Jump to content

Talk:Guy Fawkes

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Llywrch (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 27 April 2010 (M.F. has provided the smoking gun; the thread is now dead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBritish crime (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconYorkshire B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconGuy Fawkes is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've removed this material from the article because I believe it's all trivia and has no place here: Im sorry, but it does have a place here. There is a referenced in pop culture in far more serious rticles. im just amazed at how graphic this article is. there isn't a single reference to torture in the entire section on the 600 yrs of the inquisition. isn't that a bit unbalanced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big improvement—thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the above are, of course, passing mentiona that are not particularly significant within the works themselves, and yet I can't help but feel that the dogged refusal by certain editors to include any mention of V for Vendetta on this page amounts to nothing more than intellectual snobbery. The story and iconography of Fawkes is an inextricable part of the entire narrative of the comic book and the film. Why the resistance? Nick Cooper (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because its relevance is to the comic book and the film, not to Guy Fawkes. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One could say the same thing about the Guy Fawkes River and the Guy Fawkes River National Park, which are so much more well-known than V for Vendetta. Not. Like I said, this is nothing more than intellectual snobbery. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could apparently. There is a clear difference between geographical features named after Guy Fawkes and some fictional character who for whatever reason wears a "stylised" Guy Fawkes mask. You call it intellectual snobbery, I call it intellectual integrity. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there's a deep misunderstanding about how links ought to work on wikipedia, and your comments demonstrate that very nicely. Links do not need to be symmetrical; because the V article points here doesn't mean that this one ought to point back. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you feel a need to play down the connection to 'just the mask' speaks volumes. V for Vendetta is the most significant and global manifestation of the iconography and story of Fawkes in popular culture in the last few years, but obviously the history snobs don't like anything as vulgar as that. Pathetic. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about Guy Fawkes, not some comic book character. So the question you ought to be asking yourself is this: "What light does the fact that a comic book character wore a mask based on Guy Fawkes shed on Guy Fawkes or his legacy?" To which the answer is clearly "nothing". That you're unable to understand that is what's pathetic. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in with a reply to "What light does the fact that a comic book character wore a mask based on Guy Fawkes shed on Guy Fawkes or his legacy?". I have not read the comic, but I have seen the movie. The mask is in no way the only reference to Guy Fawkes. The story involves blowing up parliament, the "Remember remember the 5th of November" poem is read verbatim, amongst many references. Personally, not being from the UK, I didn't even know about Guy Fawkes before watching 'V for Vendetta'. 193.11.222.243 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then V for Vendetta led you to Guy Fawkes, which is the right way round. Links do not need to be symmetrical. An argument could perhaps be made for including a reference to V for Vendetta in the Gunpowder Plot article though, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to everyone, I think the popular culture sections of many articles are as interesting as the story itself. It usually makes me feel compelled enough to see or read the work mentioned and compare it to the real story, and it also makes the point of how many people find history interesting enough to incorporate it in their fiction. It is part of knowledge too. As I was reading this article (linked from the Tower of London) immediately thought of V for Vendetta and looked at the discussion because surely there must have been a Popular Culture section. Of course, here it is removed. Too bad. I wish someone puts it back (I'm not going to because I don't want to get in the middle of people who obviously feel too strong about it, I wonder why). I just want to give my support to those who wish to re-insert it. 65.101.147.185 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to you, I think that the popular culture sections should be removed from every article, as they're just another name for trivia. What does a rather unremarkable film tell us about Guy Fawkes? You did notice this was an article about Guy Fawkes, right? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a section or several sentences, that say something like "Guy Fawkes' impact, the most notorious plotters, on popular culture can be seen in the large number of fictional allusions to him and works inspired by his plotting, including the recently popular V for Vendetta." That is definitely part of his legacy, though I agree there should not be a list of trivia. Sadads (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what it says is that lists of trivia are discouraged but that pertinent sourced facts should be incorporated into the body of the article, not just thrown out. Your use of terms like 'rather unremarkable film' show a certain point of view which should not translate into article content without a source. What the film and comic series tell us is that the story of Guy Fawkes still has enough impact to form a part of popular culture. In the legacy section that information is relevant and necessary. Removing it is to the articles detriment. Weakopedia (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes Mask

Although I don't want to embroil this article with Anonymous/V for Vendetta/etc, shouldn't there be a discussion of the Guy Fawkes Mask? To my knowledge it was a well-established mask long, long before the movie. (For example, in 1965, the comic book 'buster' featured the mask as a free gift). I came to the article genuinely curious to the history of how the mask tradition began, and was perplexed by its total absence.

It seems that in an effort to reduce the trivial discussion of those issues, any mention of the mask was expunged entirely.

Particularly, 'Guy Fawkes Mask' redirects to this article, which no longer even contains the word 'mask.'

Tofof (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Guy Fawkes mask is notable then feel free to create an article about it. This is an article about Guy Fawkes. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. Either the mask is not notable (a tenable proposition) or it belongs with the article of the person it is associated with. 98.117.211.87 (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I redirected it to V for Vandetta. --AdamSims1991 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's back. Just checking that the consensus is still to leave it out, before taking any any action. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should at least be a reference to V for Vendetta, as it refers to Guy Fawkes both in the comic and the film. --Beao 18:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comic and the movie both had a lot of references to Fawkes, and the Gunpowder plot, so there should be at least some kind of mention... I see no problem with the small mention made in the legacy section as it is right now. Except for the additional line about Project Chanology, as this really has nothing to do with Fawkes himself, it is a well written addition that does not overpower the rest of the article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it again as unreferenced and no consensus to include. Keith D (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how V for Vendetta is not part of the legacy of Guy Fawkes. It is a very notable link between the two, and both the V for Vendetta and Chanology articles refer to Guy Fawkes. --Beao 20:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about a new section, like this:

==Portrayal in popular culture==

V for Vendetta is a comic book series whos main protagonist, "V", is wearing a black-and-white Guy Fawkes mask. The character came into mainstream popularity after the film adaption, and thereafter it became the mascot of the anti-Scientology advocacy group Project Chanology.

--Beao 20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable references are you going to use then for such an insertion? Keith D (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fast search gave me these, I guess there are more:

--Beao 21:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add this section? I'm sure there are many people reading this article wondering if it is the man from V for Vendetta. --Beao 13:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should be reading the V for Vendetta article. Popular culture sections are trivia magnets, and I'd strongly oppose introducing one.--Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems like nobody's with me on this, and I honestly think that's strange. He is a historic person and that have been reflected in popular culture. How is that not notable? --Beao 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's important that V for Vendetta links here, of course, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this article should link to there. Should there also be a link to Moby Dick? Fahrenheit 451? The question that needs to be answered, I think, is what insights into Fawkes' life, character, or legacy do we gain from learning that a comic book character wore a mask some claim to resemble Guy Fawkes—remember that nobody knows what Guy Fawkes looked like anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The plot for V for Vendetta is also blowing up Parliment on November 5th, and throughout the movie the other characters call is a Guy Fawkes mask... I wouldn't want to add a popular culture section, but as I said above, one line in the legacy section that reads along the lines of "In the comic book V for Vendetta, as well as the film adaption, the main protagonist wears a Guy Fawkes mask, and intends to blow up Parliment on November 5."... Nothing to make the mask notable, nothing to link to Anonymous/Project Chonology deciding the mask was cool... just the fact that the comic and movie purposely made references, and was strongly based, on Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's nothing to make the mask notable, it doesn't deserve mention. Besides which, V for Vendetta doesn't really allude to the reasons why Fawkes was part of the plot to blow up the king, and his parliament. Parrot of Doom 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we mention the mask, other than the fact that the main character wore one, what I'm saying is that we mention "V for Vendetta" due to the references to Guy Fawkes within... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying that Guy Fawkes never mentioned V for Vendetta, and that V for Vendetta is a somewhat unremarkable film that is very loosely based on the Gunpowder Plot. Can you imagine someone like Simon Schama rounding off a programme about Guy Fawkes, by wearing a V for Vendetta mask? No, neither can I. V for Vendetta isn't relevant to Guy Fawkes. Parrot of Doom 23:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name Guy

It seems to me that Guy Fawkes cannot be the origin of the term 'guy' if Guy of Guisborn's legend predates him by a few decades. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.80.150 (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary says it's from Guy Fawkes, although you do make an interesting point about a similarly reviled character. Guy is French for Will right? It's not that Guy Fawkes is the origin of the word or even brought it to common knowledge, just that the use of "guy" in the modern sense stems from him. I trust the dictionaries. That's certainly all we have to go on unless you have some reference otherwise. Fixentries (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guy fawkes- the face of Anonymous?

Is it true that anyone who wears a Guy Fawkes mask is a member of anonymous? (Hmstrrnnr (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No. I bought my mask long before those tools did. Vael Victus 16:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maastricht

I recall from radio discussions about the time of the signing of the Maastricht Treaty that Fawkes was supposed to havw spent some time there - in Maastricht. 81.102.15.200 (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The execution

"Fawkes, weakened by his torture, was the last to climb the ladder to the gallows, from which he jumped, breaking his neck in the fall and thus avoiding the latter part of his execution." -- I have seen several versions of his last moments; that he jumped, or fell because of exhaustion, or neither. If he did 'escape' the final punishment, it ought to have been well documented in period sources. I haven't found any primary sources mentioned on the web, will take a look in Northcote Parkinson. Hexmaster (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's already attributed to Northcote Parkinson. If you look at the account of Fawkes's death in Gunpowder Plot you'll see that Fraser tells the same story. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Status: Ensign

¿What exactly is/was an “Ensign” as used here? The link in the article is to the militry rank, and serves no purpose; Perhaps a new page is in order… 174.25.99.225 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON[reply]

I don't understand

I don't understand why someone would refuse to edit in something obviously related to and inspired by Guy Fawkes (V from V for Vendetta). Do you have a personal grudge (vendetta herpderp) against the movie or are you just being an ass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzit (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Pulleyn

The article doesn't mention the rumour that he had a wife by the name of Maria or Mary Pulleyn, who was born in May 1569. Antonia Fraser, in her book Faith and Treason, dismisses this as being highly unlikely as there were virtually no references to his having been a married man in any contemporary records; however, what do the other editors think about putting the allegation into the article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added it. I don't think we should give undue weight to the rumour; however, I felt it should be mentioned. How does it look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox needs correction

In the article it states that Fawkes was meant to have been hanged, drawn, and quartered; however, he jumped from the gallows and avoided the latter part of the sentence by having broken his neck. The infobox says that he was hanged, drawn, and quartered. Shouldn't it read that he died as the result of a broken neck? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly wasn't drawn and quartered, but I have the impression that he killed himself by jumping from the gallows with the rope around his neck, thus effectively hanging himself, like Keyes unsuccessfully attempted to do. BTW, do you have a page number for Antonia Fraser in Faith and Treason for the comment about Fawkes's possible marriage? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then the box could just say died by hanging, as the result is the same:death by a broken neck. No, I don't have the page number. I got it from Herber's The Gunpowder Plot Society.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think death by hanging's best. On a somewhat macabre note, calculating the correct length of rope to break the victim's neck without yanking the head completely off was a skill that not all hangmen possessed. William Calcraft, for instance, one of the best known executioners of the 19th century, was notoriously incompetent at his job, and often had to rush below the gallows and pull on the legs of his victims to finish them off. He was prevented from doing that on one occasion by a priest, and the man took 45 minutes to be strangled to death by the rope. But I digress. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the same macabre note, what I find puzzling is how did the executioner calculate at which point the hanged prisoner should be cut down, while not quite dead, so he could be revived then drawn and quartered?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes and V for Vendetta

All mentions of the graphic novel (and corresponding film) V for Vendetta have been repeatedly removed from the article for the historical figure Guy Fawkes. Should the article on the real-life Guy Fawkes mention the fact that his story is the inspiration for the graphic novel, meaning it should be included as an important aspect of his legacy? Or does the mention of V for Vendetta damage the intellectual integrity of the Guy Fawkes article, meaning the mention of the graphic novel will not provide any substantive insights into Fawkes' life, character, or legacy? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell there has only been one editor who has objected to the several other editors who favoured the inclusion of this material. The RFC has produced no dissenting view to challenge the consensus that has been established to include mention of the film V for Vendetta. Unless there are comments from other editors that can challenge the consensus I will be adding the information about the film to the legacy section. Weakopedia (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been on convincing argument for inclusion. That Guy Fawkes inspired V for Vendetta is hardly worth mentioning in this article. By all means, the inspiration should be included in the article on V for Vendetta, but why here? Nev1 (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is fine to mention that it inspired V for vendetta, but you should be careful not to go beyond WP:UNDUE, a sentence or two in the legacy section with a single wikilink would be fine though surely?Ajbpearce (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that also - the intricacies of the film are not relevant to this article, only the mention of it as part of the legacy. The other statements in the second paragraph of the legacy section all have but a short sentance and the film deserves no more, but it deserves that much. The connection to Guy Fawkes is discussed in many sources, and if nothing else it shows that the story of Guy Fawkes still has impact today. Weakopedia (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from RFC): I think it is important to include that the movie V for Vendetta was inspired by this person. In the article we have songs inspired by the character, as well as places named after him. It is important to show how this person lives on in the public consciousness, even if that particular movie didn't do a great job of representing Guy Fawkes, or if the particular representation is not very flattering. However, I do agree that any mention of the movie should be brief, and the movie should in no way be considered a reliable source for any facts presented in the article. Brad 17:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another outside editor, I would find it very odd, if not intentionally misleading, not to mention the connection; the relationship between this historical personage & the graphic novel & film are undeniable, & insisting that a source be first provided is tendentious wikilawyering. As others have mentioned, all that is needed is a sentence or two with a link to the other articles. As for the objection that "X in popular culture" sections are cruft magnets, that is beside the point; every section in every article is a potential cruft magnet, which prevented by Wikipedia editors regularly reviewing articles, not by insisting problematic yet potentially useful sections be removed. -- llywrch (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • if they're "undeniable", then let's see the case made. The mask in truth bears no resemblance to any known portrait of Guy Fawkes, so could be anybody really. Fawkes was deliberately chosen for his role because he'd been out of the country for so long that he wouldn't be recognised anyway. I have a very simple rule for this "X in popular culture" issue, well, two really. The first is that they're trivia magnets, but following on from that, if there's something significant about a pop culture reference, shedding light on the topic being described, rather than the pop culture reference, then it ought to be possible to integrate the material into the article body. Take a look at how a 2003 novel is here integrated with the story of an early 20th-century hoax, for instance.[3] Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sorry for the delay in responding; my time has been spent over the last few days in yardwork outside the house.) Well M. Fatuorum, you must be the only person who doesn't see the resemblance between the historical personage & V's mask (FWIW, I found the mustache & van dyke beard of the mask to be very similar to Fawkes' reported appearance): the resemblance between the two is repeated in both of the articles on "V for Vendetta" -- the graphic novel & the film -- without any need for a citation. And I expect, were a citation demanded for this assertion, published sources exist showing that Alan Moore explicitly intended that V wear a Guy Fawkes mask. Further, there is the fact in both fictional works V blows up the Parliament building on 5 November -- the same date Fawkes attempted to; this connection is emphasized at the beginning of the movie where the popular rhyme "Remember, remember the fifth of November" -- alluding to Fawkes' destructive plot -- is repeated. Whether Moore's use of this connection correctly embraces the popular meaning of this event is irrelevant here -- & any discussion should be properly placed in another article. What is relevant is that the connection is explicitly made -- which can be pointed out in a sentence or two. If you think that such a detail is better presented in the text, rather than as an item in a bullet point list, then please rewrite the article to include this relevant detail. -- llywrch (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The verifiable facts are that they invented a mask to look like what they imagined Guy Fawkes looked like, and that nobody knows what he really looked like. The film has nothing at all to do with Guy Fawkes. In fact, a very good case has been made for the main character in V for Vendetta being based on Oscar Wilde, who was also fond of masks. V also blows up the Old Bailey, which Fawkes obviously never did. So the question remains; what does including an account of a mask bearing no resemblance to the real Guy Fawkes (despite your mistaken belief that it does) tell us about Guy Fawkes? Would you similarly insist that the bat article contained a reference to Batman? Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, Malleus Fatuorum, you are being unhelpful & intentionally obtuse to the point of being disruptive. Your responses are nothing more than hand-waving, tendentious denials, & point-splitting. Your allusion to Oscar Wilde implies that you are well acquainted with Uncyclopedia, & suggests your comments should be taken not as logical responses but empty sarcasm. I came to this as an objective third party, who based his opinions on actually seeing the movie -- & I saw the connection without a second thought. I sincerely can't imagine why a sentence or two on this connection -- which is all anyone expects to insert here -- would so offend you. Especially since this commentator, who has done research on the graphic novel, accepts the allusion to Guy Fawkes without question. Further, a Google query returns at least 50 hits where the mask in question is accepted as being of Guy Fawkes, where another Google query fails to identify one person sharing your opinion about the mask. And finally, you still refuse to acknowledge the relevance of the opening lines of the movie, "Remember, remember, the Fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot." We have now the point where anyone who is not a crank or a troll & cares about Wikipedia would concede the point, knowing full well that persistence can lead to sanctions including an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. The next step, & responsibility for what happens, is yours alone. -- llywrch (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AN/I is that-a-way; you are welcome to complain, although I suspect the results may not be what you expect. Had you not been an established Wikipedian, you would have been blocked for trolling -- not warned for your unhelpful responses here. And calling people "ignorant" is as much a personal attack as calling someone an "arrogant jack-ass". -- llywrch (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t we portray him as a resurrected Guy Fawkes, complete with one of those papier-mâché masks, in a cape and a conical hat? He’d look really bizarre and it would give Guy Fawkes the image he’s deserved all these years. We shouldn’t burn the chap every Nov. 5th but celebrate his attempt to blow up Parliament!

— David Lloyd, Painted Smile, p. 272
Why Malleus Fatuorum so vehemently denies the connection to the point of being treated as if a troll or kook baffles me. I believe a sentence or two along the lines that "The character V in the graphic novel and movie V for Vendetta adopted several characteristics of Guy Fawkes" is relevant, & does not violate WP:UNDUE." Simple as that, & all I have suggested be done. I have nothing more to say here, so I'll move on -- even if Malleus Fatuorum can't. -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a sentence or two is permissible, with a link to the main article which should cover the subject in detail. Anything beyond that is getting out of scope and trivial.

ThemFromSpace 08:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this dispute. Clearly there is a lot to be said about the legacy of Guy Fawkes and how he is remembered by popular culture, so it seems to me a no-brainer that a subarticle dealing with that subject should exist (I'm quite surprised one doesn't exist already). I doubt that V for Vendetta is sufficiently notable for mention in the Guy Fawkes article, but it would entirely appropriate for mention in a subarticle. Everyking (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. So someone should write that article, instead of repeatedly inserting irrelevant trivia in this one. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Malleus Fatuorum for providing clinching proof that V for Vendetta does make use of Guy Fawkes. In [ this paper] which M. Fatuorum pointed me to,

Reverts on 2010-04-26

Three editors have WP:CONSENSUS that today's edit to place a mask protess is a trivial mention that does not warrant being included in this article. Its addition is not necessary for full comprehension of who the subject was. --Morenooso (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Jane Eyre - by Charlotte Bronte: Chapter III". ReadPrint.com. 25 October 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Dickens, Charles. David Copperfield. Penguin Classics. ISBN 978-0140434941.
  3. ^ Melville, Herman. Billy Budd. Chelsea House Publications. ISBN 978-0791040546.
  4. ^ "T. S. Eliot - The Hollow Men". Poetryx.com. 25 October 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ "Fahrenheit 451: Summaries and Commentaries - Part One". CliffNotes.com. 25 October 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "Scholastic Online Chat Transcript". Retrieved 2007-07-15.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guy_Fawkes&oldid=358679144"