc)

I don't think anybody is short-cutting this and wearing a Guy Fawkes mask only from having seen a not-popular-culture description of him as a Plotter, with no thought or exposure to popular depictions, much less specifically the V for Vendetta story and so on. I think real-life wearing of the mask is going thru all the steps, which are each distinct, and distinctions. (Yes, there's a lot of steps— it started four centuries ago and never stood still! And man oh man, I feel like James Burke, walking thru this historical progression.)

Folks, I didn't create this ontological minefield, and I'm not sure I've got it right in and of itself, much less how it lines up to actual Wikipedia entries and their sections and "See Also"s and page-redirects— whether at the moment I'm writing this, much less at the moment you're reading this. So, in short, you can talk, and you can ask, but it's beyond me to do anything but write this here squib.

I'm just saying that if you're looking for some information, be prepared to jump around across entries looking for "See also:"s, so get on your spelunking+dowsing gear, and prepare for a lot of "open in new tab" clicks.

The sheer number of steps in the above sequence is just an extreme case, as ontologies across Wikipedia entries go, but still, this happpens. Also (moving from just reading this SO-complicated Wikipedia stuff, to adding to it), if you cook up some good content but put it in a judged-wrong place, it will make someone guarding that place toss it into oblivion, with only the chance of them suggesting where it should be instead. (If that happens, put what you wrote in a different place. Oh, you guys are keeping a local copy of what you've done right before you hit Save, aren't you?)

Worse yet, say you've put effort into a two or three nice snappy paragraphs, and you go to insert that where you meant it to fill a gap you saw in coverage of the topic... but... hm, maybe that's not quite the right place... so you look over here and DAMMIT, you see that someone has already written, probably years ago, ten richly footnoted paragraphs which already cover basically every piece of information in what you wrote and much more; and now you just plain feel bad. So don't let that happen to you.

Happy reading, happy writing, and stay cool. Also: don't blow up buildings.

Your pal, Sean M. Burke (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly, I agree. Given that Guy Fawkes mask redirects to this article, I suggest that someone needs to put together a section collating the information on the origins of the mask (from V for Vendetta, obviously), with appropriate sources and links. There is a danger that readers will be moved from article to article without actually getting the information they seek (or, getting different information from different articles). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People used Guy Fawkes masks in Guy Fawkes Night, well before V for Vendetta was ever written. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure - it's the modern use in the street protests that needs to be linked in more to this article. Here, here and here are some sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a (hurried) attempt to expand that section, based on those sources, and added a sentence or two to the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a child (late 1960s, early 1970s) we used to be able to buy cardboard Guy Fawkes masks in the run up to Bonfire Night. These were similar to the 'V for Vendetta' masks but were made of pressed 'egg carton' type cardboard and, as I recall, came in bright orange (possibly also red, yellow and green) with black print. I think these masks were produced by fireworks makers such as Brocks or Standard. These masks were used for making Guys rather than being worn by people. They would have been too small for an adult to wear. The 'V for Vendetta' style of mask is hardly an original design. An example of an earlier commercial Guy Fawkes mask can be seen here. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange sentence

[edit]

There's a sentence in the article that is completely meaningless to me, and unreferenced: "An example of a fictional imageboard reference is the character known as Epic Fail Guy, a hapless and unlucky stick figure with a Guy Fawkes mask who commonly falls into various misadventures (akin to Ziggy)." Does that sentence mean anything to anyone, or can it just be deleted? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's meaningless to me as well, get rid of it. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus! Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ziggy Sobotka most likely. Parrot of Doom 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename

[edit]

I propose Gunpowder Plot in popular culture should be renamed "Guy Fawkes in popular culture" since the existing article includes information that has nothing to do with gunpowder, such as:

  • In Theater and film – explores the dangers of telling the truth in difficult times
  • Guy Fawkes Night
  • Guy Fawkes mask
  • Video games – a man who died for what he believed in
  • Geographical features – a river
  • Polls – 50 greatest people from Yorkshire and BBC's 100 Greatest Britons

USchick (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more reason for renaming: the popular celebration is called "Guy Fawkes Day", not "Gunpowder Plot Day". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a renaming. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that as part of a general sorting out of just what in the hell this article is about. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 04:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's about keeping all the trivia crap out of the Guy Fawkes article, a pail closet if you will. Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we must all ensure that the pure and untainted perfection of the most excellent Guy Fawkes and "History of GFN" articles are protected. We are not worthy, etc etc... Some of the "trivia crap" here is the collection of popular verses, which do tend to refer to the plot more than Fawkes. Would there be any support for keeping that stuff here, and moving the specifically Fawkes stuff into a "GF in popular culture" article, or is that unnecessary overkill? Alternatively, the verses (or most of them) could be transferred to Wikisource. I don't have any experience in doing that, and it would be better if someone who knows what they are doing takes that step, if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For me, you may put your popular culture crap wherever you please so long as it's not in the Guy Fawkes article. Others can fight their own battles against the invasion of the kiddies. Malleus Fatuorum 09:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't for "popular culture crap" over the centuries, would any of us have ever heard of Guy Fawkes? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Next question? Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to elaborate on why we would have heard of him? USchick (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that you're (presumably) aware of John Wilkes Booth; Fawkes attempted to assassinate a head of state. Further, the failed plot of which he was a part resulted in English Catholics being discriminated against for 200 years or so ... but surely you would know all this if you'd actually read the article? Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of people in history who attempted to assassinate heads of state, and yet, their names are completely unknown. A brief list is here. In addition, every group can claim discrimination in one way or another. So again, what would be the reason to remember him? USchick (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assassinating, or attempting to assassinate heads of state, is a rather common US experience, but rather less so an English one. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia search for "attempted assassination" came up with 13,885 articles, so apparently it's not as unusual as one may think. USchick (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now find articles about attempted assassinations which came in the midst of significant political and religious turmoil including the torture and execution of Catholic priests, invasions from Catholic countries, and excommunicated monarchs. Parrot of Doom 14:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. And since you seem to have a need to have the last word, I will oblige and end this discussion. USchick (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Official proposal to rename this article.

What's most relevant here is that, in popular culture, he is the only conspirator remembered by name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The gunpowder plot is a more inclusive name.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. The section on Milton, in particular, is about the legacy of the plot, is properly sourced, and I can't understand why it isn't included in the Gunpowder Plot article, under Aftermath. If it were moved out of this article - and if the local verses were moved to Wikisource - what would remain here are various items which, essentially, deal with the developing character of Guy Fawkes, as a hero or anti-hero. That would form the basis of a reasonable article on "Guy Fawkes in popular culture". It would link to the Guy Fawkes Night article - where there are some references to the emergence of the character as the chief villain - and it would cover the emergence of the "Guy Fawkes mask", which is certainly notable. This article at the moment is a fairly incoherent mishmash of unconnected material (or "pail closet"), and some of the more trivial trivia can be jettisoned, but the article could be improved if the non-Guy Fawkes material was moved out of the way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy the Milton para over there, to see what people think. Obviously if others agree it can be removed from here. The other paras here (Ainsworth and later) are more "pop culture", so can be knitted in to a "GF in popular culture" article here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any comment on my suggestion? That is, to move the Plot parts of this article elsewhere, and so allow this article to focus on the character of "Fawkes" as perceived in later popular culture. Demaray details now added to GP bibliography. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving it to Gunpowder plot in a section "In popular culture"? USchick (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. There will be no "In popular culture" section in Guy Fawkes. That, after all, was the point of creating this article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relax Malleus! The suggestion is for the article Gunpowder plot to have a new section to move Plot parts of this article. USchick (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that suggestion - that article would no more benefit from an "In pop culture" section than would Guy Fawkes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion by USchick to create a new section at Gunpowder Plot is not one that I'd support (at least at present) - the Milton para has already been copied to the "Aftermath" section there, where it has now been suitably edited - so, if that is generally supported, it can be taken out of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if a summary of those sources could be drafted, so that we can see what you think it would say. A quick look suggests that it's unlikely to be part of "popular" culture, more a parallel to the text on Milton. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. There needs to be a defining line, somewhere, between what is the "aftermath" of the plot, and suitable for inclusion at Gunpowder Plot; and what is the impact of the plot - and, specifically, the identification of Fawkes as the anti-hero character - on "popular culture" more generally and over a longer period. To my mind, the dividing line is between the C17 literary aftermath of Milton, Jonson etc., on one side of that line, and the C19 caricaturing of the Fawkes character in Ainsworth on the "popular culture" side of the line. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's common practice to develop a section over time in a parent article that later spins off into a separate article. There is no Wiki policy against "ever having a section" on any specific page, and claiming otherwise is extremely unreasonable. USchick (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Common practise" is a sea of mediocrity drowning out quality. This is what the Gunpowder Plot article looked like when produced by common practise, so let's not pretend that the average is the ideal. Editors genuinely interested in improving the article should be asking what is the best practise rather than what is common or third-rate. Nev1 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, do tell us - what would be best practice in this case? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Seeing as how use of the Guy Fawkes mask in celebrations predates fictional (popular culture) depictions (which mainly seem to be V for Vendetta anyway)... and current use of the mask in political protests, while inspired by V for Vendetta, has clearly transcended mere popularity to actually expressing some sort of political statements... it seems clear that the popular culture content and the masks in protests content need go their separate ways. "A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having." Or, to quote a far different V: " The Visitors are not our friends! They've come to rape our planet and kill us! They are NOT who they appear to be!". Hmmm... that doesn't sound right... oh well, as long as I don't get burned in effigy. --Marcinjeske (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with that move. Sadly, this article is unlikely to progress beyond what others have called "common or third rate". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Marcinjeske. USchick (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dickens' Martin Chuzzlewit

[edit]

Much of the first chapter of Charles Dickens' Martin Chuzzlewit is devoted to arguing that Guy Fawkes was a sort of patriarch of the Chuzzlewit family. Does such a reference belong somewhere on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.197.169 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target

[edit]

The target was not "the king and the entire Protestant aristocracy and nobility". The explosion would have killed all peers (many of whom were catholic), i.e. nobility, along with the House of Commons. The explosion was to occur during the state opening of Parliament.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified it, per wording drawn from the main Gunpowder Plot article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gunpowder Plot in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gunpowder_Plot_in_popular_culture&oldid=1207486349"