Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 4

Current practice

While admirable for the amount of historical detail it goes into, this article says nothing about current practice in Britain. A description of a bonfire night party (bonfire, fireworks, sparklers, baked potatoes, sausage rolls, etc), usually put on for the benefit of children, should be added. A very important point is that, apart from people interested in history, the celebration is just an excuse for an exciting winter outdoor night-time party for children and nobody is aware of it being anti-catholic. I'm sure catholics with children now celebrate it as readily as anyone else.

The article also says "Generally, modern 5 November celebrations are run by local charities and other organisations, with paid admission and controlled access". Not true. When I lived in the suburbs recently, as soon as it got dark it was as if world war three had started, with fireworks going off in all the gardens around. There have been organised displays for decades (free in my experience), but people have also had their own parties in their gardens with their children as well. Fireworks are sold in supermarkets etc. in the weeks before November the 5th. 2.101.12.198 (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As previously discussed, Parrot of Doom and his entourage have deleted most of the present-day material which was here. The "other countries" section ignores most of the areas around the world which mark the Fifth of November, concentrating instead on the United States, which does not celebrate it now but did do so in a few places in the remote past. Moonraker (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not the first to mention this issue, and you won't be the last. The article's weighting of history reflects the most reliable sources available on the subject, which are largely unified in that they say mostly little to nothing about the modern celebration. If you can find good reliable sources which include significant coverage of today's 5 November celebrations then I'm sure we can work it in. What Moonraker's silly little whinge doesn't make clear is that despite being repeatedly asked, he and "his entourage" have either been unwilling, or unable to provide any such sources. Parrot of Doom 11:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern Reinterpretations

Guy Fawkes Night has taken on new significance since Anonymous has been using Guy Fawkes as their unofficial mascot and have threatened to destroy Facebook on the 5th of November. There's a lot of content in the Archives, so maybe I missed it, but it seems this should be referenced on the page. Is there a reason it's not that I somehow missed? If not, I'll put it in. The Cap'n (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason that it isn't in this article is that while Guy Fawkes Night might be relevant to Anonymous, the same cannot be said in reverse. Parrot of Doom 21:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be expanded to cover the 21st century and current practices

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

see: Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 6#Current practice

While this article does not have a comprehensive section on contemporary celebrations around the world it should not be a featured article because it is missing a large part of what the article should be about. If this is just going to be about historical events then we shoudl move it to the history of Guy Fawkes Night and write a new article about Guy Fawkes Night. Otherwise it should be expanded to cover the event as it occurs in the 21st century.

Parrot of Doom you have argued in a previous section that "If you can find good reliable sources which include significant coverage of today's 5 November celebrations then I'm sure we can work it in. What Moonraker's silly little whinge doesn't make clear is that despite being repeatedly asked, he and 'his entourage' have either been unwilling, or unable to provide any such sources."

First of all why the disparaging remark "silly little whinge"? Do you really think that helps to build a collegiate atmosphere on a talk page? What does "his entourage" mean? As to your comment about unwilling to provide any such source you either have not been reading this talk page carefully or you have a bad memory as reliable sourced information has been provided both in the article and on this talk page.

Newspapers and government websites are reliable sources. This is not my just my opinion but is the general consensus as expressed in WP:SOURCES. And just like historical sources, these will tend to concentrate on such things as fireworks bans and comments by government ministers that you previously dismissed with the comment "Then you might ask yourself why its so important to mention specific fireworks bans and comments by government ministers when compared to civil wars, religious upheavals, etc."

By that measure we would have to strip lots of "unimportant" information from this article eg:

Extended content

In settlements such as Carlisle, Norwich and Nottingham, corporations provided music and artillery salutes. Canterbury celebrated 5 November 1607 with 106 pounds of gunpowder and 14 pounds of match, and three years later food and drink was provided for local dignitaries, as well as music, explosions and a parade by the local militia.

or

By the 1620s 5 November was honoured in market towns and villages across the country, though it was some years before it was commemorated throughout England. Gunpowder Treason Day, as it was then known, became the predominant English state commemoration. Some parishes made the day a festive occasion, with public drinking and solemn processions.

or

For the lower classes, however, the anniversary was a chance to pit disorder against order, a pretext for violence and uncontrolled revelry. This theme continued into the 19th century, with reports in Lewes of annual rioting, intimidation of "respectable householders"

Enough already!

At the moment if an American reads this article would they be able to tell that ~~November the 5th~~Guy Fawkes Night [altered as Malleus Fatuorum seems to think there is a difference] is still a big celebration in England and New Zealand. For the New Zealand celebration I provided reliable sources on this talk page see my previous posting on 18:41, 24 March 2011 in which I sourced the comments from a New Zealand government website and the New Zealand Herald both of which are reliable sources. But you already know this Parrot of Doom because you made the next posting to the talk page after that one and chose not to comment on it. -- PBS (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about November 5th, it's about Guy Fawkes Night, a distinction you seem to find singularly difficult to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the two sources? The first starts "Wellington's skies will come alive this Guy Fawkes Night as ..." and the second has the byline "Our guide to Guy Fawkes" followed by a first sentence that reads "We offer some suggestions on where to go for Guy Fawkes displays tonight and at the weekend...". -- PBS (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

So does anyone have an objection to including information based on the two sources above? If so why?-- PBS (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Rhymes

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear all,
The tradtional rhymes associated with "Guy Fawkes" story is the soul of this article. Somebody has removed it from one of the previous article written by someone else here. So i am restoring the traditional rhymes section again as it was.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried but failed to find the source for these rhymes, or even a reliable source that discusses them in detail. Unless we can demonstrate their relevance and where they came from, they have no place here. For all we know some might be modern inventions. Parrot of Doom 19:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't look very hard, this is from the first hit Googling "cob coaling song":

Note from a CD insert describing a Lancashire "cob coalling" song: "This song, from the Lancashire and Yorkshire border is associated with Bonfire Night. It is believed to have been part of a Mummers Play before transferring to the more recent calendar ritual. It was given to The Watersons in the 1960s by A. L. Lloyd. It was to have been included on their album on ritual songs, Frost And Fire, in the 1960s but space did not permit. (Topic Records has recently reissued Frost And Fire as TSCD 136). The Watersons in full flight is that even when singing in unison there is an aural illusion of harmony. This is the first time this line-up has recorded and The Watersons were Norma, Michael and Ann Waterson, Martin and Eliza Carthy and Jill Pidd."Urselius (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll ignore your slight, for now. As for your other point: so this song doesn't really have much to do with 5 November, other than sharing the date. Is that it? Parrot of Doom 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll reciprocate in respect of the implied threat. No the song was intimately connected with Guy Fawkes Night. Rather than "Penny for the Guy" the youngsters in Lancashire and other parts of the North of England would go collecting from door to door singing a "cob coaling" song. The main aim was to be given money, ostensibly to buy fireworks, but donations of wood or coal for the bonfire were also welcome. The reference above was to illustrate that variations on the song have been recorded and are researchable and references do exist. Urselius (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So where are these references? Parrot of Doom 21:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A musical recording: FW38553_113 Cob Coaling Song Track Artist Dora Turner Country(s) United Kingdom Genre(s) Folksong revival; Music--British Isles Instrument(s) Vocals Language(s) English Duration 0:32 An English Folk Music Anthology Various Artists FW38553

Country(s) United Kingdom Keyword(s) Folksong revival; Music--British Isles; Music--Juvenile Instrument(s) Vocals Language(s) English

Year of Recording 1981 Record Label Folkways Records Source Archive Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage Credits Produced by Tish Stubbs ; Recorded by Tish Stubbs ; Recorded by Sam Richards ; Produced by Sam Richards ; Design by Ronald Clyne

A reference in a Journal: Journal of the English Folk Dance and Song Society Volumes 4-6 (1940), page 260 has the lyrics of a cob coaling song.

No doubt there are more out there.Urselius (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't enough to state they exist. There's no point in mentioning a bunch of rhymes and songs, unless some context is given for their inclusion. Something which discusses their roots, or their relevance, for instance. So where are those references? It should be easy to find expert sources on the matter, after all, I didn't look very hard did I? Parrot of Doom 08:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well "Penny for the Guy" is mentioned in the present text, and it is or was a largely southern English custom, I would assert that a northern English variant of raising money on the pretext of Guy Fawkes night is just as relevant to this article. Also it should not require a higher level of citationUrselius (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A Penny for the Guy is mentioned because it is a custom that has specific and verifiable roots in English culture, and because it has been given significant coverage in the expert sources used to build this article. Those same sources include very little, nothing even, about songs and rhymes.

So if such sources exist, please tell me what they are. Parrot of Doom 09:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Lore of the Playground: One Hundred Years of Children's Games, Rhymes ... Steve Roud p. 511. Cob-coaling is at least as relevant as the references to tar barrel burning etc. in small vilages, which are in the article now. I'm not asking for the lyrics to be inserted, just a reference to another regional custom directly related to Guy Fawkes night.

Also if you are going to mention Whig "Pope Burnings" then Tory "Jack Presbyter Burnings" should also be referenced for completeness.Urselius (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the songs and rhymes are definately notable as part of the tradition, and they are widely mentioned in the corpus of information around bonfire, especially for Sussex, but we could certainly do with some definitive sources. In the meantime, I would suggest that some of the links that spring up for bonfire societies etc. when you google things like 'bonfire treason and plot' would probably be suitable to meet wp:cite in this instance, given the verbal culture nature of the topic. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at that book before and noted that it makes little to no effort to discern the source of these customs, and leans mostly on 1950s anecdotes. In short, it says "some songs existed, now they don't". In my view that isn't enough for an article like this. If a song or rhyme is to be mentioned I'd like to see the earliest recorded instance of its use, just as is done with "penny for the guy" and other customs.

I will investigate Jack Presbyter burnings though, so thanks for that. Parrot of Doom 10:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The cob-coaling song is part of the "Opie collection of children's games and songs" held at the British Library. They are late 20th century in origin, but there are a number of allusions to the lyrics being related to those of Mummers Plays, which are Medieval in origin. But I don't understand the need for a long history, this is an article about Guy Fawkes Night - surely a celebration which is still extant and evolving as all folk celebrations do.

For a full account of Jack Presbyter (and Pope) Burnings try Restoration: Charles II and His Kingdoms, 1660-1685 by Tim Harris.Urselius (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The primary influence on an article's content is what the most authoritative sources have to say about the subject. The best sources I have found pay songs and rhymes almost no attention - James Sharpe devotes only a few short lines to the subject, as part of his book's introduction, and makes no attempt to expand further. If you know of sources that do, please present them. I am not about to allow this article to be littered with folk songs, when no rationale other than "I think they should be mentioned because I've heard of them" is included. Parrot of Doom 12:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that proprietership of articles is part of the Wikipedia ethos, you seem to be veering close to claiming ownership of the page.

Having read Parrot's last comment, it seems overprescriptive - some customs cannot be traced with any reliability, but the noting of the custom in a book, would mean it meets WP:V, regardless of whether we have a detailed history for it or not. Regardless of whether you'd 'like' to see a history, WP does not require it. The songs certainly appear to have a long tradition, and some of them are still in regular use, and that makes them notable for this article. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If such customs were important then they'd have been covered by authors knowledgeable on the subject, and would not be restricted to drive-by mentions in sources such as the one above, which is a compilation of children's playground traditions. I'll say it again - if you know of reliable, expert sources that demonstrate the importance of 5 November songs or rhymes, then present them. Parrot of Doom 12:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Notes on the Folklore of Upper Calderdale Author(s): F. H. Marsden Source: Folklore, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Sep. 30, 1932), pp. 249-272 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. This has a Gunpower Plot Nominy Song in it.

Please remember that the article is about "Guy Fawkes Night", it is not "A Thesis on the Origins and History of the Gunpowder Plot, and its Subsequent Treatment in Historical and Academic Literature." And again I'm not asking for lyrics to be introduced to the text, just an allusion to the practice of singing special songs and collecting door to door, as practiced in certain areas of England. Just because you have no experience of these things and they do not appear in the books you have read doesn't make them irrelevant to the article.Urselius (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So what books have you read that make them relevant? Or is your knowledge of this subject restricted to what you can find on Google? Parrot of Doom 13:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In the days of my youth I sang them, that makes them relevant to me and also to very many others who similarly sang them and who might read this article. What right have you to exclude the traditions of large areas of the North of England from a relevant article? I have given you more than enough references.Urselius (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm bored of repeating myself. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines for article content. You can start with WP:RS. Parrot of Doom 13:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You believe you own the article, this is not so. I have created a number of articles and improved many more, I am a published academic, please do not try to teach me to suck eggs. Referenced material can be introduced to any article if the references and subject matter are relevant. Urselius (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Take your ownership accusations and shove them up your arse, along with the eggs. Parrot of Doom 13:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Vae victis!Urselius (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom when one person accuses you of ownership then perhaps you have the right to feel aggrieved. But when a number of editors tell you so independently of each other over a number of months perhaps you should take note and stop using playground responses. -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Parrot, i would suggest you re-acquaint yourself with some policies, starting with WP:CIVIL. In terms of article ownership, this does seem to pass the duck test, and it would seem you are treating this as your own. It is well accepted that sources such as websites can be acceptable for wikipedia (wp:rs says 'some sources', it's not a definitive list) and your so caled 'drive-by' mentions in literature are still more than acceptable for the level of proof required. In fact, these passing mentions may in fact indicate that these authors believe that this information is widely enough known to not merit detailed discussion. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 15:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for you, too. When you present reliable, expert sources that deem these songs worthy of discussion, then I'll listen. And your latter point is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin, so I won't. Parrot of Doom 16:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oy vey. These mentions "may in fact indicate..." or may not; we don't know, and to try to make an assumption would be original research. Urselius, Wikipedia's standards are different from those used for academic publications (you may know this, but I thought I should point it out), particularly as regards original research. Owain, while some websites can indeed be considered reliable sources, a) this is a featured article, and thus requires higher-quality sources than average articles per the criteria, and b) it appears that Parrot is looking for sources that discuss the roots of these songs in the Guy Fawkes Night tradition and their relevance and due weight in Guy Fawkes Night scholarship. I suggest all participants review WP:OAS. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This should never have been made a Featured Article as it does not cover the scope of the subject and featured article status encourages some people in their ownership tendencies. Nikkimaria do you condoned responses such as that made by PoD at 13:47, on 11 October 2011? Do you really think think that such responses are justified under WP:OAS meaning of "stewardship"? -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Finding references in the available literature is not really original research. The songs exist, their lyrics and usage have been recorded in books and journals, they are also available as audio recordings and can be purchased as CDs and mp3 downloads by anyone. All I would like to do is add one sentence describing their existence.Urselius (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would very much like to see some lyrics in here because fifty years ago I used to sing them. Strange there is no reference to things one knows were done, I suppose at the time it was all unremarkable. I am not aware of any references but I would encourage people to keep looking. I suspect though that many of those songs were generic and not specific to Guy Fawkes. E x nihil ^(talk) 21:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - they're not here because they're generic and not specific to Guy Fakwes. Urselius, I'm not disputing that folk songs exist - I'm sure they do. However, what we need to include your desired sentence is a source that links them to Guy Fawkes Night and discusses their roots and relevance. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The [Bonfire] Plot Nominy song from Calderdale, is fairly overt, I quote " Here comes three jolly rovers, all in one row. We're coming a cob-coiling for t' Bon Fire Plot." The lyrics: "We come a cob-coaling for Bonfire time" from the Oldham version are also quite obviously connected. Please don't try to draw a distinction between "Bonfire time" and "Guy Fawkes Night" as they are and were the same, there was no other bonfire event on the calendar in the areas named. Their roots are unknown though some writers have linked them to Medieval Mummers Plays. Their relevance is that they were part of the Guy Fawkes Night celebrations in the areas mentioned and similar songs and rhymes were used quite widely elsewhere, and were used within living memory.

The article as it stands has a number of flaws, strong though it is in some areas. The text reads like an essay not an encyclopedia entry - there are too few sub-headings, leaving great undigestible blocks of prose. The article is very strong on history but remarkably weak on customs and local traditions, especially recent ones. An uninformed reader might leave the article with no real comprehension of how the night is and was celebrated. For instance in Lancashire there were specific foods eaten on Bonfire Night, black peas (maple peas) served with vinegar, parkin (a type of ginger cake) and home-made toffee (two of these foods even have wiki pages with reference to their use on Bonfire Night and these pages link to this one - ironically enough). The article needs things like this to leaven the otherwise rather turgid and dry history.Urselius (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see the section immediately above this one and the linked archives for previous discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? All I see are Parrot of Doom's defences of an undefensible position and reiterated requirement for references to books that he would, with his rather narrow sense of probity, consider adequate. Urselius (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how "undefensible" [sic] you think his argument is. As has been pointed out to you, this article is a Featured Article and as such has higher standards, especially of referencing, than non-FAs. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the FA process seemed to cover referencing to the exclusion of all other matters - such as whether the article gives a good overview that informs readers about the whole subject of GFN, as it is celebrated now as well as its history. The article doesn't do that, but unfortunately that seems not to matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I seem to have fallen between indefensible and undefendable - me ineptum. The article's essay-style means it should never have been afforded FA status in the first place. Here is another reference for song connected to Guy Fawkes Day - this time in London: Robert Withington (1980) pp. 10-11 English pageantry: an historical outline, Volume 2 - quoting an article from the London Standard 5th November 1913: “Noisy street urchins busily soliciting coppers for ‘our guy’ served to remind Londoner last night that today is Guy Fawkes’ Day. The Passing of the Children’s Act, withthe restrictions which it contains, has materially decreased their receipts, but many children last night managed to make themselves richer by two shillings or more after ‘rendering’ a few songs, commencing with ‘Guy, Guy, Guy!’... Obviously there was at least one London Guy Fawkes song, a pity more of the lyrics were not recorded.Urselius (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And that has what to do with Guy Fawkes Night exactly? I can see how Wikipedia's insistence on high quality reliable secondary sources must be galling for those who wish to promote a particular viewpoint unsupported by any such sources, but I'm afraid that you and Ghmyrtle will just have to live with it. Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The need is for information from reliable sources as defined in WP:SOURCES. Malleus Fatuorum where are you getting "high quality reliable secondary sources" from, or do you mean those listed in WP:SOURCES? -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"High-quality reliable sources" comes straight from the Featured Article criteria. Nev1 (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a policy definition for what it means? -- PBS (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you suffer from ocular or cerebral occlusions? "GUY, GUY, GUY!" the clue is in the name. I have suffered at the hands of anonymous reviewers for the publication of peer-reviewed scientific papers and I know what it feels like to have stated the obvious and it not to have been understood but this is ridiculous. "And that has what to do with Guy Fawkes Night exactly?" It is a song directly related to the celebratory night in question that's all. Urselius (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) My point is that there needs to be the right balance between the emphasis on high quality secondary sources (which I don't dispute), and the need to give an accessible overview over the totality of an article's subject matter. Problems like this arise when the best quality sources are skewed towards one part of the story (the historical analysis) at the expense of others (the contemporary celebrations). I take the side of the article reader - the archetypal high school student in Indonesia who reads this article will (if they can cope with its length and style) come away well-informed about the history of the event, but not about what it means now. If the FA criteria have been properly applied in this case, so be it - it just means that the FA criteria don't meet the needs of WP's readers very well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pope Burnings

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Pope burnings were "generic" the majority took place on the anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth I, and others took place throughout the year. As such, if songs that are directly relevant to Guy Fawkes Day are not admissible, Pope Burnings are even more so and should be stricken from the article. Perhaps one sentence with a reference to Pope Burnings sometimes being coincident with Guy Fawkes Night could be retained. I can get references for the timing of Pope Burnings from a recently published academic study (book).Urselius (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what you think is relevant, rather what authoritative sources think is relevant. If you have a problem with this article's FA status then take it to WP:FAR. Parrot of Doom 07:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, common sense is also relevant. You place too much faith in academics, they are fallible and often have their own agendas. I have yet to see, at least in works published since ca. 1970, any academic text which did not have an agenda, or axe to grind. Unfortunately the way universities, and academic funding, work forces most academics into tighter corners of specialisation and, again unfortunately, this shows when they attempt to write more generalist works. Just because a facet of a subject has not been covered in an academic text does not make it automatically irrelevant.Urselius (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to building articles I place faith in Wikipedia's policies regarding sourcing, neutrality, etc. I think they're generally ok. If you don't like them then you're complaining in the wrong place. Until you find a reliable, expert source on this subject that gives weight to what you think this article should include, you're wasting your time. Parrot of Doom 14:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I know why I'm wasting my time and it has nothing to do with references: it is because you are deaf to reason, you have asserted a stranglehold and monopoly over this article - against wikipedia policy, and you are backed by a cabal of experienced editors who now have a vested interest in supporting this biased, non-comprehensive sham of a FA.Urselius (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So put your money where your mouth is and take it to WP:FAR. Parrot of Doom 15:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately as I said "you are backed by a cabal of experienced editors who now have a vested interest in supporting this biased, non-comprehensive sham of a FA." Therefore the effort would be nuncupatory. I would add that your resort to boorish incivility, as witnessed in the section above, is an indication that my accusations of ownership seem to have hit rather close to the mark.Urselius (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always those who are the most incivil who complain first about civility, questioning some people's sight or intelligence, doubting other people's motives, and pouring scorn on other editors' hard work. Then, when such complainers don't get their own way, they begin to act like children, looking around for any little lever they can find to support their argument. I could go on at length, but the short answer is that you simply don't have the first clue what you're doing here. Parrot of Doom 08:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Even when exasperated by the purblind obtuseness of others I do not resort to crudity of language, unlike yourself. I seem to remember saying that some aspects of the article were good, it is the unbalanced nature and lack of comprehensiveness (and comprehsiveness is a FA stipulation) of the whole, I take issue with.Urselius (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I too should buy a dictionary and use big words to impress the little people. What you call crude language, I call being honest, something you might care to try. Until you take the article to WP:FAR I shall give your opinions the attention they deserve, which is to say none. Parrot of Doom 17:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Principio erat verbum after all. Your version of honesty isn't something I would care to emulate, rest assured on that count.Urselius (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Parkin

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? Cassianto ^talk 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. Cassianto ^talk 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. Cassianto ^talk 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". Cassianto ^talk 05:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@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? Cassianto ^talk 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. Cassianto ^talk 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. Cassianto ^talk 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. Cassianto ^Talk 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. Cassianto ^Talk 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. Cassianto ^Talk 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. Cassianto ^Talk 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

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. 92.28.248.210 (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. Cassianto ^Talk 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. Cassianto ^Talk 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. Cassianto ^Talk 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? Cassianto ^Talk 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. Cassianto ^Talk 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)

[1] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/recipes/10425589/Bonfire-Night-2013-recipes-toffee-apple-cake-and-parkin.html

[2] ttps://britishfoodhistory.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/yorkshire-parkin/

[3] ttp://britishfood.about.com/od/recipeindex/r/yorksparkin.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]