Jump to content

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Bonfire night is not just an historical event

See Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 4#Bonfire night is not just an historical event

Last night this section was archived by the archiving bot. But as the discussion is not ended I am linking to it. As in my opinion the issue has not been adequately addressed. -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

20:06, 7 May 2011 Malleus Fatuorum (Undid revision 427965597 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk))

MF why did you revert my edit? -- PBS (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the proper place for this discussion is at Talk:Bonfire Night#Edit on 25 March 2011. --Trevj (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Standard appendix

See Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 4#Bonfire night is not just an historical event (which discusses this point in detail).

The Appendix sections were changed from one close to the standard format as used in several guidelines to a non-standard format. For the reasons I have already given I think this article shoudl be modified to use the standard format for the appendix sections.

From the history of the article:

18:05, 2 May 2011 Nikkimaria (make layout consistent with other articles in the topic)

Are you suggesting that we should alter the other articles in the area to match the changes I am proposing? Why do the other articles have to have an effect on this one? -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I am suggesting, however, that since consensus seems to be against you you should drop the stick and walk away. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:CONLIMITED -- PBS (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:FNNR. Now will you please just go away and do something useful, instead of boring everyone to tears? Parrot of Doom 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Consensus has not changed, you are in the minority.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose PBS is indeed in the minority on this page, but that does not mean he is wrong. The comment above by Parrot of Doom, "please just go away and do something useful, instead of boring everyone to tears" does not add anything useful to the discussion, and it also fails to assume good faith. Such personal comments are best avoided. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

PoD you mention WP:FNNR part are you indicating justifies the current layout? -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not PoD, but I'd have to say that "The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity). The title "References" may be inappropriate if the section contains both explanatory notes and citations. Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic: "Sources" may be confused with source code in computer related articles; "Citations" may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; "Bibliography" may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography." doesn't mandate any selection. Rather it mentions possibilities, and points out places where there might be issues - but none of those possible issues is a problem on this article. The current article uses headings that are all perfectly allowable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"explosives not limited to gunpowder"

See Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 4#"explosives not limited to gunpowder"

Last night this section was archived by the archiving bot. But as the discussion is not ended I am linking to it. -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

PoD how is "explosives" more accurate than "barrels of gunpowder"? -- PBS (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

PoD you seem to have reverted the to your preferred version of the text without any explanation on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive problem

Since when did the links in the archive box point to the Gunpowder Plot archives? I could swear that earlier today, I was able to click through to the Guy Fawkes Night archive. Parrot of Doom 15:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot is archiving here but it's not going here. The target archives need to be fixed I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The archiving code is: {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=Talk:Gunpowder Plot/Archive |format=%%i |age=240 |index=yes |maxarchsize=20000 |numberstart=1 |archivebox=yes |box-advert=yes }}
I'm guessing |archiveprefix= should be Guy Fawkes Night/Archive, but I tried that out in preview mode and it didn't change the link. Also, I'm not sure how ClueBot is still getting things right if the code is wrong. Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving was wrong

Checking Special:WhatLinksHere, I found 3 correctly named archive pages for this talk page: Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 1 (up through last October), Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 3 (November to March) and Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 4 (since March). Cluebot's [[1]] link on this talk page seems to be unaware of these pages. Cluebot was still set up to archive to archive pages of Talk:Gunpowder Plot; I've just changed it (I think) to archive to pages in the "Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archives/x" format, where x is a number, per Sandy's request. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice one, and the box seems to work now. --Trevj (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
For me it still points to Gunpowder Plot. Parrot of Doom 07:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... For me, typing "england" into the Archives search box gives this page for 'prefix:Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/'. --Trevj (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes but the box links to Gunpowder Plot. Parrot of Doom 07:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know a great deal about archiving but think it would be completely reasonable to replace the entire discussions at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 4 back here. --Trevj (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There seems to me a fundamental malfunction by ClueBot III. It is indexing User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Guy Fawkes Night with the headers from Talk:Gunpowder Plot. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources relating to Guy Fawkes Night in Australia

As I said at the FAC discussion, I'm depositing here the sources I found relating to Guy Fawkes Night in Australia.

Hopefully those will be of some use, either here or at Bonfire Night. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there was no response here, I've copied the above to Talk:Bonfire Night for consideration there. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving text from this article to Bonfire Night

I notice that Nikkimaria has now begun to move text from this article to Bonfire Night, which until recently was a disambiguation page. It still has that character and is not a page specific to the 5 November event. I do not know whether her motivation is to take another step towards turning this article into the History of Guy Fawkes Night, she may wish to comment, but I disagree with any further attempt to limit the article's scope, especially while it is in the FA assessment process. Parrot of Doom has said elsewhere that he supports including material here on the contemporary event, subject to its being reliably sourced, so it would be helpful to have his views. What are the views of others on this migration of text to the non-specific (or disambiguation) page? Moonraker2 (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bonfire night seems like the best place for most of it.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
(As an aside, Moonraker, if in future you have concerns about my actions you're welcome to raise them with me first). "Begun" is not the correct term: I moved two sentences from the end of the article, and at this point that's all I intend to move. This was in reaction to a comment at the FAC review, which suggested that those two sentences would be better suited to Bonfire Night. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I did not take this up on Nikkimaria's talk page because in my view it is not a private matter between the two of us but needs to be discussed openly here.
Please see Talk:Bonfire Night. The Bonfire Night page is plainly not specific to the English or British tradition of commemorating the Gunpowder Treason, and indeed it still carries out the functions of a disambiguation page, which is exactly what it was until Nikkimaria recently converted it into a strangely mixed-up short article. It is not at all clear to me what J3Mrs means by "it" in "Bonfire night seems like the best place for most of it". If "it" means the contemporary event, then that is a fundamental issue. If those now proposing this GFN article as a FA wish to rid it of the contemporary event and turn it into a history page, then that is not what is being said by Parrot of Doom in the FA review, but it is in line with a suggestion I made here some time ago, that two separate articles would resolve many problems. However, I suggest we discuss the matter again, as Bonfire Night plainly doesn't work as the "home" of the Guy Fawkes Night material in (say) the 21st century. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Queries

  • "On several occasions during the 19th century The Times reported that the tradition was in decline, being "of late years almost forgotten", but in the opinion of historian David Cressy, such reports reflected "other Victorian trends" and not general observance of the Fifth." is rather cryptic. Either it was being observed or not, one would think.

Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cressy was talking about the changes apparent in GFN as it moved from being a chance to engage in anti-Popery, to being a communal family celebration or simply a bit of fun. I'd hoped that this was made apparent by the rest of the paragraph the above quote appears in. Parrot of Doom 18:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Not adequately imo. Bringing in "other Victorian trends" doesn't help. Better spell it out. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok let me have a think about how to do that. It shouldn't take long, I'm just a bit disorganised right now. Parrot of Doom 20:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Better? Parrot of Doom 16:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I still have a bit of a problem. If there was a "decline", it is hard to see how "general observance" was not what declined. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The Times was not reporting that the day was in decline, it was reporting that the anti-Catholic rhetoric was in decline. People still came out and chucked fireworks around, burnt bonfires, and went to church. They just weren't burning popes stuffed with cats any more. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Well that is not at all clear, & goes oddly with "of late years almost forgotten". You start a paragraph in a section called "Guy Fawkes Night" talking about "the tradition" but apparently mean something else. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If you have a suggestion then please offer it. I can't do everything myself, although sometimes it feels as though I'm expected to. Parrot of Doom 19:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
May I make a suggestion? How about "On several occasions during the 19th century The Times reported that the anti-Catholic overtones of the tradition were in decline ...". Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
That isn't strictly true. It's Cressy's assertion that The Times was reporting on that; the newspaper wasn't actually saying in print "nobody is burning popes filled with cats any more". Parrot of Doom 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
How about attributing it directly to Cressy? According to Cressy, "blah blah blah....." Would that work? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Without access to either The Times archive or Cressy I can't really say how to sort it, though if the Times reported at several points that something was in decline, one is inclined to believe it. This maybe adds some info, but not on this point. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in the Lead

Claims that Guy Fawkes Night was a Protestant replacement for older customs like Samhain are disputed, although another old celebration, Halloween, has lately increased in popularity, and according to some writers, may threaten the continued observance of 5 November.

I placed a cite request on this, and the parts I bolded i marked as weasle words. This was reverted per WP: LEAD. however no specific reasoning for that revert is given and in that policy, more specifically in the sub section of that policy WP:LEADCITE it clearly says "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.". I see that there is a citation later in the article which supports some of this, specifically this part " David Underdown, writing in his 1987 work Revel, Riot, and Rebellion, viewed Gunpowder Treason Day as a replacement for Hallowe'en: "just as the early church had taken over many of the pagan feasts, so did Protestants acquire their own rituals, adapting older forms or providing substitutes for them". which is cited by Underdown 1987, p. 70. but this doesnt say Samhain, it says halloween. the part I'm disputing about samhain is mentioned in the body of the article and it is not cited down there either. specifically this sentence Historians have often suggested that Guy Fawkes Day served as a Protestant replacement for the ancient Celtic and Nordic festivals of Samhain, pagan events that the church absorbed and transformed into All Hallow's Eve and All Souls' Day. In The Golden Bough, the Scottish anthropologist James George Frazer suggested that Guy Fawkes Day exemplifies "the recrudescence of old customs in modern shapes". this is not cited. the only cited part is underdown and thats about halloween not samhain. Smitty1337 (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Smitty1337 and support the reinstatement of his cite and weasel words tags. Moonraker (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in this article which isn't cited. There may be some quotes that don't carry cites but that's because the citation that covers them comes almost immediately afterwards, and my preference is not to have a string of 3-4 identical citations in close proximity. The quote from The Golden Bough is covered by Cressy's citation. Parrot of Doom 07:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:Page numbers coupled the opening line of WP: Ref would require you to post the citation to the quote "the recrudescence of old customs in modern shapes" however that wasnt my complaint. My complain is basically that there are a bunch of weasle words used in the lead without citations, and an assertion is made about Samhain which has no citation until much later in the article (if at all). If this assertion is indeed covered by Cressy, and by that I mean the book explicitly uses the word "Samhain" rather then "Old custums" as is the quote, then It needs a page number and book so I can verify this. I'm not asserting that anything is untrue but the citation should be placed on where the statement is first asserted (i.e. the lead) and it should specify the page. As it stands now i dont know where inside Cressy's book to find that quote, so i cant confirm if it uses the word Samhain. And the nearest citation for that is Cressy 69-71 where it would seem the quote disputing it arises saying that 5 Nov being anything but a celebration about James I is "speculative nonsense". Smitty1337 (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
There are many sources suggesting a link between Samhain and Guy Fawkes Night - for example, here. I think the question is whether they are "reliable" in the sense required for this article. Refs are not needed in the lead, as per WP: LEAD and PoD's comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong on just about every count Smitty, very impressive. The Samhain link is cited in the Similarities with other customs section to Underdown (1987) p. 70. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Smitty perhaps you didn't notice but Cressy's work isn't a book, it's a chapter in a book. Trust me, everything in this article that needs citing, is cited. I should know. Parrot of Doom 16:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC:Ambiguous birth date for William?

See boxed comment. Formerip (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Result: An explanatory footnote should be added.

The discussion was evenly split in terms of numbers, with three editors supporting the addition of a footnote and three indicating opposition. One oppose was on the grounds that "It's commonplace for historians to align dates with the modern calendar without comment." I don't believe this is correct. In any case, it appears to misunderstand the situation, which doesn't involve aligning a date with the modern calendar, but instead leaving it in the Old Style (a point which was made to the editor). Another user objected that, since the article doesn't mention anything about William being involved in religious disputes, the existence of the religious disputes was not a reason for a footnote. This only addresses part of the support argument. The third oppose was on the opposite basis to the first - that Julian dates are not normally converted, and so no clarification is needed. However, this is clearly not true in the case of William, because his dob is commonly given in sources as 14 November. So, each of the reasons for opposing has a flaw.

On the other hand, there are two support votes with which I am unable to find fault, plus one "per suchabody" vote.

It seems fairly obvious that stating William's birth date as 4 November, a date which is different from the date contained in many sources, has potential for causing confusion and misunderstanding. So some clarification would be a good idea. The only opinion in the RfC as to the form that should take was in favour of a footnote.

The article gives the birth date of William III of England thus: "William's birthday fell on 4 November..." Considering that William was born in the Netherlands where the Gregorian calendar was in force, but later became King of England (among other places), where the Julian calendar was in force, is it ambiguous to state the birthdate without providing an explanatory note about which calendar the date is stated in? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Support info in footnote: WP:JG says Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582, the British Empire from 14 September 1752, and Russia from 14 February 1918 (see Gregorian calendar).
In this case there are two countries involved:

  1. The country in which he was born (the Netherlands)
  2. The country in which the birthday celebrations described by the article took place (England etc)

So IMO an explanatory footnote would not be out of place. I would not support an in-text explanation, because in my view it would break up the flow of the article.
WP:JG also says If there is a need to mention Old or New Style dates in an article (as in the Glorious Revolution), a footnote should be provided on the first usage, stating whether the New Style refers to a start of year adjustment or to the Gregorian calendar (it can mean either) and the footnote to Glorious Revolution says In this article "New Style" means the start of year is adjusted to 1 January. Events on the European mainland are usually given using the Gregorian calendar, while events in Great Britain and Ireland are usually given using the Julian calendar with the year adjusted to 1 January. Dates with no explicit Julian or Gregorian postscript will be using the same calendar as the last date with an explicit postscript. so in my view that supports the use of a similar footnote here.
HTH.
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous birth date for William?: discussion

I consider it ambiguous to fail to state which calendar a person's birthdate is given in, when the person was born in a jurisdiction that observed one calendar but was most famous for his activities in a different jurisdiction. This is particularly troublesome when the person was involved in a religious dispute, where the persons on one side of the dispute observed a different calendar than the persons on the other side of the dispute. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to see the date given in the Islamic calendar as well? It's commonplace for historians to align dates with the modern calendar without comment. Eric Corbett 19:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the editors did not align William's birth date with the modern calendar, they gave it in the Julian calendar. The comment about the Islamic calendar is irrelevant because William was not born in an Islamic country. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Ambiguous - As per User:Jc3s5h's comment. --JustBerry (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
But the article might well be read in an Islamic country. Eric Corbett 19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Your argument would hold water if the article actually mentioned anything about the religious disputes you suggest William was involved in. It doesn't, and the calendar is therefore irrelevant. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
From the article: "Guy Fawkes Night originates from the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, a failed conspiracy by a group of provincial English Catholics to assassinate the Protestant King James I of England and replace him with a Catholic head of state." And later "In the 1690s [William] re-established Protestant rule in Ireland, and the Fifth, occasionally marked by the ringing of church bells and civic dinners, was consequently eclipsed by his birthday commemorations." Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing in that quote contradicts what I've written. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The calendar in use should be ignored unless there are either: 1. dates for simultaneous or overlapping events using conflicting calendars that therefore require clarification or 2. astrological or astronomical events where the calendar used changes the observation; neither are the case here, The birth date remains the date observed using the calendar in use at that time and place and was not adjusted by the introduction of the Gregorian calendar. There is no need to define the calendar used. Ex nihil (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:JG states "Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582, the British Empire from 14 September 1752, and Russia from 14 February 1918 (see Gregorian calendar)." A person familiar with Wikipedia guidelines will interpret that to mean that since the event in question is William's birth, and the calendar in use at the time and place of William's birth was the Gregorian calendar, his birthdate is stated in the Gregorian calendar. But it is not; it violates WP:JG by being stated in the Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think it is stated in the Julian, I am probably being thick here but I don't see the problem, or I don't see the reference. Ex nihil (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the date is in Julian because I read footnote 1 in William III of England. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, happy I was not quite so thick, that was a little obscure. in which case the date given is correct. The date is the date in that place at that time using the calendar in effect. Julian dates are not retrospectively converted in Wiki or anywhere else. Let it stand as it is. I suspect the calendar issue is a red herring. Ex nihil (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
That's wrong. William was born in the Netherlands. In the calendar in effect at the time and place of his birth, the Gregorian calendar, he was born on 14 November 1650, not 4 November 1650 as falsely stated in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What was the date of birth registered in the births records in his parish at the time? Past dates were never revised when the calendar was changed, they were inviolable. If his birth was recorded as 4 November in either the Gregorian or the Julian on the day, it remains the same in either even if somebody in another country simultaneously recorded his birth under a different date the 4 Nov would stand. However, the calendar in use would be of interest to anybody studying his horoscope because the stars would be in a different alignment, and the ages of everybody who lived through the calendar change was ten days short because it is calculated off the dates; this upset some people at the time who thought that they were to die on a pre-destined calendar date and they were being short-changed ten or eleven days, so by all means note which it was as a footnote. Ex nihil (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2014 (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.

Fixes to citation templates

My recent improvements to the citation templates in this article were reverted in this edit claiming that they were "arbitrary citation changes based on personal preference". Please allow me to explain each edit further:

I hope these explanations are better than what I provided in the edit summaries, and that you'll consider restoring some or all of these changes. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit 1 enforced a date format restriction that had never been agreed to for the Citation style.
Edit 3 messed with the volume parameter without fixing it; it should have been split into volume and issue parameters.
Edit 4 might be an improvement. However, my experience with Infotrac suggests the link contains parameters specific to the subscriber, so is useless. So the citation is still problematic after the fix.
Edit 6 changes Citation to cite news.
Edit 7 changed a wrong template, cite book, to another wrong template, cite news. This article uses the Citation template.
Edit 8 changed Citation to Cite web.
So of eight edits, four were wrong, one failed to make an easy fix, and one failed to make a more difficult fix. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
My main objection is the changing of publisher = guardian.co.uk to work = The Guardian and similar. I don't particularly have any problem with the rest. Parrot of Doom 06:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This article currently uses a mixture of citation templates. I'll be happy to change them all to {{citation}} and implement the changes above. However, if I get some partially right, it would be better if you could help fix it than revert it back to something that is wrong. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I don't think your changes are correct GoingBatty, as now the URLs such as "bbc.co.uk" are now italicised, which looks rather strange. Eric Corbett 23:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting PoD. My view has always been that "guardian.co.uk", for instance, is simply a URL, and that the publisher (or work) is actually the owner of that domain name. Eric Corbett 23:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I suspect there are difference between print and online versions that may introduce a distinction that, over time, may be lost. That's why I use the url rather than the publishing company. Parrot of Doom 08:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This article needs an infobox

This article is in dire need of an infobox. It goes to show that Corbett OWNS this article and that Cassianto stands by with his pitchfork when Corbett is not available. I'm surprised at an admin (Bencherlite) getting involved and going against community consensus. Millions of articles have a infobox and THAT is a consensus. 195.89.48.217 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't own any articles, but then neither do you. Have you explained yet why you believe this article to be in "dire need" of an infobox? Eric Corbett 15:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

An infobox should be used to allow a casual reader to gain facts without having to read the boring text. "Your" article should have one. This needs an infobox!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.48.217 (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like reading the "boring text", perhaps a text-based encyclopedia is not for you, then. Infoboxes have their uses - I have used them on many of the articles that I have started, but not all of them - but yours is among the weakest arguments for an infobox I have seen. Quite obviously there is no "community consensus" for including infoboxes on every article, otherwise the Arbcom infoboxes case would have been decided rather differently. The last discussion relating to this article was here, by the way. Have you got any new points to add apart from a dislike of "boring text"? BencherliteTalk 16:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • So here's how such an infobox might appear, using the infobox holiday template (although 5 November isn't a holiday). Basically it repeats a tiny amount of information already available in the lead. Personally I think it would look stupid, so my vote is still no. Parrot of Doom 17:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Guy Fawkes Night
Festivities in Windsor Castle by Paul Sandby, c. 1776
Observed byUnited Kingdom
SignificanceCommemoration of the failure of the Gunpowder Plot
CelebrationsBonfires, Fireworks
Date5 November
Next time5 November 2025 (2025-11-05)
Frequencyannual
  • I have often thought about putting an infobox here- then realised it was time to rest. Do we have a Infobox for Religious Hatred, or do we have one for Famous miscarriages of Justice or just an Infobox for Hospital admittances for skin grafts? You can forget-Infobox holiday- when I have never been given a day off work? This sickly sweet Disneyfication of 300 years history is not what Wikipedia is about. Please take personal abuse to another page- for instance, you own user page.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous' activities in relation to GFN

Nothing to see. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Forgive me as I don't understand, but why isn't the hacker group Anonymous' recent adoption of GFN, in not just the date, but some of the ideas behind the GFN as well, seen as not relevant to this article? It seems particularly topical and timely here. Is there some particular format I'm not aware of that this content should be in? Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What does that hacker group inform us about Guy Fawkes Night? Eric Corbett
All the informative content is, as one would expect, in the initial and primary parts of the article. I (at least thought) that neutral and well-cited statement(s) explaining how that group has adopted some of the spirit, meaning, and iconography of the holiday was worthy of inclusion on the article discussing that holiday, and fairly uncontroversial as such. Am I wrong about this? I honestly believe that's what our encyclopedic project is all about, but I'm certainly open to being told about any other views that clearly I can't easily see. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It's perfectly reasonable to make that connection in the hacker article, but completely inappropriate here, in an article about the historical celebration. Eric Corbett 01:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies but I'm still having a hard time understanding this. Most other wiki articles regarding a holiday reflect some of the major recent events which in some way involve or regard that holiday. Why should GFN be any different in this regard? Couldn't this content be woven into the 'decline' section (for example) as but one way in which the event isn't being forgotten? Buddy23Lee (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
No mention is warranted in this article. If the issue (a hacker group's activities on a particular date) satisfies WP:N, an article on the issue should be written. Otherwise, add it to an article about the group. There is no reason to take over this article to promote a group. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, well clearly no one is going to explain to me why this article can't reference these citations, other than, well, it just can't. I don't have any agenda in "promoting" this or any group. I was attempting to write the content as neutral as possible and I would welcome a re-writing by any other editor. The idea of making a separate article to address this otherwise one or two lines of content seems a little strange to me. Honestly, at this point it would seem if there is any agenda, it's to keep this article as unchanging and conservative as possible, no matter the cost. I'm shocked to be confronted by what is difficult to see as anything other than the protected interests of elitist editors. I guess I'll go back to the aspects of our shared project which foster more inclusion and sensibleness. Buddy23Lee (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been explained to you. If you find yourself unable to understand those explanations it may perhaps suggest that you really ought not to be messing with a featured article. Eric Corbett 07:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I must be too stupid to use Wikipedia as well, as try as I might, I can't seen any justification for not mentioning them either. Anonymous specifically chose this day to conduct some of their activities precisely because of the supposed shared themes between their modern day "hacktivism" and the original historical activism remembered by this festival. Despite their ironic name, since the hacker group are hardly unknown, and since this connection has been commented on by the news, I see absolutely no good reason for Wikipedia to be pretending to the outside world that no such connection exists - because that's the effect of not mentioning it here. Including it in the hacker article obviously doesn't help inform anyone who didn't already know about it beforehand. The suggestion that mentioning the connection here would amount to a takeover of the article seems quite ridiculous to me. I certainly don't see how mentioning it would be completely inappropriate - that makes it sound like Buddy was proposing to add a flashing banner ad for the group. I already knew about the connection, so not mentioning it hardly inconvenienced me, but others are presumably coming here with the express intent of learning about not just the historical context, but the present day significance, of Guy Fawkes Night. Not mentioning Anonymous therefore is a glaring omission. The purpose of Wikipedia is after all to educate, right? It's a long time since I was at a school, but I doubt if kids today are being put in detention or are being told to shut up for mentioning Anonymous in lessons about Guy Fawkes Night, which no doubt features a lot in the curriculum in the coming week. Indeed, in the context of the supposed decline of Bonfire Night as a remembrance of an extreme act of non-conformist political protest (a claim which appears to be vastly overblown in the article, much like the claims that Brits no longer associate Christmas or Easter with Jesus), it seems highly remiss not to mention what is very good evidence that the link has not been forgotten or marginalised in modern day Britain at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galactic envoy (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Your POV notwithstanding, this article is not about "Annoymous" nor the "date" 5 December. This article is about Guy Fawkes Night, the historical event which takes place on the same day as the modern Anonymous "festivities". The information you and Buddy23Lee are trying to force onto the article is at best a non-important factoid which would be better suited elsewhere. Cassiantotalk 19:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, because putting a couple of lines in the article would make it about the hacker group. What utter nonsense. Dismissing this as an "at best a non-important factoid" is just as much POV as what I wrote. The only difference between us is that I at least took the trouble to base my POV on facts - my POV is based on the media coverage and the clear connection, your POV is based on nothing but the rather pointless observation that the article title Guy Fawkes Night is supposed to be about Guy Fawkes Night. It's pretty obvious that both myself and Buddy already appreciated that fact, no? We just apparently disagree with you about what such a statement means, in the context of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galactic envoy (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
If you'd care to search the archives you'll see that every point you made has been addressed, on many occasions. You're just the latest in a long line of people who can't seem to get it into their heads that a bunch of spotty bedroom-inhabiting 4chan teenagers wearing V for Vendetta masks has nothing to do with 400 years of religious and political turmoil the impact of which groups like Anonymous could only dream of. Parrot of Doom 20:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh what a surprise. It's my fault. It's my lack of intelligence that's to blame. How utterly unsurprising. I have no doubt that if I searched the archives I'd find nothing more persuasive than just more condescending garbage like this. If you had a single good reason why it can't be mentioned in this article, a reason that was based on something a little more thought out than your obvious distaste of the group itself, then you'd have said it (or told me exactly where I could find it, if it's already been said before). Anonymous don't have to dream of anything - whatever your personally think about them, the reality is they chose this date, the media chose to take notice of it. It's already a part of modern history, and so people coming to this article will undoubtedly be losing out if the only thing they learn about GFN's modern context is that it's supposedly been all but forgotten about as far as political activism goes. It's a clear case of lying by omission. Other than allowing people to nakedly pursue their own POV in the way that's obviously been happening on this article for many years, that's about as big a crime as can be committed by a supposed encyclopedia, I would have thought. Galactic envoy (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I can easily think of much greater crimes, can't you? For instance, it's a common mistake to believe that wikilinks have to be symmetrical. But if you think about it, what does information on the Anonymous group tell us about the historical Guy Fawkes Night? And the answer is of course nothing. By all means include a link from the Anonymous article (if there is one) to this one though. Eric Corbett 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Crimes that an encyclopedia can commit? No, not really. There can't be any greater crime for an encyclopedia than to not include something that would otherwise give a reader a complete picture of a topic. It's pretty obvious what readers interested in GFN have to gain by it being here - it would correct the impression given off by this article in its current incomplete state that the significance of GFN as far as acts of extreme political protest goes has been all but forgotten in the modern context, which is obviously false. It's a connection which has already been noted by the media, people who have a thirst for such knowledge can already find it quite easily as it's already a part of modern history. All that remains is for Wikipedia to catch up. Clearly the reason it hasn't yet, has nothing to do with it not being important or relevant, it's simply a case of people who dislike the group itself attempting to control what other people learn from a resource like Wikipedia. Which is ironic, to say the least. And you don't have to be particularly clever to realise that it being mentioned in the Anonymous article doesn't help correct this error of omission one bit, not least because it assumes the reader is already aware of the very thing you'd be seeking to inform them about by including it here, which is an obviously nonsensical position to hold. Not a good look for those who seek to portray others as the people who lack the necessary intellect to grapple with issues like this. Galactic envoy (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I might be turning ever more cynical in my old age, but is it a coincidence that you only arrive here today to back up another editor who has now seemingly disappeared, and whose only contributions are the four made to this article? Just asking. Cassiantotalk 22:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Obviously it's not a coincidence - while looking up the Wikipedia article on GFN (admittedly for reasons entirely unconnected with Anonymous), I saw Buddy being treated like a moron for asking a perfectly valid question, so I decided to chip in and make it clear he's not alone in wondering why the connection with Anonymous cannot be included. It's called being a sympathetic human being - a quality that might very well be lacking in an old cynic like yourself. If that conversation hadn't already been here, or had obviously taken place a long time ago, I probably wouldn't have even gotten involved. His disappearance, if an absence of a day can even be called that, is hardly a mystery - he clearly got fed up being stonewalled, so he decided to move on. I mean, he said as much in his last message - did he not? I was considering whether or not I should message him that I had taken up the baton on his behalf, but I don't know if he'd appreciate being dragged back into it. Galactic envoy (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not relevant to include anything about this political group within this article; it seems to me to be purely trivia. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Obviously people disagree. And presumably they're going to keep disagreeing, unless or until someone puts some actual meat on these very skinny bones of objection. The undeniable truth is that the whole Anonymous-V for Vendetta-Guy Fawkes relationship has been the subject of highly detailed articles like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16968689, which clearly take it well beyond the arena of the trivial. Trivia is stuff like what a random celebrity had for breakfast on a Tuesday. Trivia is clearly not the sort of thing that is being talked about here - noting the resonance of a hundreds years old remembrance of a political uprising in the modern day context. Especially not when the motive for doing so is so clearly distaste of the group itself. Wikipedia cannot keep pretending this is irrelevant to articles like GFN, not if it wants to retain the title of an encyclopedia. By all means come up with a good reason not to mention it, but trivia is clearly not one. Galactic envoy (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
He was not being treated like a moron and I find your assertion that he was being treated like one false and improper. Also, I take my hypothetical hat off to you for being so magnanimous in "taking over his baton", but might I suggest you hand it back to him? I suggest you lay off the wine on Guy Fawkes Night as fireworks and alcohol don't mix too well. Cassiantotalk 23:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Really? Phrases like "If you find yourself unable to understand those explanations" seem pretty clear to me - the intent was obviously to inform him he's too stupid to be even discussing these issues so why doesn't he just go away? This was after he'd taken the time to put his concerns over in a very detailed and specific manner. He got nothing in response to those except the run-around. Example - he was told including it here wasn't appropriate - he gave a very detailed reply to that as to why he thought it was - the person who made that comment then completely ignored him (but found the time to repeat his points to me, as if somehow I hand't already read them above). The only reply Buddy got to detailed messages like that about how it was appropriate, was from someone who tried to claim that what he was proposing would amount to a take over of the article to promote Anonymous, which is obviously total rubbish. I have similarly been given the run-around, and have also had my intelligence questioned. The takeover reply was as ridiculous as your claim that it would make the article about Anonymous. And now you're trying to claim I'm drunk too. Maybe it should be me who should be asking the questions as to how many people I am actually talking to here, since you all appear to be working from the same script, which appears to have a number of options on it, except the one that says answer the actual questions being asked. Galactic envoy (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Your question has already been answered, several times. Obviously you don't like the answer, but c'est la vie. Eric Corbett 23:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Really? Remind me then - what was the answer to the question - how is the information trivial? Or - how is it irrelevant to GFN? Or - why would a reader not be losing out by not reading it here? Or - how is the article balanced without mentioning it? Or indeed, since you seem to have difficulty with this one in particular, why would the fact it was mentioned in the Anonymous article mitigate the error in not mentioning it here? I mean, colour me stupid, and I'm sure you will, but I see no answer to any of those questions, so I can hardly be accused of simply not liking the answers. Other earlier questions were answered, after a fashion, and yes, due to their inherent nonsense (such as the takeover claim), it's fair to say I didn't like them. Neither did Buddy. No shame in that. As I said, nobody likes being given the run-around, or being treated like an idiot. Yet you persist. C'est la vie indeed. Galactic envoy (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Galactic envoy, I assumed you were drunk as your musings that BuddyLee was being "treated like a moron" and your deluded acknowledgement that you had "taken up the baton on his behalf", was that of someone who was either trolling to trigger an arguement, or a result of someone having too much of the good stuff on the run up to Bonfire night. I don't believe you are a troll (yet) so I innocently put it down to the latter. The reluctance to accept our responses here is, I feel, indicative of someone who cannot accept the consensus and is continuing, simply, because they don't like it.. Cassiantotalk 00:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh right, so, you accusing me of being drunk isn't trolling, but me asking you to explain how your POV is better than my alleged POV is? How does that work then? I don't accept the consensus, because I don't accept there has been any good faith discussion going on here at all. It has been a discussion conducted apparently on the basis that anyone who thinks this material should go in, is simply an idiot, and their failure to understand the reasons why it shouldn't, is a failure in their own intelligence, and not in the other persons inability to give good reasons. Given that, what answers have been given, have been largely trolling in of themselves in my opinion, given the propensity to ignore large tracts of our questions, or answer questions that weren't asked, or answer alleged POV with just more POV (such as the trivia/irrelevant claims as well as your own answer), or frame answers in a way that is just patently ridiculous - such as the claim that it would amount to a takeover or an advert. Galactic envoy (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I haven't used any POV. Your failure to grasp the facts in this thread, despite the reasons being given, is a flag for me to bite my tongue and walk away. Cassiantotalk 00:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Unbelievable. You don't see the inherent POV in a statement like "The information you and Buddy23Lee are trying to force onto the article is at best a non-important factoid which would be better suited elsewhere."? I can grasp the reasons why you object to this material being included well enough, but where the facts to support them might be found, I confess I haven't a clue. But of course, yet again, you attempt to frame this failure as our fault. Stupid us. Our failure to see the inherent truth in a declaration like "non-important factoid" is of course entirely our fault. Your failure to appreciate that we read and responded to such views with statements of our own, which actually included facts such as the media's view that it has non-trivial relevance to the modern day context of GFN, which this article clearly deals with (while missing out this important aspect of it), is of course entirely our fault as well. Stupid stupid us. What fools we are. Change the record, please. Just be honest - you don't want it mentioned because it's you yourselves who don't like it, or rather, you don't like the group. Galactic envoy (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Protection?

Please discuss protection policy on an administrative noticeboard. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can I ask why this article appears to have been preemptively protected? I was under the impression that protection is only supposed to be deployed as a response to current/persistent vandalism. It doesn't appear to have been vandalised at all for the 24 hours before it was protected, and before that it was only being vandalised by one apparently static IP. That's clearly a situation easily dealt with without resorting to protection at all, but if you really must put a barrier in the way of people trying to improve articles like this at the very time of year when they will be reading it and noticing the things about it which are deficient, then the least you could do is make the barrier to editing the same as the barrier to creating articles - namely to create an account. I find myself in the utterly perverse position today of being allowed to write an entire article based on something I read in here but which wasn't linked (the Firework Code), which I sadly can't do as an IP but I can do once forced to create an account, yet I then found I'm not even able to hyperlink to it, let alone add/change some of the information here which appears to be out of date or misleading (based on what I've found while researching the code) because of this protection. And yes, while I fully appreciate it's a trivial task to ask someone to link it using this talk page, it's not so trivial to perform the second using intermediaries. Firework bob (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is consistently vandalized every year. You can see in the protection log that it ends up getting protected almost every time. You could ask at WP:AN to have someone give you the autoconfirmed flag which would let you edit, but I don't know if that will get you anywhere. In the mean time, you can use the {{edit semi-protected}} template to make specific requests. However, since there is no deadline - just waiting the 10 days and making the edits yourself is also an option. (Yes, the info would not be in for this year's event. Thats unlikely to be a big deal for something that happened 400+ years ago - the world wont end if the info isn't here for one more year) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know either. And I object to having to ask when there is clearly no need, yet. This is like asking people to wait to edit Christmas until January. Even if the vandalism is consistent, then where's the harm in waiting until it actually starts? That is the policy, after all. Have you not even considered that one of the aims of vandals is to disrupt Wikipedia? What better reward for a vandal than to make Wikipedia inaccessible to people who want to improve it, without them even having to lift a finger? I seriously doubt if I'm going to care about this even beyond tonight, let alone in 10 days time. I only even thought about it tonight precisely because it's that time of year, just like I'll probably find something to improve over at Christmas in a couple of months time. The world won't end, no, but people definitely think less of Wikipedia if articles are out of date or don't even exist. I couldn't believe it when I saw that in 2014 Wikipedia still didn't even have an article on the Firework Code, even though it's been a commonplace aspect of Fireworks Night since the early 1970s. Firework bob (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Similar to WP:TFA, it is a fact that an article which holds some significance on a certain date is more prone to being vandalised. In my experience, for or every one good edit, there are at least ten non-constructive edits, so it's a good move by Drmies to protect this article at this time of year. Those wishing to make improvements (not possible here IMO seeing as it's featured) will, I'm sure, be happy to wait until the protection is taken off in a week's time. Those who wanted to vandalise it will, by then, have forgotten to vandalise it and will be off ruining something else. Cassiantotalk 21:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it can be improved based on what I've found out tonight regarding firework safety in the UK. As for 10 vandal edits for one good edit, looking at the actual evidence such as the entire 24 hours before this protection, the record is 0 vandal edits and 1 improvement prevented so far (I'm assuming you at least accept that hyperlinking a newly created article is an improvement). I doubt anyone except vandals are happy with stats like that. Having now looked, this definitely goes against the actual protection policy on English Wikipedia - click the padlock, there's not thing there which justifies it. It's actually explicit that it's not a good move - "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred". That seems to me to fit the situation here. There's no caveat for predictable vandalism that I can see, or anything about anniversaries or Feature Articles. Firework bob (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
What on earth does "firework safety in the UK" have to do with this article? Cassiantotalk 22:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hyperlink Firework Code please. Firework bob (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. A total waste of your time and mine, clearly, but thank you, nonetheless. Firework bob (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Drmies Would PC be a viable option here rather than semi? That would let editors such as bob make some efforts without impacting the site for general readership, and its easy to approve/reject the changes. Then we could move up to semi if/when the actual vandals come and play? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Gaijin, I am not the biggest fan of PC. I am just concerned with these few days, after which protection will expire. If another admin wants to change semi to PC, I got no quarrel with that. And I do not believe that such requests are a total waste of time, but that's just me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what PC is, but somehow I doubt it would be easy at all - it's taken over an hour just to get a hyperlink added (and I cannot believe I actually had to make it a specific request before it was done). Now apparently I have to find another noticeboard because somehow me complaining here that the preemptive protection on this article was preventing me from improving the article, is somehow not related in any way to improving this article? It would probably be quicker for me to just write an accurate and up to date Fireworks in the United Kingdom article (another article which I can't believe doesn't even exist in 2014 - although its likely content is at least duplicated in places) and just ask for another hyperlink from here. Firework bob (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • As was explained before, this is an article with a long history of vandalism just around this date. In addition, it's a Featured Article, which means it's really good and we like to keep it that way. So I apologize for this minor inconvenience, but that's the way it is. It will take you three minutes to post a notice at WP:AN, and not much longer to get an answer. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I was already drafting a complaint at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, now filed, and it took a damn sight longer than 3 minutes. I know exactly what was explained before, I was hoping that instead of it being repeated by you, you would actually answer the points I raised about the policy. As you will see there, I've mentioned all the pertinent facts, again. But thanks for dismissing all this as a minor inconvenience. I'm so glad my time is of such little importance to you. It took me less time to research and write the whole Firework Code article than it has to deal with this, and I sense I'm not even half way through it yet. Firework bob (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

GFN in Ireland

I see someone else is trying to tell us that GFN is not celebrated in Ireland[2]. Perhaps they should see this and also the leaflet produced by the Orange Order about bonfires at [3]. Richerman (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely why I reverted them. The text they were removing was even backed up by a reliable source. Still, they might assume that their POV overrides everything else, which of course it doesn't. Cassiantotalk 14:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I was aware of that but I thought some easily found online references on this page would be something we could point to in the future when we get this problem again - which we surely will. Richerman (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice idea! Cassiantotalk 15:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guy_Fawkes_Night/Archive_5&oldid=1171579519"