Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Guy Fawkes Night. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Australia celebrated till?

"Bonfire Night was celebrated in Australia until the mid-to-late 1970s, when sale and public use of fireworks was made illegal and the celebration was effectively abolished." This can't be right. I was born in '78, and distinctly remember celebrating "bonfire night" on the 5th Nov. (with fireworks) in N.S.W. throughout the early Eighties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.48.200 (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is right. As far as I can tell the sale of fireworks to the public was made illegal in the whole of Australia in 1978 with the exception of the Northern Territory, where they're available for one day a year to celebrate Territory Day on 1 July. Perhaps you're thinking of organised public displays in the '80s? Malleus Fatuorum 12:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Traditional rhymes section

What is this lengthy section for? Why isn't it referenced? Do we really need it? --John (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the basic rhyme ("Remember, remember the Fifth of November...") is certainly notable enough to be mentioned in this article. In my view a wider discussion of the rhyme, and its variants, would be better hived off into a linked freestanding article - properly referenced of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --John (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps into Gunpowder Plot in popular culture? Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice suggestion. Done. --John (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Is "celebration" the right word?

The recent vandalism on this page has led me to think whether the (over?) use of the word "celebration" in the article is actually correct, and perhaps a source of the problem. In no way do the overwhelming majority of people taking part in "Guy Fawkes Night" in the UK see it as a "celebration" of an event that happened over 300 years ago. Participants see it as an opportunity to have a party, fireworks, bonfire etc. for no particular reason - simply because it is fun. Historically, the lighting of fires and so on at about this time of year goes back to pre-Christian times; and, also, the burning of a "guy" itself is a practice that has largely died out in many areas. The modern event, therefore, has next to nothing to do with 17th-century religious politics. It occurs to me that the current wording of the article, by placing emphasis on the words "celebration" and on the Gunpowder Plot itself as a historical basis for the modern event, gives an unbalanced picture of what actually happens now in the UK. I'm certainly not suggesting that the Plot itself should be ignored in the article, simply that a more balanced picture be given. Views? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a fair summary to me. Most bonfire night parties have got very little to do with Guy Fawkes in my experience, and they're certainly not a celebration of King James I's safety. Malleus Fatuorum 12:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try giving it a few tweaks, and see what people think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK - I've made some amendments and await comments. I've also added some refs for statements regarding the relationship between Bonfire Night and Samhain - too many refs at the moment, but there are plenty of them - here. It is a question of finding the best sources, in my view, not of removing any mention of the pre-Christian (and pre-1605) ceremonies. The Santino book seems particularly interesting and authoritative. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no relationship between Samhain and Bonfire Night, other than the similarity in dates. Bonfire night as a tradition is traceable right back to 5 November 1605. Parrot of Doom 19:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And your sources for that statement are.... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Antonia Fraser, The Gunpowder Plot, 2005, pages 351 to 357. The facts are quite clear, the lighting of bonfires occurred the very same night the plot failed, and an Act of Parliament the following year made the 5th of November a day of public thanksgiving - 3 Jac. 1. c. 1. - An Act for a Public Thanksgiving to Almighty God every year on the Fifth Day of November. Also read David Cressy in Roy Porter's Myths of the English, p69. I'm sorry but I'll take authoritative sources on this matter over a few weblinks. Parrot of Doom 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No-one is denying anything about what happened in 1605, the establishment of a public holiday, and so forth. What I dispute is your insistence, against many sources, that there is "no connection" between the practice of celebrating the holiday - with bonfires, and fires and fireworks generally - and earlier celebrations at about (and perhaps exactly given the calendar changes - Nov 5 being exactly the midpoint between the two equinoxes) the same time as the Samhain celebrations, which also centred on fires as a focus of celebration. "Guy Fawkes Night" was, undoubtedly, a specific celebration of the 1605 events. (It somewhat begs the question of why, specifically, bonfires were chosen as the mode of celebrating it.) But, this article is not only about the celebrations of 1605 - it is also a redirect from "Bonfire Night", and no article about "Bonfire Night" as it is now celebrated has any reason to ignore the links between the celebrations which are set out in reliable (as well as less reliable) sources. It seems to me that in your concentration on the events of the 17th century, important as they are, you may be missing the bigger picture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'd be perfectly content with a brief paragraph - referenced, obviously - that said something like: "It has been suggested that the modern celebrations of Bonfire Night have links with earlier celebrations, including Samhain and Halloween, which take place within a few days of 5 November. However..." - leading in to the story of the 1605 events. If you are willing to accept that as a compromise, so am I. I also think, by the way, that more could usefully be said about the 17th century use of the Pope (rather than Fawkes) as the effigy, and how that changed over the years - [1]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Guy Fawkes Night". If you think that there is sufficient scope for a "Bonfire Night" article, with a hatlink here (and vice-versa), then go right ahead and create it—I'll even help you expand it, with the sources I have, if you want. However, it isn't my insistence that the celebrations share no roots, it's Fraser's and Cressy's insistence, and they're both experts on the subject. They say that the origins of "Guy Fawkes Night" are very firmly rooted in the bonfires lit to celebrate the saving of King James on 5 November 1605, and the Act of Parliament "enforcing" every anniversary since, for about 250 years. Samhain and other celebrations are purely coincidental, but that isn't to suggest that over time some aspects of those and other celebrations haven't been worked into the 5 November celebrations. If that's the case, then mention of it don't belong anywhere near an "origins" section. If you do want to mention it, I would strongly suggest you use better sources than these:

factually incorrect in its description of the events between 1605-1606, Luton Borough Council is not an expert on the subject and makes several silly mistakes, this somehow manages to doubt that Guy Fawkes had any gunpowder at all, and appears to have been published as a bit of a joke, this is an amateur web piece and not at all suitable for citing, who wrote this and why should I trust him, this is apparently "pretentious waffle from Wales". I'm sorry but I don't place any faith in the sources you've so far demonstrated. None of them appear to have any expertise on the subject.

I'm sorry if this appears a bit brusque, the lack of body language can be a problem when discussing matters on the internet, I assure you that there's absolutely nothing personal in any of this. I feel quite strongly that such pivotal moments in English history should be represented fairly, cited from reliable sources. The most reliable sources I have agree that Guy Fawkes Night originates in the Gunpowder Plot, and nowhere else. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's what Fraser has to say (abbreviated in places). I don't have the Cressy book to hand, it was in a library a while back. "A 2nd feature of the historiography of the GP has been the attention paid to the date itself, variously known as GFD and BN. Unlike many English celebrations, 5 nov was not invented by the victorians...nor for that matter are its origins lost in antiquity, linked over centruies to the celtic fire festival at the beginning of winter (later merged into Catholic Feast of All Saints also on 1 Nov). As DAvid Cressy has written in his study of the subject, there has been "much speculative nonsense" floated along these lines: the English Bonfire Night comes directly from the date of the Opening of Parliament in 1605, and the proximity to 1 November is purely coincidental" Parrot of Doom 20:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that answers much of what I was going to ask you. However, it is contradicted by pp. xvi-xvii of this book [2] - and p.422 of this one [3]. I don't see that we can accept one as a reliable source but not the others. To me, that points to a paragraph that says "on the one hand.... on the other...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Such as.... "It has been suggested that celebrations in Britain involving bonfires in autumn have their roots in pre-Christian ceremonies such as Samhain. In relation to Guy Fawkes Night it has been stated that "bonfires represent a transition from Halloween bonfires (and the Celtic quarter-day bonfires before them)...";^[1] and, also, that "typical Halloween customs have been transferred to Guy Fawkes Day as a Protestant substitute for Catholic All Saints Day, and especially to its eve..."^[2] However, this view has been described as "speculative nonsense", and the specific celebration of Guy Fawkes Night on 5th November dates back to 1605....." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The first book you link makes factual errors in its description of the events between 1605-1606, and is not an authoritative source on the Gunpowder Plot - Fraser's book is. As is Alan Haynes The Gunpowder Plot, which makes no mention of Samhain or anything similar. Nor does Mark Nicholls in Investigating Gunpowder Plot, or in any of the texts he's written for the ODNB. If the authors most familiar with the material don't feel fit to mention it (or pour scorn on the idea when they do), then why would we write anything other than "suggestions that 5 November celebrations are related to older rituals, such as Samhain, are generally discredited."? Parrot of Doom 21:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be right - but, with respect, I don't know you're right, and although Fraser may be an expert on 17th century history I doubt if either she or the other writers on the period are expert on pre-Christian ritual survivals. So, we should go with the best sources, and I think my suggested text bends over backwards to give the right balance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we have expert sources on the Gunpowder Plot. Do we have expert sources on Samhain, or All Saints Day, or Celtic Fire Festivals?

Tell the truth I'm getting a bit fed up of the Gunpowder Plot, I've worked on getting all the plotters' articles up to GA/FA over the last few months and I'm a bit knackered. How about we work together, and kick the very messy Samhain into touch? Because if we can each do that, with decent sources (I'll check the libraries), maybe then we'll be able to solve this little conundrum.Parrot of Doom 22:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

People who write books on festivals for the University of Tennessee Press, and internationally reviewed encyclopedias, have to be considered reliable sources on the areas they cover, whether or not we think they are "right". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source is one thing - an expert source is another. I'm not convinced so far that Santino is an expert, particularly as his book focuses on North American celebrations. Parrot of Doom 22:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I know absolutely nothing about Samhain, so I'm not speaking from a position of authority. Parrot of Doom 22:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I try to put a different spin on this? The problem it seems to me is twofold. The first is that we don't have an article on Bonfire Night (that's a disambiguation page) and the second is that (in my opinion anyway) hardly anyone calls it Guy Fawkes Night any more. So far as I can recall I've always called it Bonfire Night. Limiting this article to Guy Fawkes Night might be problematical in the sense that it's certainly morphed away from Fawkes over recent years; I can't remember the last time I saw a guy for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me therefore that we have two choices. The first is to focus this article strictly on Guy Fawkes Night, while recognising that over the years it changed and came to encompass older celebrations, Catholic and pagan. The second is to write a proper Bonfire Night article, where the wider Samhain issues can be addressed. On reflection perhaps the best solution is to do both. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where does "Guy Fawkes Night" come from anyway? Is it an Americanism? I've always called it Bonfire Night too.
- I think perhaps focus this article on Bonfire Night as it relates to the Gunpowder Plot, and work on improving the other, older celebrations' articles. Then we can look at some kind of crossover. Parrot of Doom 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I just heard someone on TV refer to "Bonfire Night" - I agree that "Guy Fawkes Night" is an increasingly obsolete term. I think one of the problems with splitting the article would be where to draw the dividing line. I'd prefer to keep them both together in one article, although I think that some of the immediate post-1605 stuff would be more useful at the article on the Observance of 5th November Act 1605. Today and tomorrow may not be the best time to start making major changes to the articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the last part, right now the focus should be on turning this rather messy article into something resembling a worthwhile read. A big job... Parrot of Doom 22:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly isn't the optimum time to be making big changes, but I think turning this into a more general Bonfire Night article and moving some of the Fawke's specific stuff into the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 article with a brief summary here is probably the way to go. As it happens, I'm wondering if anyone has ever called 5 November "Guy Fawkes Night" rather than Bonfire Night. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - [4] and [5] - but maybe more in "the Empire" than in the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. Very few if any in the UK would call it Guy Fawkes Night, and as I said, I've never heard it called that here that I can remember. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Aus/NZ I've never heard the term "Bonfire Night". It must be a UK thing. Iridia (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Where do we get "for the most part the modern Guy Fawkes Night is a pleasurable family event, free of the animosity once demonstrated toward Catholics."? I'm not denying this is probably true, but is it verifiable? Is there evidence of the demographic which participates in the festivities in modern times? I would be interested in Protestant/Catholic, male/female and left/right in particular. --John (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think we could probably all agree that this article needs a great deal of work John, and that that's just one of its many problems. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  - I trimmed it a little, it was waffly. --John (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    - It came from the ODNB entry. I'm off to the John Rylands library today to look again at David Cressy's essay on the subject. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      - I'm in the library now, summarising Cressy's work. I'll photograph the pages just for reference. Parrot of Doom 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

'V for Vendetta'

Perhaps one of the more popular modern reasons for Guy Fawkes' Day celebrations is because of its significance in the movie V for Vendetta. I'm amazed that this isn't mentioned on this page? Can somebody add that? Sir Ian (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page archives. Parrot of Doom 16:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's best mentioned in Guy Fawkes (briefly) and Gunpowder Plot in popular culture; the film's not particularly relevant to GFN itself. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in both those articles, and I see no merit at all in the suggestion that the film has had any effect on modern-day observation. Eric Corbett 16:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point, sorry if I didn't make myself clear. It is already mentioned in two more relevant articles, and so there's even less need to have it here where it is not relevant. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs more about how it is currently celebrated in the UK

"The present-day Guy Fawkes Night is usually celebrated at large organised events, centred on a bonfire and extravagant firework displays.". Not true at least in the UK, it is mostly celebrated by families with children letting off fireworks in their back gardens after dark. If they are lucky they also have a bonfire and outdoor food such as roast potatoes etc. Having lived in the suburbs most of my life, it has always been like WW3 on Bonfire Night as all the families around let off fireworks. Organised displays do occur, but I still think that more people take part in their own family letting off of fireworks. Perhaps some statistics on firework sales could be found. The past religious significance has been forgotten by everyone except historians. 2.97.212.235 (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Statisctics on firework sales would tell you very little, as I'd bet that most fireworks are used on occasions other that Guy Fawkes Night. New Year and Diwali to mention but two. Eric Corbett 15:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair point that probably has some truth about it, but the trouble is that there aren't any high quality sources that attempt to compare the modern day celebration with its history. So anything we did include would be based not on the experts' view, but on our own. Parrot of Doom 16:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

But what is the nature of high quality in regards to the topic? e.g. there's a long section in the Christmas Wikipedia article about the Christmas economic season, which has absolutely nothing to do with the event in regards to its history (bar St Nick and the giving of presents), but is a major aspect of the event to those who are more secular yet celebrate the event. Vickytnz (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

High quality in that this is a featured article and requires high quality sources. Basically all the decent literature on this subject discusses its history, leaving the modern celebration as an afterthought. So that's what we do. Now, if someone found a decent source on GFN that expands on the modern celebration, while also discussing its history, then perhaps we could do the same, but until then anything we add is mostly synthesis. Parrot of Doom 09:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

PoD you write "this is a featured article ..." at the time this was promoted to good article status, I was concerned that you would use its status as an excuse to stifle development of this article and here you are doing just that (There is a definition for reliable sources in Wikipedia polices, but "high quality" is used in the FA criteria and is not defined, so it has a Humpty Dumpty quality of "it means just what I choose it to mean"). WP:SYN says "do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position". To summarise reliable sources create a comprehensive coverage of a topic is not synthesis because "conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources" is not being created. By the interpretation of syn that of your statement above seems to suggest, if there is a biography of a dead person where the date of birth and date of death are in two separate reliable sources, then the two dates can not be mentioned in the same Wikipedia article as that would be synthesis -- that is not the intention of WP:SYN. -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that this article should have been promoted to a featured article status. At the time objections were raised about its scope (WP:FA Criteria "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", and the person who promoted it also ignored the fact that you (PoD) were repeatedly breaking the three revert rule to keep the article in the format you wanted (WP:FA Criteria "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars"). I see by the recent history of the article that you (PoD) are still willing to break the three revert rule to keep the content as you prefer (1: (14:43, 27 October 2013‎), 2 , 3, 4: (12:02, 28 October 2013‎)). Pod you have been told by diverse editors over a number of years that you have ownership problems over this and other articles. Why not take a holiday from this article and let other editors take over the role that is so quaintly described as "stewardship"? -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I note you're still a disruptive idiot PBS. I really couldn't care less what you think. You received severe criticism at your RFC, advice you haven't taken on board. You should be desysopped and told to disappear back under whatever stone you slithered out from. I will pay your comments no more attention. Parrot of Doom 12:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You can forget about putting anything interesting or relevant to today's practices on this page as either Eric Corbett or Parrot of Doom will delete your work. They seem to have an agenda to keep this page as inaccessible and academic - solely based around history - as possible. Read the history of this page to see how terribly they have treated people who dare contribute to this precious page of theirs in the past.122.62.207.81 (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you reveal your true identity instead of hiding behind an IP like some childish little coward? Parrot of Doom 12:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Because she's a childish little coward? Eric Corbett 14:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in, which is why the entry came up anonymously. The pair of you don't have the right attitude to be editors on Wikipedia. You also assume that your own contributions are the only ones that have any merit. I highly recommend that you both go away and do something else with your lives, because you are not making Wikipedia any better. Honestly, read some of what you have written to other people. If you see nothing wrong with that, then I seriously worry for you.Chuckeee (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone doesn't have the right attitude for sure, but that would be you. Here's a clue for those who don't suspect that Chuckee is a sleeper account.[6] Eric Corbett 01:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes Eric Corbett. Did you know that an expert at anything started off as a beginner? And back in the day, even you started off with only 1 or 2 edits. There are a lot of people in the real world who have something worthwhile to contribute, and you shut them down before they can even get started. You have a nice little clique going on here, with Parrot of Doom et al.Chuckeee (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to the original point, "Generally, modern 5 November celebrations are run by local charities and other organisations, with paid admission and controlled access" certainly reflects the trend, but I would think is still a bit of an overstatement at the moment. A Guardian columnist from 10 years ago seems a weak reference to hang it from. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is 'other countries' only allowed to include the US?

I added some information about Guy Fawkes being celebrated (albeit less so these days) in Australia and New Zealand as the topic is called 'other countries' and yet is limited to only the USA. However, it was deleted as 'trivia'. Surely it's worth mentioning those countries that do celebrate it, even if in just a sentence? [EDIT: I notice that it's briefly mentioned in the lede, but 'some Commonwealth countries' is still vague given it can include India!] Vickytnz (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please search the talk page archives for more information. Parrot of Doom 18:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

On that basis, should the mention in the lead that "celebrations continue in some Commonwealth nations" be removed? It's not supported by any text or citations in the main article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with that, although I don't think a similar sentence in the article body would need a citation, it's not particularly controversial. Parrot of Doom 19:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

But if it's mentioned, it surely needs some evidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Only material either challenged or likely to be challenged. Parrot of Doom 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm challenging it, so I'm removing it until sources are provided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The article should have a comprehensive section on 21st century practices. At the moment its is too narrowly focused the history of the event in England. -- PBS (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A focus on the history of the event in England is appropriate per WP:DUEWEIGHT, as that is what the most reliable and comprehensive sources focus on. Furthermore, more details on 21st-century practices are available at Bonfire Night. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can there at least be a link to Bonfire Night here? There isn't a single one on the page. In NZ and Australia it's not known as Bonfire Night but Guy Fawkes (as per the news articles), and it's unlikely they'd make the link without a proper connection. If Bonfire Night is meant to capture modern/global practices, perhaps a redirect 'for modern celebrations of the event, see Bonfire Night' at the top of the page? Vickytnz (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"A focus on the history of the event in England is appropriate per WP:DUEWEIGHT," how do you proportion duweight? -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bonfire night was a dab page and to all intense and purposes remains one (see the edit by Nikkimaria). The reason for using the name "Guy Fawkes Night" for this article was precisely because bonfire night commemorates/celebrates different events under different traditions. So although "bonfire night" and "fireworks night" are more common names than "Guy Fawkes Night", "Guy Fawkes Night" was chosen for the name of this article because it fits the WP:AT criteria "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". -- PBS (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As I just mentioned, you proportion due weight based on "what the most reliable and comprehensive sources focus on". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding. I did not ask how does "one proportion duweight?" (perhaps it is a dialect thing). I personally disagree with the position put forward that only histories are the most reliable and comprehensive sources, as they are not comprehensive either in depth of or breadth. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We certainly do have a misunderstanding - you say at 18:48, 4 November 2013 that "[you] did not ask how does "one proportion duweight?"", but at 08:48, 4 November 2013 you say "how do you proportion duweight?". I'm not sure under what dialect these statements might be compatible. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is the difference between you (singular) and you (plural as in "yous" or "ye" in some dialects). If I am asking in general I use one, if I am asking a specific person I write you. -- PBS (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As "Guy Fawkes", certainly Britan gets the most WP:DUE since it is a British historical event. However, as the customary traditions are a subset of other more general "bonfire nights" etc, some minor links over there should be allowed. "In other countries" should only have content here as specifically related to Guy Fawkes, other similar celebrations unrelated to Guy Fawkes should be in the bonfire nights article or somewhere else. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What I find strange about that edit on the dab page is that all the foreign country links explicitly have the word "Guy Fawkes'" in the titles. They're not talking about a bonfire night, they're talking about Guy Fawkes, as in commemorating the gunpowder plot and its failure. There is no other custom that is being used in those countries, it is definitely this one. To be honest, I think the split sections just cause confusion, particularly as there's no See Also: for Bonfire Night in the Guy Fawkes header. Vickytnz (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps those who believe that consensus has been consistently achieved on various issues, such as what goes in 'other countries', could work on a [FAQ] for the Talk page as a guide to editors on this article? AnonNep (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did 'Parrot of Doom' edit my addition of a simple fact stating that Guy Fawkes Night is also celebrated in New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland? It seems this user has done this in the past, and must have some underlying reasons for not wanting any other country mentioned in this section except for the USA. How can we report this unnecessary removal of legitimate additions to Wikipedia so this user can be prevented from destroying the work of others? Chuckeee (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Another comparison: Halloween#Around_the_world has newspaper references to show that other countries in the world celebrate the event. The point of the reference is to show that the event is observed in the country or not, and while a national newspaper may not be high scholarship, unless a columnist wrote the article, it's been through an editorial vetting process. No, it may not be enough to write at length about it, but certainly enough to show which countries know what it is and what it means. Vickytnz (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Halloween is not a Featured Article. Nor it is even a Good Article. But you've missed the point, which is that what happens in Australia or wherever is irrelevant to this article. You could write Guy Fawkes Night outside the UK if you like, and fill it to your heart's content. You can even link to that from this article, nobody will complain. Parrot of Doom 23:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've gone to investigate what is actually said about Featured Articles and edits, and went from Wikipedia:Be_bold (next to the note about the article being a FA) to Wikipedia:Defending article quality:

"As such, featured articles should be the first place to start when defending article quality. We should look for bad edits on all articles, and use featured article status as a guiding light to where we should look; however, no one is advocating that edits to featured articles be reverted, or that featured articles be protected. This proposal will merely suggest guidelines for assertively patrolling featured articles and examining new edits with a critical eye." From reading what is said about these articles, obviously politically contentious points will get deleted, but not that mere 'trivia' will get deleted. If you like, I could try and make a new article on Guy Fawkes in non-UK countries… but I suspect that the call will be for the information to be included on this page! Vickytnz (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to create that article (a similar thing was done at Gunpowder Plot in popular culture) but the argument for adding details about other countries' celebrations in this article has very little support, particularly when their main proponents (see the idiot user PBS) go as far as disrupting WP:FAC to make their point. Parrot of Doom 23:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that these pages end up being ivory towers. Could you at least better signpost the links as see alsos at the appropriate sections or header of this article? The way they're all hidden at the bottom implies they're things the article would rather ignore (which, reading the comments about that popular culture piece, is very much the case). Surely part of the role of articles is to get people to the right article if they're in fact on the wrong one. The plethora of Gunpowder Plot/Bonfire Night/Guy Fawkes articles is near impenetrable. Vickytnz (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

PoD if you breach the civility policy again I will raise an ANI. PoD you write "celebrations in this article has very little support" you evidence for this? There is a fundemental difference between the article "Gunpowder plot" which was an historical event and Guy Fawks Night which is an annual celebration of the foiling of that plot. Unlike Oak Apple Day, Guy Fawkes Night is not a moribund or dead celebration, it is more like the celebration of The Twelfth, only it is celebrated in more than one country and this article should reflect that, so your suggestion of a popular culture article I think shows how little you understand the issue that many editors over a number of years have raised. -- PBS (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not for the first time, you're talking out of your arse. Now, where's that stone you slithered out from? Parrot of Doom 00:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The objection seems reasonable, and the short text added here not "trivial" and with some polishing ok to go in. The article begins: "Guy Fawkes Night, also known as Guy Fawkes Day, Bonfire Night and Firework Night, is an annual commemoration observed on 5 November, primarily in Great Britain." By the article's own account, in America it was mainly known as "Pope Day" not "Guy Fawkes Night", and celebrations petered out well over a century ago. The "other countries" section begins "Gunpowder Treason Day was exported by settlers to colonies around the world, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada" but then is entirely restricted to America. To forbid all mention here of what might have happened after the initial export seems perverse. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

so present a source which supports your position, that undue weight is placed on this event's history. One that compares foreign celebrations with the UK. Parrot of Doom 10:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not doing any work on this, merely saying that you should not obstruct those who are trying to improve the article. The sources for the rather long American coverage don't look as if they would have much UK coverage. If there is any undue weight it is having so much on America, while excluding everywhere else. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If you had any familiarity with the sources you'd know that what you've just written is incorrect. On Wikipedia we follow the sources, which is exactly what I've done here. Not one single person has ever managed to demonstrate that this article omits important facts. Not one. I've just asked you to do it and your response includes only your opinion, not that of any knowledgeable source on this topic. Same as everyone else. What happens in Australia and beyond is trivia and does not belong here. If anyone doesn't like that then I suggest they write a book, get it published and add it here. It really is that simple. Parrot of Doom 12:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

But all the contributors over the years have been attempting to get one or two sentences in showing that the Guy Fawkes' night is celebrated in particular other countries—a fact that surprised most British people—and have years and years of national newspapers, council announcements (including temporary permits to sell/let off fireworks domestically as it's usually illegal) and significant attendance figures for fireworks displays on the night to prove that it is the case. They're not saying it's significant, but it is celebrated to the point that regional councils put on fireworks for them. They don't do it for the US Fourth of July. It is directly related to this event (unlike, say, the difference between Mothering Sunday and Mother's Day (United States). Our Kingdom for a paragraph!

Not one single person has ever managed to demonstrate that this article omits important facts. ...What happens in Australia and beyond is trivia and does not belong here. PoD I think your argument is a tautology. I have in the past brought up sources here on the talk page that show that the celebrations in NZ are very large See in archive 4 for example ' Fireworks display goes ahead in capital (21:10 05/11/2010) "The Wellington fireworks were expected to draw crowds of 100,000 to 200,000. The event cost $190,000 to stage, of which $120,000 came from the council." Now when you consider that the Wikipedia article says that the population of Wellington is about 400,000 that is a large turn out.' This year the event was staged on the weekend after the 5th for the first time since the show was initiated by the council in "1995, when it was developed to help firefighters at Guy Fawkes, because their workload was increasing due to fires started at private displays". All sources used for that information is from reliable sources as defined in WP:V -- PBS (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I just have to say that reading Parrot of Doom's responses to valid criticism, and his constant personal attacks, is like watching a petulant child (with a very foul mouth) react to rightful admonishment from respected and knowledgeable elders. It is a sad that this article is in such poor shape.Chuckeee (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Either reveal your real account or fuck off. Parrot of Doom 14:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Chuckeee (talk) doesn't have to out themselves to have an opinion and, as abuse is increasing on both sides, you should both remember WP:Civil because neither of you are exempt from it, and no-one WP:OWN's this page. AnonNep (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Adherence to WP:SOCK is required and beneficial to discussion; sanctimony isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of WP:Civil and contribution to ongoing WP:OWN is noted. AnonNep (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox?

Given that this is an official event, shouldn't this have an infobox? This might also get around some of the issues relating to countries and related pages, as it includes the countries it's commemorated in and also related events. Vickytnz (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about infoboxes but I do have strong feelings about this article's main image, which an infobox would obscure. So my feeling is that no, there shouldn't be an infobox. Parrot of Doom 20:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason why that image has to be used in the infobox. A different image from the page could be used in the infobox, with the current main image getting a new position a bit further down the page. It's a great image, but the artwork itself is not the subject of the article (i.e not like the main image on Mona Lisa), so we can be flexible with where it's located. Template:Infobox holiday would suit this article. Robyn2000 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"There's no reason why that image has to be used in the infobox" - there's also no reason why an infobox has to be used in this article. Other than to please people who like infoboxes, that is. Parrot of Doom 23:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm a hardcore fan of inboxes, so consider me well and truly in favour of one. But seriously, a wordy article like this would benefit from an infobox as a quick summary. Robyn2000 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a fan of including an infobox. --John (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – I am completely against the addition of an infobox on this article. -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Should Pope Day be split off?

Presently, the article starts with Guy Fawkes, then blunders into an almost entirely different idea of Pope Day in other countries, based only on the similarity of the time and of some of the celebrations. I think this is a mistake. To illustrate the fluidity of such traditions, consider that the American Thanksgiving was once celebrated with masks and costumes, and Guy Fawkes Night linked with Mischief Night, both of which have since been migrated to Halloween here. My feeling is that the article should limit itself to celebrations where the memory of Guy Fawkes specifically is invoked.

I'm thinking the article needs to relate Guy Fawkes Night to Thanksgiving in general, as it was just one of many reasons given to hold such days. (Victory over the Spanish Armada, advances in the U.S. Civil War, etc.) Pope Day is presumably another such case, even more explicitly rooted in Puritan sentiments. It would stand to reason that Thanksgiving should be the "main topic" in some sense, with Guy Fawkes Night being one specific instance, and Pope Day another, i.e. splitting the present article in two.

A consequence of this would be that this article would have more room to review celebrations of Guy Fawkes Night sensu stricto in all Commonwealth countries as suggested at #Why is 'other countries' only allowed to include the US? above. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't know where to start. So I won't. I'll simply say "no". Parrot of Doom 17:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Bonfire Night in Newfoundland

Bonfire Night is celebrated in the Canadian province of Newfoundland & Labrador, particularly on the island. This should have some mention in the article. --Bentonia School (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that? Eric Corbett 18:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Calendars

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request the following note be placed after the first mention of 5 November:

<ref group=nb>England and the British colonies in America changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1752; Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday 14 September 1752. Guy Fawkes Night has been observed on 5 November whichever calendar was in effect. Dates in the article are stated in the calendar that was in effect at the time of the event, but for purposes of the article the year is always considered to begin 1 January even though the year was considered to begin 1 March in England and the colonies before 1752.</ref>

Which dates in the article are affected by the adoption of the Gregorian calendar? None? Eric Corbett 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking quickly, I see 4 November 1802. Also, there are numerous years after 1752 mentioned where it is implied the date being discussed is 5 November. In addition, many readers might not recall when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England and might not know whether 5 November 1605 was a Gregorian or Julian date. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

But why does it matter whether it's a Gregorian or Julian date? Eric Corbett 17:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes events are commemorated an exact number of calendar years after the event (for example, Washington's Birthday until 1971). Other events are commemorated on the date with the same name, and thus are not an exact number of calendar years after the event. Anyone wishing to research 17th or 18th century publications will want to know which is the case. Also, the date the new year begins is important if searching 17th or 18th century publications.

But the date the new year begins is irrelevant in this case. Eric Corbett 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The article states the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 was passed in January 1606, but the persons present when the act was passed would have considered it to be January 1605. I think it is reasonable to warn readers that dates have been altered from what persons present at the events would have considered the dates to be. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The calendar used is irrelevant since it is the event and date that is commemorated, not the number of days between commemorations. Parrot of Doom 17:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The calendar is never irrelevant. If you don't know which calendar a date is stated in, you don't know when the event happened. The event cannot be compared to events that occurred in other countries that observed a different calendar.

Also, if a future editor wants to add information involving a date to the article, the editor will need to know whether to convert the date to the calendar used in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So should the date also be converted to the Islamic calendar? Eric Corbett 20:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. 5 November 1605 was on....5 November 1605. 5 November 1805 was on...surprise surprise....5 November 1805. Your argument is ridiculous. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless you were living in a Catholic country, in which case it was 15 November. Oh, weren't the plotters trying to put a new monarch on the throne and establish a regency that would be more sympathetic to Catholics? Gee, no one could ever be confused about which calender to use in this situation, could they. There is no chance that this article will ever contain any mention of any event in a Catholic country, is there? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your point is ridiculous. The date is 5 November. What other countries think the date was is irrelevant to this article. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Although this entire thread seems pedantic, all the OP is asking for is a note, which I am confused as to how this could be objectionable. Particularly the issue about the passing of the observance of the 5th of November act, where the date is part of the act name (or at least our article), and there is an obvious discrepancy. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

He's asking for a note about an irrelevance. What the date was in other countries has no bearing on anything in this article. Perhaps we should also add notes to the effect that people in other countries spoke different languages and that they also ate different foods. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that some kind of note is necessary. The article currently says that "the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 was passed in January 1606," and that certainly requires clarification (it's even more important that the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 article contain a note, of course). -- 101.119.14.238 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It wasn't 1606 until March, as far as those who passed the law thought. I can see of zero policy based argument why this uncontested, and relevant fact should be excluded, especially with something as minor as a note. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If the note is not included, then I request that the article be dowgraded from FA to GA. Sloppiness with dates is inexcusable in an historical article. -- 101.119.14.160 (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded that section of the article to remove the need to explain that January 1605 followed November 1605. Hopefully this addresses the point. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible thing to do. Parrot of Doom 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Legal and religious history

Holiday's often have three aspects: legal, religious, and traditional informal celebrations. This is somewhat analogous to the three aspects of a wedding: registering the marriage with the civil authorities, a religious ceremony in a house of worship, and the reception with wedding cake, champagne, dancing, etc. These three aspects are often separable. Today all that survives of this holiday is the third aspect, the informal celebrations. However, for most of it's history it was a legal public holiday and a red-letter day in the church calendar. In the 17th century and well into the 18th, that would have meant compulsory church attendance, typically at 8:30 AM as on a Sunday, then something like regular Sunday services except for the topic of the sermon, and with extra prayers at the end. For the rest of the day, Sunday blue laws would have applied. No work, no public entertainments (the racetrack and theatre were closed) and no outdoor recreations such as stool-ball (an early form of cricket).

As soon the Thanksgiving Act was passed, Robert Barker (the same person who printed and published the King James Bible) printed up a supplement to the Book of Common Prayer entitled, PRAYERS AND THANKSGIVING, for the happy deliverance of his Majestie, the Queene, Prince, and States of Parliament from the bloody intended Massacre by Gunpowder, 5 November, 1605. These supplement were available in two typefaces, Roman and black letter, and in a range of sizes: folio, quarto, octavo, etc., all the way down to 64mo. In those days the Book of Common prayer as a whole was only revised infrequently, 1552 (Queen Elizabeth edition), 1559 (re-issue of 1552 edition), 1604 (Hampton Court revision). The next one after that was 1662. As a result, supplements were taken very seriously. When they were received, they along with the book were usually take to a bookbinder so that the supplement could be made part of the book, usually at the end. Churches, even small ones, were regularly inspected to make sure they had all the necessary paperwork: a Bible, a Book of Common Prayer with all the supplements, a psalter, etc. If it wasn't all there, the church could be shut down and have its credentials revoked.

In England, Gun-Powder Day (as it was known in the early 17th century) was the most popular holiday for Puritans, and usually their only annual holiday. In New England things were complicated. The Pilgrim separatists of the Plymouth Colony eschewed all annual holidays as "dead ritual." In the Massachusetts Bay Colony some holidays were observed in the early days (Christmas, St. Valentine's Day, etc.) but later in the 1630s the stricter sort of Puritans launched a War on Christmas that swept up all other annual holidays. In 1688 the ban was lifted, only to be put in force again in 1692. However, Gun-Powder-Treason Day (as it was known after 1662) was exempt and continued to be observed until the outbreak of the American Revolution.

In Virginia I'm still trying to find out if it was observed at Jamestown (or Fort James) in 1607. Theoretically it should have been, since the Virginia Company was very particular about making sure that the forms were observed, including red-letter days. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. It would be nice to learn more about this date's celebration in the US. Thanks for your input. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There never was a Pope's Day

For the last few weeks, I've been researching the various names by which this holiday has been known. It never had an official name, at least not de jure, as the Thanksgiving Act and the Book of Common Prayer only describe it in terms of what sort of holiday it was, when it was to be observed, for what purpose, etc. However, it had something approaching a de facto official name: Gunpowder Treason Day. It is first attested in 1611-12 as "daie of the Gunpowder treasonn." This name stuck, not only in England, but throughout the world, wherever English was spoken, up to the time the holiday became defunct in 1859, except in the United States, where the name went out of fashion with the outbreak of the American Revolution, when the holiday ceased to be observed here. "The fifth of November" was used with considerable frequency as well.

The after-dark festivities, on the other hand, had names of their own, possibly because they were never actually part of the holiday. The relationship between the two was something like the relationship between Ash Wednesday and Mardi Gras: Gunpowder Treason Day was when people went to church in the morning and prayed, then spent the rest of the day in quiet contemplation, staying home with family. Once the sun set below the horizon, the holiday was over and all hell broke loose. At that point it became Bonfire Night.

"Guy Faux day" is first attested in 1819, "Guy Vaux day" in 1820, Guy Fawkes Day in 1825, and Guy Fawkes Night in 1835.

Then there's "Pope's Day" and its variants, Pope Day and Pope Night.

Pope Day began in the port towns of Massachusetts in the 1730s, when visiting sailors, for the first time in the history of New England, were permitted to celebrate the after-dark festivities. Local children soon joined in on the fun and took to calling it Pope Day. In the mid-1760s, youth gangs in Boston recruited by wealthy political organizations (anti-Stamp Act Patriots) began holding impressive Pope Night or Pope Day festivities. There is no indication that any of these "pope" names were ever widely adopted outside of the small circles of children and youths in the port districts.

In England Pope Day turns up in the late 18th- and early 19th century, first in the context of children's speech, later in reference to juvenile delinquents. For example, "Pope Day" might occur in a political speech where the speaker is suggesting that his opponent is the sort of person who would called it Pope Day.

In 1835, Nathaniel Hawthorne published a story called "Old News" in The New-England Magazine - Volume 8:

Here is a volume of what were once newspapers each on a small half sheet yellow and time stained of a coarse fabric and imprinted with a rude old type Their aspect conveys a....

Governor Belcher makes proclamation against certain 'loose and dissolute people,' who have been wont to stop passengers in the streets, on the Fifth of November, 'otherwise called Pope's Day,' and levy contributions for the building of bonfires. In this instance, the populace are more puritanic than the magistrate.

This is the first occurrence of Pope's Day with an "apostrophe ess." Belcher was governor of Massachusetts from 1730 to 1741, but never issued any such proclamation, as Hawthorne's is a work of fiction.

Although published anonymously, it is later reprinting in various collections of short stories such as "The Snow-Image, and Other Twice-Told Tales." The following year, 1836, the diary of a prominent colonial-era New Englander is published, edited by his son. Although the author's text nowhere mentions "Pope's Day," the editor liberally sprinkles the book with "Pope's Day" in the footnotes, commentary, and chapter titles.

During the 19th century, "Pope Day" (without the s) turns up a few times, in the 1820s, and again in the 1850s. Then in the 1880s several books on the history of Catholics in US repeatedly use the term Pope Day.

The in 1894, Alice Morse Earle, in her book, "Customs and Fashions in Old New England" revives "Pope's Day" with an S, quoting Nathaniel Hawthorne without attribution and treating his short story as history. This sets off an avalanche of other books on the history of New England, the history of Holidays, and the history of holidays in New England, all using the term Pope's Day as if that had been what New Englanders called it.

Unfortunately, I learned all this by examining hundreds of primary sources, but can't find much in the way of reliable secondary sources that we can use a references. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy with work and other things of late so I didn't get time to reply properly to this. I think your research may be quite valuable but as you said, it being based on primary sources makes it unsuitable for inclusion here. Have you given any thought perhaps to writing an article and submitting it to a peer-reviewed history journal? Parrot of Doom 23:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. When I get interested in a topic, I usually spend months researching it (in my spare time) before making any substantive edits. I am especially interested in everyday topics that have been neglected by contemporary academics, and where most of the available literature is tertiary and unreliable. Since I do a lot of fact-checking, I inevitably end up with lots of primary sources. Eventually that helps me discover better secondary sources, so in the long run everything works out. (I am here to improve the article, not to write research papers.)

Incidentally, there is no rule against using primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). Novice editors are inclined to use them in ways that violate OR and many other rules. In my discussion above regarding "Pope Day" vs. "Pope's Day," I was using primary sources in the service of original research, so I plead guilty, but only to violating an article rule on the talk page. I'm still looking for secondary sources on that.Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)