Talk:Guy Fawkes Night

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Guy Fawkes Night is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 26, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
January 28, 2011 Featured topic candidate Promoted
June 9, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject England (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
WikiProject Holidays  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


To add Parkin to the See Also section. Parkin, like Bonfire toffee, is almost exclusively consumed as part of the Guy Fawkes festivities - and thus relevant to the article. I've tried to add it but other users have removed it. Cantab12 (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it's relevant to the article? Eric Corbett 23:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
In northern England, eating Parkin is part of the Guy Fawkes Night festivities [1][2][3] Cantab12 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Cantab12, I refer you to my earlier statement that in the UK, in general, beer and hotdogs is also a favoured delicacy with many consuming these during firework displays up and down the country. Maybe we should also add that too? If not, why should we add something only northerners eat? What makes this relevant to this article? Cassiantotalk 22:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The point that Cantab12 is making is that according to the Wikipedia article on Parkin, Parking is primarily eaten as part of Guy Fawkes Night celebrations. Beer and hotdogs are consumed at other events as well, and in parts of London the consumption of beer at public Guy Fawkes Night celebrations is banned (obviously news to you) -- for example Southwark advertise their event with the Conditions of entry "No Fireworks, No Alcohol, No Dogs, No Bikes, No Glass, No Weapons".[1] -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This all goes back to previous discussions - see the archives - on the relationship between this article and the separate one on Bonfire Night - in which parkin is mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks PBS for the patronising "news to you" remark, but you are missing the point. What makes this important enough for it to be included in this article? At the end of the day, this is just a type of food and I don't see it as an integral part of the article. Cassiantotalk 16:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It was not intended as a patronising statement, but thanks for the thanks. You write "I don't see it as an integral part of the article", that is the reason for adding it to "see also" section of the article per the guideline WP:SEEALSO "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". This is not a comprehensive article as it need further development to include the history in of the celebrations in other countries, and a comprehensive section on the modern celebration around the globe. -- PBS (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, It must've been comprehensive enough for it have gained a supporting consensus at FAC; coincidentally, I see that you pooh-poohed the article there too, so maybe you have an axe to grind. IMHO, it is not good to overload the "see also" section with factoids. We have to draw the line somewhere. Cassiantotalk 19:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The initial FAC request was made when the page was not stable (have look at the edit process in the months leading up to the FAC review). Wikipedia:Featured article criteria explicitly states "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day". That is a fact, whether the other criteria (including completeness) were met is a matter of opinion. "We have to draw the line somewhere." what are you objective criteria for where that line should be drawn? -- PBS (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Here looks like a good place to start. If we don't, and like PoD predicts, in a few weeks, we will have "Music Played on Guy Fawkes Night"; "Clothing Worn on Guy Fawkes Night"; and, "Things to Burn on Bonfires during Guy Fawkes Night". Cassiantotalk 05:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Cooked every year in our family since at least 1950
@User:Cassianto. Its a pity you raised this the 7th November, as you would have been most welcome to have joined me on the 3th, and could have seen me making 7lbs of Lancashire Parkin in preparation for the Guy Fawkes celebratiuons on the 5th. You would have noticed that I was using a traditional recipe dating back to before 1917, sourced in Ashton-upon-Mersey, Sale. My mother was given this recipe in 1950 when it cost under a shilling to make. There is only one certainty about Guy Fawkes night and that is Parkin- we all knew there was something fishy about burning Catholics and it was probably wrong. According to our tradition, Parkin couldn't be eaten before Guy Fawkes night and was never cooked after the Christmas cake had been started. Yes, I am eating a slice now. Come on over.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds nice, however this still doesn't answer my question: why should this piece of trivial information be included in the "see also" section? Cassiantotalk 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This article includes Social history following the era of events (ie. not purely a date-to-date focus) but criteria for inclusion between this and Bonfire Night seems oddly arbitrary. This relates to post-events social history, and has an article, reputable sources, so why not include it in some form? AnonNep (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I'll ever understand why people want to add every single trivial little detail to an article. It smacks of a lack of editorial sense. You add parkin and in a few months someone will come along complaining that the article doesn't include baked potatoes, or flapjacks. Parrot of Doom 20:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I'll ever understand why some people equate WP:FA with the sum total of all knowledge on any given subject. AnonNep (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Nobody does, but a line in the sand needs to be drawn against the ever increasing tendency to add trivia to every single article. Eric Corbett 21:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
WP does, understandably, have policies against adding trivia. But given that every stub begins that way (hopefully sourced, but often out of context, facts) the question is what constitutes trivia in a given article? I don't see anything in the WP:FA process, which seems to encourage summarising selected books/articles, that determines some definitive end point of article development. Except, of course, for those who pride themselves on their skill at extensively summarising the work of others - they certainly wouldn't want any anyone suggesting they'd missed anything in their heavy reliance on a narrow range of sources. AnonNep (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Stubs do not begin as trivia, they begin as short articles on a topic of some significance. And if you were to ask me what food I associate with Guy Fawkes Night it would be hot dogs. Eric Corbett 21:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Stubs aren't trivia within the world of Wikipedia, but within the world of broader knowledge on that subject those few lines most likely would be seen as trivia. Equally, what passes for a 'Featured Article' within the world of Wikipedia is clearly not the sum of all knowledge on that subject, and when additions with WP:RS appear they should be added in some form. That is, if, what we're aiming at is the sum of all knowledge. If we're about backing up the WP:FA process then no additions should be allowed, ever. AnonNep (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You have to take that "sum of all human knowledge" mantra with a large pinch of salt. For instance, I know what I had for breakfast this morning, and I know the name of my first cat. That's knowledge, but it's not encyclopedic knowledge as we know it Jim. Eric Corbett 22:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Equally, the point of WP:RS is to allow reputably sourced knowledge (are there any sources for what you had for breakfast, or your first cat?) to be added with due weight. Not for selected summarised sources to be used as the reason to block even a single, piddling, mention of anything with WP:RS. Even in those articles that are classed as worshiped and saintly FAs.
"The sum of all human knowledge" makes no mention of reliably sourced knowledge does it? Eric Corbett 22:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, but WP:FA doesn't quarantine an article from additions either. AnonNep (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

By "additions" you mean trivia such as this? If it were up to me, I would lock all FA's. Then, for those wishing to add further "improvements", a consensus would need to be sought on the talk page. As far as I'm concerned, there is not enough protection for featured articles; but anyway, I digress. Cassiantotalk 17:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You are stepping on hallowed ground here. I can follow your jihad to remove trivia from the sacred text- but to describe 'Parkin and Treacle toffee' from a Parkin Night (as I am told November the 5th is called in Leeds), is using the wrong example. Would you call 'the mass wafer and communion wine' trivia in an article about Days of Holy Obligation? If you never experienced Parkin round the bonfire you missed the whole point of November 5th and had a deprived childhood- which have probably caused deep psychological problems. It would be therapeutic if you could take the Parkin article up to a GA- it is lacking.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
If your definition of perfection is Wikipedia featured article status then locking down FAs is probably the way to go. AnonNep (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
ClemRutter, to assume one had a "deprived childhood" with resulting "deep psychological problems", based on the fact that one didn't have a bit of cake as a kid is frankly moronic. Secondly, wine and bread is pertinent to Christ and the Holy day of obligation as it forms part of the story, so I don't see your point. This cake stuff you keep boring everyone has little relevance with GFN, other than the fact that some folk up north eat it while watching a few fireworks. AnonNep, there is no such thing as "perfection" and there is always room for improvement. All I'm suggesting is that taking things to the talk page on a FA would save a shed load of hassle, warring and trivial POV pushing like this. Cassiantotalk 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a brit, but assuming the Parkin_(cake) article itself is accurate, it does seem sufficiently related to GFN to me to warrant a See Also (but probably not a body mention, unless a general traditions area is started) As an outsider, it seems right on par with Bonfire toffee. There appear to be a number of RS making the association. Since Fawkes himself is from York, Yorkshire/Northern traditions do seem more appropriate. [2] [3] [4] [5] including a number of books on British traditions and history (IE not coming at it from only a food trivia angle) [6][7][8] [9][10][11] Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto you wrote "This cake stuff you keep boring everyone has little relevance with GFN", Not everyone, as I do not find it boring. You say it is trivia, but that is your opinion not a fact. Like Gaijin42 I think "it does seem sufficiently related to GFN ... to warrant a See Also", then when the article is developed further it can be incorporated in to a section on contemporary celebrations. -- PBS (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, come on Cassianto - Clem was trying to lighten the mood a bit here. You don't really think he was being serious do you? As for "All I'm suggesting is that taking things to the talk page on a FA would save a shed load of hassle" that's exactly what has happened here and it doesn't seem to have saved any hassle does it?. Actually, from the google books refs Gaijin42 has found it appears that Bonfire toffee and parkin are the two foods associated with this festive occasion. I don't think the sky would fall in if they both had a brief mention in the see also section. Richerman (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree with the inclusion: it's trivia, nothing more, nothing less. What other dross should we include just because someone's mother makes it every year? Good grief! (Of all the nonsense I've seen people getting wound up about... time to move on and try and write some bloody content, rather than this POV pushing...) - SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Well you're a fine one to talk about people getting wound up after that little outburst. Don't you think it's somewhat insulting to talk about POV pushing? The article already has bonfire toffee in the see also section - what's so terrible about adding parkin when somebody has actually found a number of references to say it's a traditional part of the celebration? I'm against adding trivia myself but your oposition to adding one link just sounds pig-headed to me. Richerman (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not wound up at all, so perhaps you could keep your opinions about me to yourself? And as for "pig-headed"...? There are some rather base pieces of Anglo Saxon I could throw your direction for your silly little insult, but you're really not worth the effort. - SchroCat (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Really? You could have fooled me. I would suggest if you don't want to have people commenting on your posts you should stop insulting them with comments like "POV pushing" just because they have a different opinion to yours. If you think this has gone on too long I would suggest you take your own advice "move on and try and write some bloody content". Richerman (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well it obviously doesn't take much to fool you then. Perhaps if you stop being so patronising, then people may think your presence is worthwhile. At the moment, I'm not seeing much beyond your desire to tediously WP:bludgeon people who have the utter temerity to have an opposing opinion to your much vaunted judgement. - SchroCat (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, for sheer hypocrisy that takes the biscuit. Richerman (talk)
I don't see it as hilarious that you bludgeon people for expressing their opinion in one comment, thankfully. I find it rather tiresome, especially she I'm being called "pig headed" at the same time. Curious, and tedious. - SchroCat (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Both of you need to take a deep breath, but offhand I think its pretty nonsenical to tell someone to go work on content when sources and content are being directly discussed. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm… offhand I think it's pretty nonsensical to classify the ephemera of the "See Also" section as content, but I'm probably too "pig headed" to bother with trying to work out why you would want to. It's nice to know that people queue up to bludgeon others just for giving their opinion. I was passing by the article and thought I would comment: if this is the normal reception you give to people, then I won't be back. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Your first message was needlessly aggressive and dismissive, you cannot in all honesty be surprised when people reply in the same vein. Urselius (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear a cogent, logical and reasoned explanation of how toffee is less trivial than cake, or Black peas for that matter. Is there, perhaps, a universal scale of triviality on which sugar and fat based products score more highly than sugar, fat and flour products? I'm all ears, figuratively. Urselius (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a number of points to make over the 'Parkin issue'. Firstly, this is an online article, not a printed publication where an extra word will cost money. It is essentially elastic and the addition of ONE WORD, as a link to another Wikipedia article, will not have any substantive detrimental effect. Secondly, I and quite literally millions of other people from the North of England have experience of the preparation and eating of parkin as an integral part of Guy Fawkes Night celebrations. The persons (self appointed thought police?) who patrol this article and dismiss this as trivial are unbelievably arrogant. How dare you dismiss the experiences of millions of people - potential readers of this article - as being too trivial for the inclusion of ONE WORD. Urselius (talk)
Funniest thing I've read in ages. Parrot of Doom 11:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Urselius, it's rather sad that you should feel this passionate over a bit of cake. I find your comment difficult to take seriously. CassiantoTalk 11:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Neither of you seem to be able to cogently address any of the points I have made - why bother to reply if you have nothing relevant to say? Regarding the importance of cake, Cassianto, Marcel Proust seems to have a directly opposite view to yours - see À la Recherche du Temps Perdu. Substitute parkin for madeleine and you arrive at my childhood memories, and those of a legion of others.Urselius (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll address the point plainly for you then. It is a trivial factoid that will not be added. And there's little point in trying to pull on my heartstrings by forcing me to view your childhood through rose-tinted glasses; I don't hold any compassion for anyone on this website anymore. CassiantoTalk 14:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You control, own, this article do you? Tell me how toffee is less trivial than cake? Go on do it! Urselius (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You can call it that if you like, but it's more of a stewardship really so as to protect it from factoidal edits such as yours. CassiantoTalk 19:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sir Steward, please tell me how the relative triviality of toffee and cake is assessed? You must have some sort of basis for this fine discrimination, as toffee is obviously not trivial to you, due to its inclusion in this article as a link; whist parkin, in contrast, seems by your standards to be well beyond the pale for similar treatment. Urselius (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The line has to be drawn somewhere and it has been done so at toffee. Call me cake-ist if you like and report me to ArbCom, I couldnt give a toss. I also don't care much for your flippancy and so this conversation is now at an end. CassiantoTalk 12:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Why does your opinion, your point of view, hold more weight than mine? From the variety of opinion expressed by the many contributors to the above discussion there is quite obviously no consensus on the matter. I am saddened that you take sincerity for flippancy. You are essentially saying, "Parkin is trivial because I say it is." Very collegiate of you, you constitute a mighty consensus of one, or two if you count PoD.Urselius (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Fireworks Night[edit]

There is little or nothing in this article about the fact that for most people in England (cannot speak for NI, Wales, Scotland and abroad) November the 5th. is about families with children letting off fireworks in your back garden - if you have one - and sometimes having an outdoor children's party around a bonfire as well, with no knowledge of any of the religious aspects that this article has been relentlessly and wrongly pushing for the past few years.

I do not agree that Fireworks Night is in serious decline. It is true that you almost never see any "penny for the guy" requests by children any more, probably because 1p is worth very little - if it was modernised to "pound for the guy" then perhaps things would change. Also the proportion of households with a) large enough gardens and b) children has been in great decline, so there is less opportunity for fireworks and bonfires. Supermarkets and other shops all have displays of fireworks up until the 5th, and advertising too, so someone must be buying them. Unfortunately the excitement of November the 5th. has been eclipsed by the recent rise of Halloween "trick or treeting" in the UK. (I suppose we will soon start celebrating Thanksgiving in Blighty as well, sigh).

Incidentally all the communal fireworks shows I have been to have been free. (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bonfire Night is the subject of a separate article. You will need to look through the archives of this talk page to find out why. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is due to the preciousness of certain editors, who had to be figuratively beaten over the head in order to allow any matter pertaining to events or traditions after about 1750 to be allowed into this article - despite the obvious fact that it is an ongoing celebration and not - like Oak Apple Day - a fossilised historical curiosity. Urselius (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You might want to stop telling lies. It makes you look stupid. Parrot of Doom 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You need to stop making ad hominem attacks and intimating that others are untruthful. There should be a separate article called the "Origins, Politics and History of Guy Fawkes Night" that you can be as precious about as you like - and free up this article to express the ongoing nature of the celebration. Urselius (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I would be the first in line at WP:AFD if you were to create it. CassiantoTalk 15:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
My articles are produced with full, relevant citations, and they cover all aspects of the subject. Unlike this travesty of a featured article. All Parrot's supporters are equally immune to reason or logic, where does he get them from? Is there a society for the hard of comprehension on Wikipedia? Urselius (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll make whatever comments I feel are appropriate. You are a liar. Furthermore, you are ignorant. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
In what manner am I ignorant? You call me a liar and I respond with my doubts about your comprehension, of the two of us who is the more abusive? If you deliberately provoke people with baseless accusations then you only have yourself to blame if they retaliate, even if it is only in the mildest manner. Apparently I am 'sad', a 'liar' and 'stupid', I seem to be these things merely because I disagree with you. Please clarify how your apparent stranglehold on this article is collegiate, how it benefits Wikipedia and, most importantly, how your actions reflect the requirement for consensus?Urselius (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
"This is due to the preciousness of certain editors, who had to be figuratively beaten over the head in order to allow any matter pertaining to events or traditions after about 1750 to be allowed into this article" - this is an obvious lie. The article, as originally written by me, contains at least 25-30% of text devoted to history after 1750.
You're obviously a very, very stupid liar and this is the last response your ramblings deserve. Parrot of Doom 14:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me, but how 'original' is the version to which you refer? As I remember it the article, at an early stage, gave the overall impression that the celebration had not been observed for several centuries. Of course I am prey to the normal infirmities of memory that afflict all human beings, but that was the distinct impression I received. This being the case, how then am I a liar? To lie one must not only utter a falsehood, but one MUST also KNOWINGLY utter a falsehood. Why do you continue to insult me? Urselius (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Parrot of Doom what evidence do you have that Urselius is a liar? -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Parrot of Doom please could you explain what lies you think have been told? -- PBS (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Urselius firstly I am a supporter of common sense something which you appear to lack. Before now, I think, I have never met PoD although I have been an admirer of his work for some time. Secondly, I would also ask you remain civil and quit with your name calling. Thirdly, I would like to advise you that they are not YOUR articles, they belong to the community. You are free to have an opinion on this article, but others disagree. If you don't like what you read then kindly hit the road. CassiantoTalk 19:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not believe I have called anyone anything. I have, obliquely, questioned your abilities to appreciate logic and imputed to you a lack of comprehension, and indeed you are quite right, this was not very polite and I beg pardon for this lapse. Of course the articles I have created are not my property, however, they are always created within a desire to be as complete as reputable sources allow. In regard to this article, as a rational, well informed person with a direct knowledge of the subject I would have the reasonable expectation to be able to influence the content of the article - with the proviso that enough other editors share my opinion. There is should always be room in any article to accommodate a difference of opinion. It is a needlessly dogmatic approach that causes disputes such as this. Urselius (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Cassianto are you familiar with the history of this article and the talk page archives on this subject? -- PBS (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Get to the point. CassiantoTalk 21:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry I do not understand your reply. Is that yes or no? -- PBS (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You're asking which suggests to me that there is a history which you don't think I know about. Enlighten me? CassiantoTalk 22:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I am asking because the guideline WP:TALK has a bullet point in the "Good practices" section that starts "Read the archives..." and another "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts" and I do not want to have to repeat what I have already stated before. So if you have read the archives (as WP:TALK recommends) I will not bother to repeat those points (as WP:TALK recommends). If you have not then I can do so if you are interested to learn what I, and many others, consider to be the shortcomings of this article.-- PBS (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I couldn't give a toss what you think of the article PBS. CassiantoTalk 17:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Cassianto In what areas do you think this article could be improved? -- PBS (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see that this quarter's version of the "What about today?" discussion is in full swing. My view on this is that the scope of the article is fine as it is. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand your first sentence, what is the quarter to which you refer? -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I was pointing out the fact that I see this discussion, and to a lesser extent you, here, complaining about this issue every 3 months or so since I started watching this page in 2010. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
But I do understand your second sentence. Do you think that the section "In other countries" is adequate? For example the current section concentrates on North America and most of it is describing a period before Cook's voyages of discovery. There is no coverage of history of bonfire night in either antipodean country or how the attitudes towards the event differ today. -- PBS (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I am 100% fine with a distinction being made between this (A historic event) and Bonfire Night (A modern event) if that's what the highest quality sources — academic books, journal articles, and conference presentations — do so. From watching this for a long time and doing some reading, there is a body of literature that does just that. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No, there is no historical event under discussion here. The Gunpowder Plot was a historical event, Guy Fawkes Night is the annual celebration of a historical event. Obviously the repeated celebration has a history of observance, which is addressed here. However, the early history of the celebration has a disproportionate part in the current article, to the detriment of later and current observances. I tried to introduce material - once upon a time - backed up by journal articles, but this was disallowed by PoD because he would only acknowledge his own very narrow range of sources as being "of acceptable quality". Obviously, the sources for more recent and present observances are in the realms of sociological journals and folklore collections and indeed newspapers and magazines, not turgid academic books. Urselius (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
"I tried to introduce material - once upon a time - backed up by journal articles, but this was disallowed by PoD" - another lie. My first edit to this article was in 2010. Your three edits occurred in 2008. I suggest you disappear back under your rock. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I just checked the archives, you're making the same boring argument now as you did a few years ago. Nothing has changed. You're still a deluded fool and I'll have nothing more to do with you. Parrot of Doom 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Did I say that I edited the article itself? What I did, as any civil editor will do, was place the material on the talk page first. You then disallowed it on spurious grounds - those grounds being that the material did not come from the one or two books that you were using as sources. Dear PoD, ask yourself this: "if this article is a paragon and deserves its FA status, why then am I continually having to defend it?" For each of the many people who question its lack of comprehensiveness (especially concerning modern and recent observances) on the talk page there are probably hundreds who just move on feeling baffled. Believe me, I have no desire to communicate with you, it is far from pleasant, but your pretensions of article ownership and misplaced, indeed pit-bull-like, tenacity makes it imperative. Urselius (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Why do you continue to insult me? Urselius (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You can voice opinions but when you direct it AT someone (ie. "You're still a deluded fool") keep in mind WP:NPA and try and be civil. AnonNep (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at the article for the American celebration of Thanksgiving. Like Guy Fawkes Night it has an origin in the 17th century, a good deal of subsequent history and is still celebrated today. What the Thanksgiving article has, that this one lacks, is balance and comprehensiveness. It could be usefully employed as a paradigm for improving the balance here. Urselius (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero: The very first sentence says "Guy Fawkes Night, also known as Guy Fawkes Day, Bonfire Night and Firework Night,..." so how do you come to the conclusion that "I am 100% fine with a distinction being made between this (A historic event) and Bonfire Night (A modern event) if that's what the highest quality sources — academic books, journal articles, and conference presentations — do so."? When it appears that the current sources do not cover current events? Please explain what the difference is between "highest quality sources" and reliable sources is and how you justify the difference? -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you reread WP:WIAFA and what you were told four years ago. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I am familiar with WP:WIAFA (see WT:WIAFA). What is it that you think I was told four years ago"? -- PBS (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Reciprocity of linking[edit]

If anyone would care to make an impartial assessment of this article as a part of Wikipedia a remarkable fact would quickly become apparent. Guy Fawkes Night is in fact, due to its title, the main article covering this celebration, most people interested in this celebration would head to this first. It is strange then, that the many smaller, perhaps peripheral articles (such as Gunpowder Plot in popular culture, Parkin (cake), Black peas etc.) all link to Guy Fawkes Night, but Guy Fawkes Night does not link to them. This does seem to me to break a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, that of the ease of navigation within themes and related articles. Urselius (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it makes a lot of sense: there's no requirement for articles to link to every article that links to them, and such a requirement would not be workable given the number of "peripherals" potentially linked to a main article. The pop-culture article, though, is linked from the navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No requirement perhaps, but surely reciprocity of linking reflects a comprehensive main article. Otherwise it seems that things are missing, which is undesirable. Urselius (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No, not at all: you'd expect peripheral or subarticles to link to the main article, but not the other way around. For example, consider Christmas: it makes perfect sense for a very specific article like Christmas tree plundering or Bulgarian budnik to link to the main article, but the main article can be comprehensive without doing so. For an analogy, think about countries versus cities: although city articles may link to their country, there's no way you'd expect a country article to link to every single city in the country, but that doesn't mean the country article isn't comprehensive. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
As it stands at present the reader cannot explore from this article many directly-related topics, because there are no links. This article, because of its title, is the main article for the subject. In no universe can this be a good situation. Your reasoning walks on crutches, one being exaggeration, the other a sort of Wiki-legalism. The links proposed for this page to include are as relevant to it as turkey is to Thanksgiving. Urselius (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What everyone must remember is that with articles like this we're dealing with some of the most formidable intellectual giants that Wikipedia has ever known and ever will know. They buy books. They borrow books from the Library. And they loosely paraphrase other peoples work to create 'Featured Articles' which cannot ever then be touched in any way. Look at various 'Featured Articles', it is the same again and again, and we must bow down before the them - neh! - we must must worship them! For without their paraphrasing of other peoples work we wouldn't have this glorious collection of poorly organised topical borderline plagiarism that Wikipedia has today. What a triumph of their skills! </END SARCASM TAG> AnonNep (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • This is entirely unhelpful --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but it is a perceptive critique of the situation. Urselius (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
More seriously.... what does logic suggest? The history is moved to a well, um, 'History of Gunpowder Plot' article, linked back here, while 'Guy Fawkes Night' becomes the key page for history and the ongoing later traditions. AnonNep (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Your argument is eloquent - what other gnomic treasures have you yet to dazzle us with? Urselius (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I see from your userpage that you are an arbitrator, from your contributions here this must be in the very limited sense exemplified by Andrei Gromyko - nyet, indeed! Urselius (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Expresses the mastery of knowledge of the perfect argument I've come to expect from the lords of the 'Featured Article'. Speaks for itself really... AnonNep (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2015 (UT
    The first principle of Wiki editing is be nice, we are all friends here. The customs section I believe improves the article, facilitates minor link-outs, and (maybe) makes everybody happy. By all means do a featured article review as PBS suggests. Ex nihil (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:AnonNep Most of the history is not the 'History of Gunpowder Plot' it is the history of Guy Fawkes Night. As the article is less than 50K in size I see no need for separate "History of Guy Fawkes Night", I just think it needs to be expanded to include mentions of the 21st century both in England and other Commonwealth countries. If at the end of the expansion there is a need to summaries the history and have a new "History of Guy Fawkes Night" then of course that can be done, but I think the current article is a long way from that. -- PBS (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Somewhere back in the archives is a flabbergasting response to a suggested addition from an otherwise WP:RS source. The reply, in effect, is 'Go and write a book about it, get it published, then you can add it'. There are three options: no change, ever, or, ending the current lockdown, or, finally, separating this off. I suggested the latter because the former remains to the detriment of WP. I'd be more that happy with the middle ground. End the blockade. AnonNep (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
While I sympathise with your reasons for suggesting it, to create a fork for those reasons goes against the spirit of Wikipedia:Content forking. -- PBS (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for delay in responding (missed it in the mix). It would only be a POVFork (a guideline not a policy, BTW) if you think the present article represents a central position that's being 'forked' from. I'm suggesting a new key article that covers the existing forks (such as the lockdown approach on information not accepted here leaving only the the generic 'Bonfire Night'). In other words, a general article that summarises this cobwebbed Miss Havisham and the more recent Bonfire Night. Where I'm uncomfortable is the idea that the Miss Havishams should get their untouchable, if fading, wedding hall here, preserved, indefinitely. It may suit them but it does little for Wikipedia. AnonNep (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Then why not initiate the threatened FA review, and see where that leads? Eric Corbett 20:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
It can be a very flawed process, just look at how this article was promoted in the first place. One does not enter the courtroom unprepared. Urselius (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
It's the only review process open to you, so it's time to either put up or shut up. Eric Corbett 21:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Not against PoD, I can take him up for his personal attacks on myself. As I said a case needs to be optimally constructed, this takes time. A precipitate move would be unwise. Urselius (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Just get on with it Urselius and quit with your preciousness. CassiantoTalk 22:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Why should I please you? If dilatoriness displeases you and the other people strangling this article, then expect a great deal of it. In the meantime I will be critically reviewing all aspects of the article and commenting here. Incidentally, I review for scientific journals as part of the 'peer-review' process, so you may expect a thorough and critical review. Please address my comments on the relevance of the sermons - see below. Urselius (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure we're all waiting for your pearls of wisdom with bated breath. Eric Corbett 22:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
What ho! old bean - see two pearls below. No wait at all. Toodle-pip! Urselius (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The two only pearls you have offered us so far are certainly not what you seem to think they are.CassiantoTalk 18:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@user:Eric Corbett you wrote "It's the only review process open to you, so it's time to either put up or shut up.", however SanyGeorge (13:26, 9 March 2015) suggests that a RfC is an alternative to a featured article review. -- PBS (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyG is saying no such thing, she's specifically addressing this ongoing and long-term disruption by a few cake obsessives. Whatever the result of any behavioural RfC, this would still be a featured article. Anyone who doesn't like that has only one choice, to initiate a featured article review. Eric Corbett 20:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That this article is a FA is only relevant to the ongoing criticism of it for two reasons: (a) it did not meet the criteria for FA status in the FAC process, and (b) the fact of its (spurious) FA status has been cynically used by a cabal of editors (led by PoD) to block any additions that they, quite erroneously and against both common sense and scholarship, consider unsuitable. This is against Wikipedia's rules and basic philosophy. Please look at the banner at the top of this page "Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." FA status does not mean that editing is no longer possible, in fact further editing of FA articles is positively encouraged. Urselius (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@user:Eric Corbett you wrote "Whatever the result of any behavioural RfC", there is no behavioural RfC process (WP:RFC#About the conduct of another user) and has not been since the end of last year, so presumably SG was talking about an RfC on this article (WP:RFC#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues). -- PBS (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that what SandyG said is clear enough, but perhaps she'd forgotten, as had I, that the RFC/U process was shut down last December. Eric Corbett 12:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Urselius, the FA banner is not written in stone and extra additions to a featured article should be subject to a discussion first. As a result of that discussion, and if it's decided that the addition is of benefit to the article, the proposed addition can then be added. You chose not to discuss it and went full steam ahead and added it regardless. Only after you had been reverted did you then decide to discuss it on the talk page. When it was decided that your addition was not good enough, you then proceeded to turn the discussions sour. You should not just assume that because part of the banner says "even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so" you should just go ahead and add it. Common sense should tell you that it would be good to discuss things first. CassiantoTalk 12:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? The only addition I have made to the article since it became contentious is the small phrase concerning the Catholic Herald - which, shortened and moved, is still there at present. I reverted a reversion of another editor's addition, but that is not the same thing at all. Urselius (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Common sense says not such thing. Being bold is common and sensible (Bold, revert, discuss). -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

General problems[edit]

The article strays into 'essay style' through much of its content. The paragraphs are, in general, too long, which makes reading the article unnecessarily difficult. Allied to this is the repeated occurrence of indigestible slabs of prose. In an encyclopaedic treatment of a subject I would expect more sub-headings than are found here. The treatment is essentially chronological, which is fine for a pure narrative history, but this is an article is describing an ongoing folk celebration and I would expect some thematic structure in addition to the purely chronological.

The subject of the article is an annually occurring folk celebration, however, there is very little description of celebration. Indeed it reads like an obituary, except that some obituaries are more celebratory than this article.

Assertions are made (see below - the section called Relevance?) with no attempt to link the assertion to the subject of the article. This is to some extent understandable as the Gunpowder Plot, Bonfire Night and other articles have overlapping subject areas. However, this is an artificially exacerbated situation in that the cabal of editors controlling this article have forced other editors into creating pages in which they can contribute material that should be incorporated here. At the same time the cabal are reliant on a couple of books which are predominantly concerned with the early history of the celebration and have incorporated material from these books in an indiscriminate manner, material which only concerns the Gunpowder Plot itself, material which is somewhat removed from the annual celebration, and material with only the most tenuous connection with the celebration.

There is little or no indication in the article of the extent of the celebration. Something a non-British reader would not know and would not receive any enlightenment about here. A very large proportion of the British population participate each year. A means of indicating this could be found in published studies on air pollution and accidents (see "Missing Information" below). If you were to go out in any reasonably well populated part of Britain on the evening of Nov. 5th, then you would find that the air positively reeks of wood-smoke and gunpowder-residues. Urselius (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing information[edit]

A quick perusal of JSTOR and Google Scholar gave some interesting information. The largest number of relevant scholarly papers was not, as might be a surprise to PoD, 17th century Pope Burnings, but concerned the levels of air pollution generated by Guy Fawkes Night combustions, the incidence of injury due to fireworks and fire and the incidence of arson and other criminality linked to the celebration. This sort of matter should be included in any encyclopaedic treatment. Urselius (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

For example, from The British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 5261 (Nov. 4, 1961), pp. 1206-1207

"GUY FAWKES STILL A THREAT. Careless handling of fireworks can cause appalling injuries. Some of those treated at the Birmingham Accident Hospital are illustrated in Mr. Douglas Jackson's warning article at p. 1184 in this issue. "Few anniversaries," he writes, can be accompanied by such a trail of injury and suffering throughout the length and breadth of the country." What can be done to reduce this toll?"

Would any one please care to explain how "a trail of injury and suffering throughout the length and breadth of the country" is 'trivial'? Urselius (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Governmental intervention[edit]

The Royal College of Optometrists claims that 10 people a year lose their sight through fireworks, and in 2005 (the last year in which statistics were recorded) the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents found that almost 1,000 people were injured by fireworks.

The incidence of injury associated with the Guy Fawkes Night celebration has been, and continues to be the subject of concern and intervention by the UK government. For many decades there has existed, in various forms, a government sponsored "Fireworks Code" - concerned with firework safety and regularly applied specifically to Guy Fawkes Night celebrations. In the 1960s, '70s and '80s there were annual prime-time television campaigns highlighting the Fireworks Code, as there were only 3-4 TV stations in the UK at the time, essentially the whole UK population will have seen these "infomercials".

This is obviously not 'trivial' - anything that a government spends millions of pounds on is noteworthy - yet it finds no mention in the article. Urselius (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

See also the UK government's "Celebrating Bonfire Night: A community guide to organising bonfires and fireworks"

This could be useful for the article.


I quote from the first sentence of one of the major sections in the article: "According to historian and author Antonia Fraser, a study of the earliest sermons preached demonstrates an anti-Catholic concentration "mystical in its fervour"."

How is this relevant to Guy Fawkes Night? No connection in the text has been asserted. If these are sermons delivered on Guy Fawkes Day or Night then this needs to be stated in the text. Where were they read? Guy Fawkes celebrations have always been open-air events, an unlikely setting for a sermon. If they are merely sermons delivered about the Gunpowder Plot, but not on the day itself, or directly connected to the celebration, they have no place here. This is even more so if they were merely anti-Catholic sermons, with no connection to either the historical event or its celebration. Urselius (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Parkin, resurgam[edit]

From A. W. Boyd Folklore Vol. 67, No. 1 (Mar., 1956), p. 52 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

"Parkin. As is well known, this cake, made of oatmeal, treacle and ginger, is always eaten in northern England on November 5 and is held to be part of the Guy Fawkes festival. Is it thought to be a Soul-cake transferred from All Souls' Day, November 2, to November 5 when All Souls' Day ceased to be celebrated in the Anglican Church?"

Parkin is "well known" and, "part of the Guy Fawkes festival" - where is the triviality here? Urselius (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, specially for you Americans, an American publication. It is biographical note about an American living in Britain.

From: The End of the Forties Author(s): Roy Fuller, The Sewanee Review, Vol. 99, No. 2 (Spring, 1991), pp. 274-281 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

"One Guy Fawkes Night my wife and I were invited, with my brother and his family, round to the Wallers' house. The setting off of fireworks was accompanied by the eating of parkin and treacle toffee, a tradition of Waller's Lancashire childhood whose revival seemed precious, given Waller's unorthodox past."

Size of the celebration[edit]

From UK government online sources:

"Bonfire Night [AKA Guy Fawkes Night]

While only 29% of adults will actually participate in an activity to celebrate Bonfire Night, held on 5 November, those who do take part are expected to spend an estimated £386 million.

Bonfire Night celebration items people are expected to buy in 2012 include:

Fireworks: 12% of adults will buy fireworks to use at home or take to a party Food and drink for parties: 12% of UK adults will either attend or host a party Attending organised displays: 29% of adults expect to attend an organised fireworks display

Not everyone is enthusiastic, however, with 67% of adults saying that fireworks “should only be let off at properly organised displays”.

This sort of information has to be included in any encyclopaedic account of Guy Fawkes Night. Please note the inclusion of "food and drink" - an important aspect of the celebration as highlighted by the UK government no less. Urselius (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Should there be a featured article review?[edit]

Perhaps the first step could be a featured article review to bring up the known shortcomings of this article. -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What is being reviewed is an interesting question - is this a history of the Gunpowder Plot, a history of Guy Fawkes night, a key article that links on to the others, or a bit of all? AnonNep (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and the areas where this featured article fails. The chief one ins "1.b comprehensive". But that leads to all sorts of other ones in that list (such as "2.a"). At the time this was promoted to FA status, "1.e stability" was not met (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1. That was ignored and stability is still an issue as can be seen in the edit history of the last 24 hours. -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes there should be a review. The history of this talk page indicates that what little stability the article has, is merely the result of potential editors being 'warned off' from even attempting to edit by an entrenched cabal. From what I gleaned from the original FA review, the principal assessor seemed to ignore many cogent points and had the erroneous view that objections to content, or lack of content, could only be based on objections to sources. Urselius (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is perfectly stable, it's just a few cake-obsessed editors who think otherwise. Is this in an attempt to assert your own POV? CassiantoTalk 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been involved in moderating a good deal of, mostly nationalistic, POV peddling. Please look at the history of the Basil I article, where you will see the correct method of coping with this. Armenian nationalists have added material supporting an Armenian origin for the Byzantine emperor, did I do as PoD always does - revert with an added insulting comment? No, I let anything with a decent reference stand and I merely add something moderating it from an equally good reference. This is called "not owning an article" - something yourself and PoD seem incapable of. Urselius (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Like your friend PoD you quickly reach the level of crass insult. Have a look at a really stable FA, such as Charles II of England whose talkpage has 2 archives, this travesty's talkpage has 9 archives! A lot of people obviously have issues with it. The instability of the page is a self-evident and established fact. Go back and try to come up with more logical arguments. Urselius (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto's comment is an extraordinary statement which should be withdrawn. Of course the article is "stable", when any substantive (and referenced) changes to the article are immediately reverted by its custodian(s). The long-standing disputes over the content of this article should never have allowed it to become a FA in the first place. Many of us have, I am sure, given up on the article, in view of the needless acrimony on this talk page. Unfortunately, all the evidence is that an FA review is utterly pointless if the same editors are going to be involved. But, an independent review, to assess whether it actually meets the needs of readers looking for a comprehensive overview of the celebration, is long overdue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
If it wasn't for the "custodians" then this article would be filled with factoids and deteriorate beyond all recognition. Also, you don't need to ping me I have watch listed it. CassiantoTalk 12:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
If the "owners of this article" relaxed their control a little they would get input from many experienced and talented editors, which would produce an article that truly reflected the actuality of an ongoing folk-celebration. As it stands now it is unrepresentative, turgid and biased. Urselius (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
For what its worth I've added Bonfire Night to the 'See Also' of the present Gunpowder Plot template. AnonNep (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thankfully Urselius your opinion counts for nothing. CassiantoTalk 13:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Then your opinion and that of other "PoD-U-Likes" is equally nugatory. Wikipedia is a co-operative venture where all opinions, if they are reasonable, count equally. You seem not to understand this, and it is simple enough. Urselius (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, please try and be civil when replying to other editors. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll try sure, but in light of the idiocy that is currently going on here, I can't make any promises. CassiantoTalk 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Cassianto: The article has not been stable for years as is evident from the talk pages and the edit history as demonstrated over the last 48 hours. I notice that on your user page until recently you said you live in Essex and that "I often take part in peer reviews and frequently review at FAC." This article is titled "Guy Fawkes Night" it is not titled "history of Guy Fawkes Night" do you think that a featured article review would end with a consensus that this article adequately covers the subject? For example do you think that an American or Australian would know if bonfire night is still widely celebrated in England? Do you know if the statement in the lead "Halloween, has lately increased in popularity, and according to some writers, may threaten the continued observance of 5 November." is true for New Zealand? -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what relevance my residence has to do with this article, or the fact that I take part in reviews? I would expect to find "History" of Guy Fawkes Night within the first sub-section of THIS article and not, like you incorrectly say, in a separate article. For the same reason as to why I would think it stupid to have "Remeberence Day" separate to "History of Remeberence Day". CassiantoTalk 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The relevancy of your residency is your knowledge of the subject that you would probably not have if you came from Georgia. I am sorry if my words were not clear, but I did not say that the history was in a separate article, instead I emphasised what the title was. The question I asked (given you knowledge of the subject outside of the article and you knowledge of reviews), was would a featured article review of this article be likely to end with a consensus that this article adequately covers the subject? I then asked two subsidiary questions. I look forward to you answers. -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There's only one way to find out and that is to take it to FAR if you wish. However, I would embrace Sandy's comments above and think very carefully before you do. CassiantoTalk 21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How is a Featured Article review instigated? It is long overdue here. Urselius (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just go to WP:FAR and follow the instructions you'll find there. Eric Corbett 13:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I saw this little spat at Bencherlite's talk ... Urselius, you should be aware that FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I am aware of that. There are genuine problems with this article that a number of editors, administrators among them, have commented upon. It is on this basis that any FA review would be instigated. I am considering taking action against PoD's unwarranted personal attacks on myself, though this is an entirely separate matter procedurally. Urselius (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:SandyGeorgia do you consider yourself neutral regarding whether this article is or is not a FA? Two central issues raised from the list of FA criteria when this article was was promoted were stability and comprehensiveness. Neither of these criteria were met at the time or have ever been met since. Why do you think that this article given FA status when those two issues were not addressed? Recently you asked for an example of high-quality has been "misunderstood, mis-applied, or 'used as a bludgeon'" see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do consider myself neutral: the article was promoted by Karanacs. The derailed and personalized discussion on the FAC indicates precisely why I am reminding here that FAR is not dispute resolution: should the same editors who disrupted the FAC without bringing actionable issues relative to the criteria raise a FAR without (again) addressing actionable items and instead resorting to personalization, the result will not be productive. FAR is not dispute resolution. The FAC was derailed by editors bringing personal matters and without focusing on What is a featured article; some of the same editors are again doing the same here. And no, this is not an example of the issue you raised at WIAFA talk; this was and is an example of editors not applying the criteria and personalizing a discussion. Please initiate an RFC for that purpose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You were the person asserting that the only objection to a FA candidate was objection to its sources. I could write an impeccably sourced article on the American celebration of Thanksgiving and completely omit any mention of turkey-eating, would such an article be complete? Would such an article be worthy of FA status? Additionally, do you approve of editors who block the addition of well-sourced material to certain articles because they have their own agendas and or prejudices? Urselius (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Urselius, you seem to have a habit of taking discussions off-topic. Please review WP:WIAFA. I would never say "that the only objection to a FA candidate was objection to its sources". I have no opinion one way or another on this article: I do have an opinion on editors who don't appropriately engage FAC, FAR and WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I quote your good self Sandy, taken directly from the record of the FAC: "...there is no point in trying to determine what direction an article should take without first examining what is supported by sources. As of now, there are no talk page archives, but I find no evidence anywhere that anyone objecting to the article has done it based on sources. Anything short of that has no place here at FAC; please keep disruption out of the FAC and focus on sources." Urselius (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@user:SandyGeorgia you wrote above "The FAC was derailed by editors bringing personal matters and without focusing on What is a featured article; some of the same editors are again doing the same here". In which way was the FAC derailed? What do you think were the personal matters which were raised and which editors are doing the same here? -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I just reread the FAC page, the article, and what's currently on this talk page (didn't go through the archives) to refresh my memory. Has anything changed since the article was promoted? It looks like Bonfire Night was created as an article and kept rather than redirected/merged here. (Nb: I think it's poor practice to include a link to another article in the "also known as" line of the lead. It would be much more appropriate to include a sentence later in the lead and in the body of the article stating that modern celebrations are often known more as Bonfire Night, with the link there). Have any new high-quality sources been published that dispute what's in the article? If not much has changed in terms of scholarship and article content, then it is highly unlikely that an FAR would change the status quo. It's not a place to rehash previous arguments. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources are not the problem, please address the real problem, which is lack of comprehensiveness. Please do not hold up the shibboleth of "sources", it is entirely irrelevant! Of course there are perfectly reliable sources available to use to fill in the huge gaps in the present article's comprehensiveness. I have shown one below. It is from a specialist journal and as such has higher credibility than the works of Antonia Fraser, much quoted in the present article. Antonia Fraser is a historian but she is also a populist historical biographer, her works cannot be held to be more academically acceptable than material from a specialist journal. Urselius (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
"Have any new high-quality sources been published that dispute what's in the article?" - to my knowledge, no. This article was written to reflect the coverage offered by several expert authors. I have repeatedly asked any editors who object to this structure to find other, expert sources that place as much emphasis on the modern celebration as the existing authors place on its history. To date, not one of those editors has done this. They have searched the internet and found the usual odds and ends, but nothing that suggests that Cressy, Fraser or Sharpe have been remiss in their treatment of 5 November. It remains my view therefore that the items these editors would like included are trivial by nature, and that triviality has no place in any article on Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom 18:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that User:AnonNep has found a new source, published in 2013, that I was unaware of. This at least explains the event's relevance in foreign countries using a proper context, so I may well buy this book to see what I can learn from it. Parrot of Doom 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
High quality material was available at the time of the FAC, it just did not fit in with your POV peddling. Fraser is a populist historical biographer, not an academic, she has never held an academic post. She also spelled the name of a relative of mine wrongly in one of her books! Urselius (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not the sources used, it has never been the problem. The problem is that the article as it stands in incomplete. It does not cover recent and modern practices to any appreciable extent. This would in itself not be a particular problem except that some editors, including PoD, will not allow anyone to add material to the article to remedy this deficit. There are many fine and reputable published sources available, I have a number on my computer right now, but I cannot use them because anything I add to the article will be reverted. This is the problem not what sources were used to write what is here already - what is here already is just not sufficient for an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Urselius (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@user:Karanacs as a non-Brit I think that the content of the current article may have confused you. The article is titled "Guy Fawkes Night" under the provisions of WP:AT section WP:UCRN "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The most common name for "Guy Fawkes Night" in England is "Bonfire Night" (see these simple global searches but not of reliable sources [12][13] -- but they do show it is one event with two common names) but as that name is also used for other events in other English speaking countries it is perfectly acceptable to choose "Guy Fawkes Night" as an alternative and at the time of the FAC process (initiated on 1 May 2011 and promoted by you on 9 June 2011) the page Bonfire Night was a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page was moved by Nikkimaria unilaterally and without prior discussion on 7 July 2011‎ from "Bonfire night" to Bonfire Night (disambiguation) (and IMO that move needs to be reverted). At the time you promoted this article not one of the issues over the criteria I had raised at the FAC had been discussed in the FAC process. The chief one was and is "1.b comprehensive". But that leads to all sorts of other ones in that list (such as "2.a"). Also at the time this was promoted to FA status "1.e stability" was an issue, (one editor had repeatedly breached the 3RR rule over the preceding months), why did you ignore that criteria? -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a pretty well-read non-Brit :) I cannot comment on my thought process of almost 4 years ago (I've slept since then!), but I will say that there appeared to be consensus at FAC that the article was comprehensive. The stability criteria is usually invoked when the article is massively changing from the beginning of the FAC nomination to the end (text being added or removed). The appearance of the article did not change much during this particular FAC nomination. The article today also reflects what it was when originally promoted. That tells me it has been pretty stable. I suspect there are compromises that could take place here to partially satisfy both parties (leave out the trivia, add a line about where 5 Nov is still celebrated with Bonfires, and call it day), but I am have not read the sources. I've been involved in my own set of disputes on topics like this, and I know it's difficult to provide the correct balance. Good luck, gentlemen! Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that some people think the narrative constructed by those experts who do know something about this topic, whose research I have summarised here, is incorrect. They think their own views are more important than the experts and they will not listen to reason. I have been defending this article against this idiocy for years. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
No Parrot, you are being completely disingenuous here. 'People' do not want to rewrite the sections of the article concerning the early history of the celebration - except in a very minor way to improve its structure for readability. What 'people' want to do, me included, is to incorporate more material on recent and modern aspects of the celebration, with appropriate citations to reputable sources. You repeatedly block and revert such additions for specious and entirely personal reasons. Any user or administrator can look at my record of article creation and editing and see that I am scrupulous in the use of citations - I'm a professional scientist and rigorous citation of sources is in my bloodstream. Do I want to swamp this article with trivia? Obviously not. However, this article is not about brain surgery or the decoding of Linear B, it is about a folk celebration, and as such certain things that are central to it as a folk celebration are less than entirely po-faced and serious. This is in the nature of the subject of the article, it cannot be avoided. Urselius (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Surely, if previous arguments were cogent but ignored, then they still constitute a perfectly legitimate basis for re-appraisal. Nothing on Wikipedia is written in stone - that's one of its virtues. Urselius (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Urselius, Karanacs just gave you a helpful list of suggestions and questions, none of which you addressed. I'm unwatching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the suggestion is that the terms 'Guy Fawkes Night' and 'Bonfire Night' are used entirely interchangeably. To foist on them a distinction 'Guy Fawkes Night' is a historical celebration and 'Bonfire Night' is a modern celebration would just be wrong. Wikipedia has to faithfully reflect reality not impose an artificial construct on reality. Urselius (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is an account from Folklore and Myth Author(s): H. R. Ellis Davidson, Folklore,Vol. 87, No. 2 (1976), pp. 131-145Published Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Guys and effigies are burnt, bonfires and fireworks cause a certain amount of damage and injury every year, and special local customs recorded within fairly recent times include bell-ringing, shooting parties, the eating of special goodies like parkin, gingerbread and toffee, the burning of tar-barrels, the carrying round of effigies or of live men with blackened faces, as well as processions with masks, disguises and music. Throughout the nineteenth century, the evening of 5 November was a time of licensed hooliganism in many places. At Guildford, for instance, the 'guys' were not effigies but rioters, who rushed about in disguise, with torches and bludgeons, breaking down fences and gates for the bonfires: as George Oldcastle described them in 1904, "Their cry will never be forgotten by anyone whoever heard it. It was a thrilling, piercing note of peculiar intensity and was a warning for all peaceable citizens to be on their guard".

This is interesting and useful material and it includes reference to Parkin! Why should reputable and fully published material like this not be allowed to be used within the article? I really do not understand the blockade on such material. Urselius (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Has it ever occurred to you Urselius that the reason your edits are being reverted are because they are little more than trivia and are not worthy of being included in a featured article? CassiantoTalk 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Has it ever occurred to you, Cassianto, that you are helping to enforce a ban on open editing of an article, that you are aiding and abetting the ownership of an article in direct contradiction to basic Wikipedia rules and ethics? Urselius (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Considering that this article is about a folk celebration, and not the philosophy of Aristotle or particle physics, I would think that anyone would consider that relevant matter covered in an academic journal called "Folklore" would be appropriate. Incidentally, Antonia Fraser, who is quoted within the article as if she was a walking oracle, works at the intersection of academic and populist writing. As such anything from a specialist journal has more academic "clout" than her material. Urselius (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
GlandGlad you are back Cassianto. Did you notice that I posed you a question a higher up the page? I look forward to your answer. -- PBS (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
"Gland" to be back also PBS. CassiantoTalk 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out my typing mistake and thank you for responding to my question (I have added a supplemental). -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Parrot of Doom do Cressy, Fraser or Sharpe provided a comprehensive survey of which countries celebrate Guy Fawkes Night in the 21st century and the history of Guy Fawkes night in those countries? Do they cover modern usage in Australia and New Zealand and why there is a difference between those two countries? Do they cover modern concern over environmental issues? Do they cover the number of accidents that occur each year due to fireworks? Do they cover political issues over the safe storage of fireworks or age restrictions on the purchase of fireworks? If not do you consider all such issues "trivial by nature"? -- PBS (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)