Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 8

Making the Guy

There is reference in the main article to a "bundle of straw and rags". My experience during the late '60s in both Sheffield and the Black Country was that leaves were used to stuff the guy. There is an abundance of leaves at this time of year, but very little straw in urban environments. I haven't got an external source, so WP:NOR stops me posting to the article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I recall it was old rags where I lived. It might be better to replace "straw and rags" with a more general description? Parrot of Doom 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

My wife remembered using newspaper to stuff the Guy when she was a child. Perhaps change

"This was sometimes ornately dressed and sometimes a barely-recognisable bundle of straw and rags"

to

"The Guy was made by stuffing clothes with inflamable filling, such as straw, rags, newspapers or leaves. Sometimes the Guy was ornately dressed, sometimes a barely-recognisable bundle of rags"?

I'm still a bit worried about WP:NOR for the leaves and the newspapers though. Do you have a citation for the rags? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to mention the filling, I was thinking words to the effect of "ramshackle guy", but more eloquent. Gotta go, work calls. Parrot of Doom 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed it thusly. I'd forgotten that the description is sourced from contemporary photographs so it wasn't a big deal anyway. Parrot of Doom 22:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't "...whatever materials were available" be a better wording? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Religious significance"

Would that not be better worded as "sectarian significance"? The celebrations never had a religious content, but rather celebrated sectarian differences. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me either way as I agree the day was all about pummelling the Catholics, but I would point out that I just quickly searched through Fraser and Sharpe online, and found that neither contained an instance of "sectarian". Parrot of Doom 17:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The point was made over at Talk:Bonfire Night that stating that the celebrations had "religious significance" suggests that they were some sort of religious festival, which clearly they were not - their significance related to differences between religious groups, but that is not the same thing. If there is a better alternative terminology, perhaps it should be used - but other than "sectarian" I don't have any suggestions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Between the two suggestions, I think sectarian is better suited then religious, because it was not explicitly a religious festival. Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well seeing as a new prayer was written and added to the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer I would dispute that the Fifth had no religious significance, but again, I'm not really that attached to the current wording of that heading. You have to be careful not to be prejudicial if you change it. Parrot of Doom 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Early significance" might cover it, as that section covers the first 80 years or so of the celebration, and a later section talks of "decline". I think its significance in the C17 was probably at least as much political and social, as "religious" significance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. Parrot of Doom 00:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "Early significance" is the right heading, I think. The section is just about the 17th century. StAnselm (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made the change. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"neutralized" or "neutered"?

I was deeply puzzled by this edit by Parrot, which changed "the Guildford "guys" were neutralized in 1865" to "the Guildford "guys" were neutered in 1865" with the summary "sigh, this is an English article, not an American article". Artie84 had commented "Changed "neutered" to "neutralized" to avoid confusion", which was clearly to do with the meaning, rather than the spelling. If the meaning is "neutralized", then that is the spelling preferred by the OED. I am struggling to make out in what sense these Guildford revellers were "neutered" - isn't it just a Malapropism? Moonraker (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

British English spelling is neutralised, with s not z. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding. One version of British English prefers the -s-, but as I said before, "neutralized" is the spelling preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary (see Oxford spelling). But the meaning is the issue here. Moonraker (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A plot

Fawkes was arrested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.89.83.198 (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

...yeah -Peter (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It might just be my laptop, but...

Why can't we edit the article? There's a spot in the article that needs clarification or removal, so I went to the edit bar to find that it wasn't there.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

In other countries

The "In other countries" section of this article only mentions historical celebrations of Guy Fawkes Night in the US, despite the fact that Guy Fawkes Night has been (and currently still is) celebrated in many other countries that were formerly part of the British Empire (including South Africa, where I live). I'm definitely going to get to this (although not right now; this message is the last thing I'm doing on Wikipedia tonight before going to sleep), but I'd encourage others to start countering this systemic bias in the meantime. — Life in General ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add that info to the appropriate place in Bonfire Night. Nikkimaria "(talk) 23:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

When you wake up, please provide and discuss sources of similar quality to those in this article that cover such celebrations in other countries. Sleep well. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the talk archives to this page, in those archive you will see that along with reliable sources information from those sources has been provided. For your convenience would you like me to list some of them? -- PBS (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a tired argument that has generated a lot of hot air but no actual high quality sources of the type used in this article. I suggest you read through the archive section because unless you present some scholarly material that attempts to place foreign celebrations in context, I'm not going to go through it again. Parrot of Doom 21:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The verifiability policy says that information in articles should be supported by reliable sources. To the best of my knowledge there is no policy that defines what "high quality sources" are. Would you care to define what you mean by "high quality sources"? PBS (talk) -- 22:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is a featured article, which means it needs sources beyond the basic tenets of reliability. Per the featured article criteria high-quality sources are necessary. If you're unsure what that means, I would suggest presenting your suggested sources for critique. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article criteria are not policy criteria. What does "needs sources beyond the basic tenets of reliability" mean? -- PBS (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It means high-quality sources. Featured article criteria is what governs the content of featured articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You have presented a circular argument. I asked you "Would you care to define what you mean by 'high quality sources'" and you replied "needs sources beyond the basic tenets of reliability" when I ask you what that means you answer "It means high-quality sources". Do you have a definition? If you do then please present it, otherwise we should conclude that sources that meet the Wikipia policy WP:V requirement for "reliable sources" are all that are required for this article. -- PBS (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My argument is only circular if you assume that I actually answered your question about what a "high-quality source" is. I didn't, I simply pointed out why these are needed. You can conclude whatever you please, but you'd be wrong, and any actions you take based on an incorrect conclusion would be subject to reversion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the Family Guy sketch where Peter is addicted to "Bird is the Word"? Specifically, this bit? Parrot of Doom 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I hadn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As Nikkimaria has pointed out the content of this article is meant to meet the the featured article criteria yet 1.b says "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", and as it has been pointed out by Life in General, and other editors, this article neglects major facts and details about the history of the celebration other countries and contemporary celebrations both in the UK and elsewhere. -- PBS (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Having gone through the archive pages, I must say I find myself to be in agreement with editors like PBS. Nonetheless, we need to remember that Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, and I think the concerns of Parrot of Doom et al can be sympathised with. Thus, I'm going to make an attempt to find references which appear to fit those editor's definition of "high-quality reliable sources"; and I'll get back to this when (and only when) I've found such sources. When I go back to university in February, I'll have access to JSTOR and a rather substantial library, so I'll dedicate a portion of my free time to finding scholarly sources relating to Guy Fawkes celebrations outside of the United Kingdom and the United States. I'll also make an attempt to find scholarly sources relating to modern celebrations of Guy Fawkes; however, I certainly feel that using reliable mainstream newpaper articles as sources (alongside scholarly sources) is acceptable for the modern celebration of the day. I'll argue for that more thoroughly, though, once I manage to find more scholarly sources. So, I bid you adieu; when next you see me, I'll be able to show you the sources. — Life in General ^Talk/_Stalk 08:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to seek out high-quality sources! However, I might suggest that material related to the modern-day celebrations might be better placed at Bonfire Night, for scope and weighting reasons. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night is a suitable name for this article, because Bonfire Night although the more common name in the UK and other places for the annual celebration on the 5th of November it is also a name sometimes used by other communities as a name for other events, so a less popular but unique name for this article fits the "National varieties of English" criteria. Having some of the contents of the annual celebration on the 5th of November on two pages (Bonfire Night and Guy Fawkes Night) means that this article neglects major facts and details about the subject of the article and therefore this article does not meet the featured article criteria. I think that those facts about Guy Fawkes Night on the Bonfire Night page that are not in this article should be merged into this article and removed from the Bonfire Night article and it should revert to being the disambiguation page it was before Nikkimaria altered its status on 7 July 2011. -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You've made your opinion on that matter quite clear already. Perhaps you should consider directing your energies elsewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of confusing what you feel is important with what the most comprehensive sources on this subject feel is important. I will not allow this article to be filled with material deemed trivial by guy Fawkes night experts such as Sharpe and Cressy. Parrot of Doom 14:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd top myself if I had gone through an academic career and ended up as one of the "Guy Fawkes Night experts." You lend a specious and exclusive aura to these people, they are not the ne plus ultra and probably wouldn't claim for themselves the authority that you give to them.Urselius (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"I will not allow this article ..." PoD please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and consider if such a statement is an appropriate one for this talk page. -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

PBS, please read WP:OAS and WP:STICK. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

There's no section on controversy? Surely Catholics must get offended by what is, essentially, a day celebrating their persecution? Surely it's made all the more poignant by modern England's history? Henners91 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're sure of all this then why not present some evidence? Parrot of Doom 13:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I was brought up as a Catholic in the 50s and 60s and we used to celebrate the day as enthusiastically as everyone else. The anti-Catholic side of it was seen as ancient history. Richerman (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Same here. It just wasn't an issue anyone bothered about, Catholic or Protestant. And after all, not even all Catholics at the time of the plot approved of what the conspirators were trying to do, Father Garnet being one prominent example, so the event hardly celebrates the persecution of Catholics, rather the survival of the monarch. Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Not strictly true on the ancient history bit. The Lewes bonfire and other sussex societies are strongly rooted in anti-catholicism, and still annually burn effigies of the pope, and carry anti-catholic banners, but it is very much in the pantomime style of doing so. That doesn't necessarily give it less potential to offend, but the catholics in the region seem to maintain a stoic silence on the matter, making it difficult to draw out a controversy section. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 15:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably because there is no controversy, just as there's none surrounding the various Viking festivals in the north of Scotland. The days of religious intolerance against Catholics in England have long gone, but as Parrot of Doom says, in this article we can only reflect what reliable sources say, not on our own personal experiences or speculations. Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Popular/Internet culture

Since Guy Fawkes day is celebrated across the internet it should be mentioned here. Even though it is simply inspired from the movie and not the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.153.242 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Relevance?

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

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

General problems

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

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

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

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

Missing information

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

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

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

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

Parkin, resurgam

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governmental intervention

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

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

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

See also the UK government's "Celebrating Bonfire Night: A community guide to organising bonfires and fireworks" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364072/Bonfires_and_Fireworks-v3.pdf

This could be useful for the article.

Reciprocity of linking

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

Actually, it makes a lot of sense: there's no requirement for articles to link to every article that links to them, and such a requirement would not be workable given the number of "peripherals" potentially linked to a main article. The pop-culture article, though, is linked from the navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No requirement perhaps, but surely reciprocity of linking reflects a comprehensive main article. Otherwise it seems that things are missing, which is undesirable. Urselius (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all: you'd expect peripheral or subarticles to link to the main article, but not the other way around. For example, consider Christmas: it makes perfect sense for a very specific article like Christmas tree plundering or Bulgarian budnik to link to the main article, but the main article can be comprehensive without doing so. For an analogy, think about countries versus cities: although city articles may link to their country, there's no way you'd expect a country article to link to every single city in the country, but that doesn't mean the country article isn't comprehensive. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As it stands at present the reader cannot explore from this article many directly-related topics, because there are no links. This article, because of its title, is the main article for the subject. In no universe can this be a good situation. Your reasoning walks on crutches, one being exaggeration, the other a sort of Wiki-legalism. The links proposed for this page to include are as relevant to it as turkey is to Thanksgiving. Urselius (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• What everyone must remember is that with articles like this we're dealing with some of the most formidable intellectual giants that Wikipedia has ever known and ever will know. They buy books. They borrow books from the Library. And they loosely paraphrase other peoples work to create 'Featured Articles' which cannot ever then be touched in any way. Look at various 'Featured Articles', it is the same again and again, and we must bow down before the them - neh! - we must must worship them! For without their paraphrasing of other peoples work we wouldn't have this glorious collection of poorly organised topical borderline plagiarism that Wikipedia has today. What a triumph of their skills! </END SARCASM TAG> AnonNep (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is entirely unhelpful --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but it is a perceptive critique of the situation. Urselius (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

More seriously.... what does logic suggest? The history is moved to a well, um, 'History of Gunpowder Plot' article, linked back here, while 'Guy Fawkes Night' becomes the key page for history and the ongoing later traditions. AnonNep (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is eloquent - what other gnomic treasures have you yet to dazzle us with? Urselius (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I see from your userpage that you are an arbitrator, from your contributions here this must be in the very limited sense exemplified by Andrei Gromyko - nyet, indeed! Urselius (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Expresses the mastery of knowledge of the perfect argument I've come to expect from the lords of the 'Featured Article'. Speaks for itself really... AnonNep (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2015 (UT

  The first principle of Wiki editing is be nice, we are all friends here. The customs section I believe improves the article, facilitates minor link-outs, and (maybe) makes everybody happy. By all means do a featured article review as PBS suggests. Ex nihil ^(talk) 02:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:AnonNep Most of the history is not the 'History of Gunpowder Plot' it is the history of Guy Fawkes Night. As the article is less than 50K in size I see no need for separate "History of Guy Fawkes Night", I just think it needs to be expanded to include mentions of the 21st century both in England and other Commonwealth countries. If at the end of the expansion there is a need to summaries the history and have a new "History of Guy Fawkes Night" then of course that can be done, but I think the current article is a long way from that. -- PBS (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere back in the archives is a flabbergasting response to a suggested addition from an otherwise WP:RS source. The reply, in effect, is 'Go and write a book about it, get it published, then you can add it'. There are three options: no change, ever, or, ending the current lockdown, or, finally, separating this off. I suggested the latter because the former remains to the detriment of WP. I'd be more that happy with the middle ground. End the blockade. AnonNep (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

While I sympathise with your reasons for suggesting it, to create a fork for those reasons goes against the spirit of Wikipedia:Content forking. -- PBS (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in responding (missed it in the mix). It would only be a POVFork (a guideline not a policy, BTW) if you think the present article represents a central position that's being 'forked' from. I'm suggesting a new key article that covers the existing forks (such as the lockdown approach on information not accepted here leaving only the the generic 'Bonfire Night'). In other words, a general article that summarises this cobwebbed Miss Havisham and the more recent Bonfire Night. Where I'm uncomfortable is the idea that the Miss Havishams should get their untouchable, if fading, wedding hall here, preserved, indefinitely. It may suit them but it does little for Wikipedia. AnonNep (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Then why not initiate the threatened FA review, and see where that leads? Eric Corbett 20:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be a very flawed process, just look at how this article was promoted in the first place. One does not enter the courtroom unprepared. Urselius (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the only review process open to you, so it's time to either put up or shut up. Eric Corbett 21:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not against PoD, I can take him up for his personal attacks on myself. As I said a case needs to be optimally constructed, this takes time. A precipitate move would be unwise. Urselius (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just get on with it Urselius and quit with your preciousness. Cassianto^Talk 22:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should I please you? If dilatoriness displeases you and the other people strangling this article, then expect a great deal of it. In the meantime I will be critically reviewing all aspects of the article and commenting here. Incidentally, I review for scientific journals as part of the 'peer-review' process, so you may expect a thorough and critical review. Please address my comments on the relevance of the sermons - see below. Urselius (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure we're all waiting for your pearls of wisdom with bated breath. Eric Corbett 22:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What ho! old bean - see two pearls below. No wait at all. Toodle-pip! Urselius (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The two only pearls you have offered us so far are certainly not what you seem to think they are.Cassianto^Talk 18:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

SandyG is saying no such thing, she's specifically addressing this ongoing and long-term disruption by a few cake obsessives. Whatever the result of any behavioural RfC, this would still be a featured article. Anyone who doesn't like that has only one choice, to initiate a featured article review. Eric Corbett 20:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That this article is a FA is only relevant to the ongoing criticism of it for two reasons: (a) it did not meet the criteria for FA status in the FAC process, and (b) the fact of its (spurious) FA status has been cynically used by a cabal of editors (led by PoD) to block any additions that they, quite erroneously and against both common sense and scholarship, consider unsuitable. This is against Wikipedia's rules and basic philosophy. Please look at the banner at the top of this page "Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." FA status does not mean that editing is no longer possible, in fact further editing of FA articles is positively encouraged. Urselius (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@user:Eric Corbett you wrote "Whatever the result of any behavioural RfC", there is no behavioural RfC process (WP:RFC#About the conduct of another user) and has not been since the end of last year, so presumably SG was talking about an RfC on this article (WP:RFC#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues). -- PBS (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that what SandyG said is clear enough, but perhaps she'd forgotten, as had I, that the RFC/U process was shut down last December. Eric Corbett 12:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Urselius, the FA banner is not written in stone and extra additions to a featured article should be subject to a discussion first. As a result of that discussion, and if it's decided that the addition is of benefit to the article, the proposed addition can then be added. You chose not to discuss it and went full steam ahead and added it regardless. Only after you had been reverted did you then decide to discuss it on the talk page. When it was decided that your addition was not good enough, you then proceeded to turn the discussions sour. You should not just assume that because part of the banner says "even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so" you should just go ahead and add it. Common sense should tell you that it would be good to discuss things first. Cassianto^Talk 12:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The only addition I have made to the article since it became contentious is the small phrase concerning the Catholic Herald - which, shortened and moved, is still there at present. I reverted a reversion of another editor's addition, but that is not the same thing at all. Urselius (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Common sense says not such thing. Being bold is common and sensible (Bold, revert, discuss). -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Size of the celebration

From UK government online sources:

"Bonfire Night [AKA Guy Fawkes Night]

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

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

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

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

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

Should there be a featured article review?

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

What is being reviewed is an interesting question - is this a history of the Gunpowder Plot, a history of Guy Fawkes night, a key article that links on to the others, or a bit of all? AnonNep (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and the areas where this featured article fails. The chief one ins "1.b comprehensive". But that leads to all sorts of other ones in that list (such as "2.a"). At the time this was promoted to FA status, "1.e stability" was not met (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1. That was ignored and stability is still an issue as can be seen in the edit history of the last 24 hours. -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes there should be a review. The history of this talk page indicates that what little stability the article has, is merely the result of potential editors being 'warned off' from even attempting to edit by an entrenched cabal. From what I gleaned from the original FA review, the principal assessor seemed to ignore many cogent points and had the erroneous view that objections to content, or lack of content, could only be based on objections to sources. Urselius (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is perfectly stable, it's just a few cake-obsessed editors who think otherwise. Is this in an attempt to assert your own POV? Cassianto^Talk 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been involved in moderating a good deal of, mostly nationalistic, POV peddling. Please look at the history of the Basil I article, where you will see the correct method of coping with this. Armenian nationalists have added material supporting an Armenian origin for the Byzantine emperor, did I do as PoD always does - revert with an added insulting comment? No, I let anything with a decent reference stand and I merely add something moderating it from an equally good reference. This is called "not owning an article" - something yourself and PoD seem incapable of. Urselius (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Like your friend PoD you quickly reach the level of crass insult. Have a look at a really stable FA, such as Charles II of England whose talkpage has 2 archives, this travesty's talkpage has 9 archives! A lot of people obviously have issues with it. The instability of the page is a self-evident and established fact. Go back and try to come up with more logical arguments. Urselius (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto's comment is an extraordinary statement which should be withdrawn. Of course the article is "stable", when any substantive (and referenced) changes to the article are immediately reverted by its custodian(s). The long-standing disputes over the content of this article should never have allowed it to become a FA in the first place. Many of us have, I am sure, given up on the article, in view of the needless acrimony on this talk page. Unfortunately, all the evidence is that an FA review is utterly pointless if the same editors are going to be involved. But, an independent review, to assess whether it actually meets the needs of readers looking for a comprehensive overview of the celebration, is long overdue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the "custodians" then this article would be filled with factoids and deteriorate beyond all recognition. Also, you don't need to ping me I have watch listed it. Cassianto^Talk 12:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If the "owners of this article" relaxed their control a little they would get input from many experienced and talented editors, which would produce an article that truly reflected the actuality of an ongoing folk-celebration. As it stands now it is unrepresentative, turgid and biased. Urselius (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth I've added Bonfire Night to the 'See Also' of the present Gunpowder Plot template. AnonNep (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully Urselius your opinion counts for nothing. Cassianto^Talk 13:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Then your opinion and that of other "PoD-U-Likes" is equally nugatory. Wikipedia is a co-operative venture where all opinions, if they are reasonable, count equally. You seem not to understand this, and it is simple enough. Urselius (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, please try and be civil when replying to other editors. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try sure, but in light of the idiocy that is currently going on here, I can't make any promises. Cassianto^Talk 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Cassianto: The article has not been stable for years as is evident from the talk pages and the edit history as demonstrated over the last 48 hours. I notice that on your user page until recently you said you live in Essex and that "I often take part in peer reviews and frequently review at FAC." This article is titled "Guy Fawkes Night" it is not titled "history of Guy Fawkes Night" do you think that a featured article review would end with a consensus that this article adequately covers the subject? For example do you think that an American or Australian would know if bonfire night is still widely celebrated in England? Do you know if the statement in the lead "Halloween, has lately increased in popularity, and according to some writers, may threaten the continued observance of 5 November." is true for New Zealand? -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what relevance my residence has to do with this article, or the fact that I take part in reviews? I would expect to find "History" of Guy Fawkes Night within the first sub-section of THIS article and not, like you incorrectly say, in a separate article. For the same reason as to why I would think it stupid to have "Remeberence Day" separate to "History of Remeberence Day". Cassianto^Talk 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The relevancy of your residency is your knowledge of the subject that you would probably not have if you came from Georgia. I am sorry if my words were not clear, but I did not say that the history was in a separate article, instead I emphasised what the title was. The question I asked (given you knowledge of the subject outside of the article and you knowledge of reviews), was would a featured article review of this article be likely to end with a consensus that this article adequately covers the subject? I then asked two subsidiary questions. I look forward to you answers. -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There's only one way to find out and that is to take it to FAR if you wish. However, I would embrace Sandy's comments above and think very carefully before you do. Cassianto^Talk 21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Just go to WP:FAR and follow the instructions you'll find there. Eric Corbett 13:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw this little spat at Bencherlite's talk ... Urselius, you should be aware that FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of that. There are genuine problems with this article that a number of editors, administrators among them, have commented upon. It is on this basis that any FA review would be instigated. I am considering taking action against PoD's unwarranted personal attacks on myself, though this is an entirely separate matter procedurally. Urselius (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:SandyGeorgia do you consider yourself neutral regarding whether this article is or is not a FA? Two central issues raised from the list of FA criteria when this article was was promoted were stability and comprehensiveness. Neither of these criteria were met at the time or have ever been met since. Why do you think that this article given FA status when those two issues were not addressed? Recently you asked for an example of high-quality has been "misunderstood, mis-applied, or 'used as a bludgeon'" see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do consider myself neutral: the article was promoted by Karanacs. The derailed and personalized discussion on the FAC indicates precisely why I am reminding here that FAR is not dispute resolution: should the same editors who disrupted the FAC without bringing actionable issues relative to the criteria raise a FAR without (again) addressing actionable items and instead resorting to personalization, the result will not be productive. FAR is not dispute resolution. The FAC was derailed by editors bringing personal matters and without focusing on What is a featured article; some of the same editors are again doing the same here. And no, this is not an example of the issue you raised at WIAFA talk; this was and is an example of editors not applying the criteria and personalizing a discussion. Please initiate an RFC for that purpose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You were the person asserting that the only objection to a FA candidate was objection to its sources. I could write an impeccably sourced article on the American celebration of Thanksgiving and completely omit any mention of turkey-eating, would such an article be complete? Would such an article be worthy of FA status? Additionally, do you approve of editors who block the addition of well-sourced material to certain articles because they have their own agendas and or prejudices? Urselius (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Urselius, you seem to have a habit of taking discussions off-topic. Please review WP:WIAFA. I would never say "that the only objection to a FA candidate was objection to its sources". I have no opinion one way or another on this article: I do have an opinion on editors who don't appropriately engage FAC, FAR and WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I quote your good self Sandy, taken directly from the record of the FAC: "...there is no point in trying to determine what direction an article should take without first examining what is supported by sources. As of now, there are no talk page archives, but I find no evidence anywhere that anyone objecting to the article has done it based on sources. Anything short of that has no place here at FAC; please keep disruption out of the FAC and focus on sources." Urselius (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@user:SandyGeorgia you wrote above "The FAC was derailed by editors bringing personal matters and without focusing on What is a featured article; some of the same editors are again doing the same here". In which way was the FAC derailed? What do you think were the personal matters which were raised and which editors are doing the same here? -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

The sources are not the problem, please address the real problem, which is lack of comprehensiveness. Please do not hold up the shibboleth of "sources", it is entirely irrelevant! Of course there are perfectly reliable sources available to use to fill in the huge gaps in the present article's comprehensiveness. I have shown one below. It is from a specialist journal and as such has higher credibility than the works of Antonia Fraser, much quoted in the present article. Antonia Fraser is a historian but she is also a populist historical biographer, her works cannot be held to be more academically acceptable than material from a specialist journal. Urselius (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Have any new high-quality sources been published that dispute what's in the article?" - to my knowledge, no. This article was written to reflect the coverage offered by several expert authors. I have repeatedly asked any editors who object to this structure to find other, expert sources that place as much emphasis on the modern celebration as the existing authors place on its history. To date, not one of those editors has done this. They have searched the internet and found the usual odds and ends, but nothing that suggests that Cressy, Fraser or Sharpe have been remiss in their treatment of 5 November. It remains my view therefore that the items these editors would like included are trivial by nature, and that triviality has no place in any article on Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom 18:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that User:AnonNep has found a new source, published in 2013, that I was unaware of. This at least explains the event's relevance in foreign countries using a proper context, so I may well buy this book to see what I can learn from it. Parrot of Doom 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

High quality material was available at the time of the FAC, it just did not fit in with your POV peddling. Fraser is a populist historical biographer, not an academic, she has never held an academic post. She also spelled the name of a relative of mine wrongly in one of her books! Urselius (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not the sources used, it has never been the problem. The problem is that the article as it stands in incomplete. It does not cover recent and modern practices to any appreciable extent. This would in itself not be a particular problem except that some editors, including PoD, will not allow anyone to add material to the article to remedy this deficit. There are many fine and reputable published sources available, I have a number on my computer right now, but I cannot use them because anything I add to the article will be reverted. This is the problem not what sources were used to write what is here already - what is here already is just not sufficient for an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Urselius (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@user:Karanacs as a non-Brit I think that the content of the current article may have confused you. The article is titled "Guy Fawkes Night" under the provisions of WP:AT section WP:UCRN "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The most common name for "Guy Fawkes Night" in England is "Bonfire Night" (see these simple global searches but not of reliable sources [1][2] -- but they do show it is one event with two common names) but as that name is also used for other events in other English speaking countries it is perfectly acceptable to choose "Guy Fawkes Night" as an alternative and at the time of the FAC process (initiated on 1 May 2011 and promoted by you on 9 June 2011) the page Bonfire Night was a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page was moved by Nikkimaria unilaterally and without prior discussion on 7 July 2011‎ from "Bonfire night" to Bonfire Night (disambiguation) (and IMO that move needs to be reverted). At the time you promoted this article not one of the issues over the criteria I had raised at the FAC had been discussed in the FAC process. The chief one was and is "1.b comprehensive". But that leads to all sorts of other ones in that list (such as "2.a"). Also at the time this was promoted to FA status "1.e stability" was an issue, (one editor had repeatedly breached the 3RR rule over the preceding months), why did you ignore that criteria? -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a pretty well-read non-Brit :) I cannot comment on my thought process of almost 4 years ago (I've slept since then!), but I will say that there appeared to be consensus at FAC that the article was comprehensive. The stability criteria is usually invoked when the article is massively changing from the beginning of the FAC nomination to the end (text being added or removed). The appearance of the article did not change much during this particular FAC nomination. The article today also reflects what it was when originally promoted. That tells me it has been pretty stable. I suspect there are compromises that could take place here to partially satisfy both parties (leave out the trivia, add a line about where 5 Nov is still celebrated with Bonfires, and call it day), but I am have not read the sources. I've been involved in my own set of disputes on topics like this, and I know it's difficult to provide the correct balance. Good luck, gentlemen! Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that some people think the narrative constructed by those experts who do know something about this topic, whose research I have summarised here, is incorrect. They think their own views are more important than the experts and they will not listen to reason. I have been defending this article against this idiocy for years. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No Parrot, you are being completely disingenuous here. 'People' do not want to rewrite the sections of the article concerning the early history of the celebration - except in a very minor way to improve its structure for readability. What 'people' want to do, me included, is to incorporate more material on recent and modern aspects of the celebration, with appropriate citations to reputable sources. You repeatedly block and revert such additions for specious and entirely personal reasons. Any user or administrator can look at my record of article creation and editing and see that I am scrupulous in the use of citations - I'm a professional scientist and rigorous citation of sources is in my bloodstream. Do I want to swamp this article with trivia? Obviously not. However, this article is not about brain surgery or the decoding of Linear B, it is about a folk celebration, and as such certain things that are central to it as a folk celebration are less than entirely po-faced and serious. This is in the nature of the subject of the article, it cannot be avoided. Urselius (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Surely, if previous arguments were cogent but ignored, then they still constitute a perfectly legitimate basis for re-appraisal. Nothing on Wikipedia is written in stone - that's one of its virtues. Urselius (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Urselius, Karanacs just gave you a helpful list of suggestions and questions, none of which you addressed. I'm unwatching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the suggestion is that the terms 'Guy Fawkes Night' and 'Bonfire Night' are used entirely interchangeably. To foist on them a distinction 'Guy Fawkes Night' is a historical celebration and 'Bonfire Night' is a modern celebration would just be wrong. Wikipedia has to faithfully reflect reality not impose an artificial construct on reality. Urselius (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is an account from Folklore and Myth Author(s): H. R. Ellis Davidson, Folklore,Vol. 87, No. 2 (1976), pp. 131-145Published Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

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

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

Has it ever occurred to you Urselius that the reason your edits are being reverted are because they are little more than trivia and are not worthy of being included in a featured article? Cassianto^Talk 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Has it ever occurred to you, Cassianto, that you are helping to enforce a ban on open editing of an article, that you are aiding and abetting the ownership of an article in direct contradiction to basic Wikipedia rules and ethics? Urselius (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering that this article is about a folk celebration, and not the philosophy of Aristotle or particle physics, I would think that anyone would consider that relevant matter covered in an academic journal called "Folklore" would be appropriate. Incidentally, Antonia Fraser, who is quoted within the article as if she was a walking oracle, works at the intersection of academic and populist writing. As such anything from a specialist journal has more academic "clout" than her material. Urselius (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

GlandGlad you are back Cassianto. Did you notice that I posed you a question a higher up the page? I look forward to your answer. -- PBS (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Gland" to be back also PBS. Cassianto^Talk 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my typing mistake and thank you for responding to my question (I have added a supplemental). -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Request for comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is an article about Guy Fawkes Night (also known as Bonfire Night). There have been numerous disputes before on the talk page about the scope of the article: should it focus just on the history of the event or should it also describe how the event is celebrated today?
An aforementioned example is that there is currently no mention of traditional Bonfire Night food (such toffee apples and parkin). It might be helpful to compare the article with Christmas, which does contain sections about both the history of the event and how it is celebrated today.
Note that information that might be relevant to this page is located elsewhere (Bonfire Night, Bonfire Night (disambiguation) and Gunpowder Plot in popular culture). 81.152.36.213 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Option 1 Focus just on the history of the event.
• Option 2 Describe also how the event is celebrated today.

Survey

• Option 2 Many readers looking at this article would wish to read both about the history of the event and how it is celebrated today. This is consistent with other pages (for example, Christmas, Easter and Halloween). Unless this article is renamed "History of Guy Fawkes Night", its scope should not be so restricted. 81.152.36.213 (talk)
• I would expect this article to describe how the event is currently celebrated, in addition to its history. This article does the history really well, so it is a shame that doesn't give much space to modern celebrations. We have an article on Guy Fawkes in popular culture to separate out what some regard as matters of modern trivia, so perhaps we need one on the History of Guy Fawkes Night to separate out what some regard as matters of antiquarian interest? (Incidentally, the talk archives of this article are in a mess - ClueBot has been adding seemingly randomly to various different archives from /Archives/1 to /Archives/8 over the last year or two without much regard to maintaining chronological order, so it is quite hard to look back to see who said what and when) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.191 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not this shit again. No. Just read the archives and educate yourself. Parrot of Doom 15:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  Some aren't here to be educated, just to cause maximum trouble. Eric Corbett 16:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a place in the archives I have missed that shows consensus for this article not making proper mention of the present-day celebration? 81.152.36.213 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• It seems clear to me that there is no consensus to merge trivia into this article. Improve the Bonfire article if you think it is so important. J3Mrs (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  See my reply below, "trivia" is not an appropriate word. -- PBS (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Option 2. An article about an annual event should be an article about the event, not English history. Personally, I find this 2005 version infinitely more informative than the current 47k. Scolaire (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Trading personal comments – not relevant to discussion

**Nobody here is interested in your subjective views. CassiantoTalk 08:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the ad hominem response. Explain to me how you can speak for "everybody here". Where is "here" anyway? The article is only part of Wikipedia mainspace, and a Request for comment is open to everybody on Wikipedia to comment. My subjective views are worth as much as anybody else's, including (before you say it) the good people at FA. Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC) The fact that you find a badly written stub to be more informative than a comprehensive and well illustrated featured article says more about you than it does about anything else. CassiantoTalk 12:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC) The fact that you are incapable of anything other than ad hominem responses speaks volumes about you. Scolaire (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC) You need to take it down like...three or four notches. This kind of bullshit is totally unacceptable. Someone is giving an opinion in an RfC and your response is to shit on them for offering it? No. Be civil to your fellow contributors. Protonk (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC) To whom are you referring Protonk? CassiantoTalk 15:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC) You. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Then have the common sense to say so the first time rather than leave ambiguous messages. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC) @Cassianto: I threaded my reply to you. Your comments were the ones shitting on an editor for stating an opinion. And frankly, I think you knew exactly who I was referring to. If you want me to ping you when I say something like that I can, but don't clap back at me with the insinuation that I don't have common sense. Jesus, is this how you operate normally around here? Just throwing snide comments at anyone who crosses your path? Protonk (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC) That would be a yes. Scolaire (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Who said anything about pinging? Saying the name of the editor would've done. Seeing as there was me and another editor above your comment, I don't think I was asking for too much by getting you to clarify who exactly you were referring too; alas, that seems to be the case. It's obvious you are spalling for a fight so I shall now ask you to move on. CassiantoTalk 17:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Ask whatever you like. Treat your fellow contributors like human beings and I'll happily move on. Protonk (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Where have I not? I merely stated that I find someone's subjective view that they prefer a shitty stub to a featured article to be of no interest to anyone currently engaged in this laborious thread. I fail to see the incivility you are so keen to accuse me of. CassiantoTalk 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC) You opened the discussion with "Nobody here is interested in your subjective views", certainly a broadly accepted sentiment couched in the most adversarial possible way. Your response when called on that was to attack the person making the statement for having the temerity to put forward an opinion: "The fact that you find a badly written stub to be more informative than a comprehensive and well illustrated featured article says more about you than it does about anything else" Both of these were nasty, unnecessary and served only to raise the temperature of the room. I'd also suggest that they were there to lord some implied superiority over that same editor. There's no reason to be nasty like that and no reason to make things personal. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC) If you're offended over something as trivial as that, then how on earth do you cope in the big, bad world? If there's one thing I can't stand it's people, like you, taking offence on behalf of others. This is my last comment on the subject, so for heavens sake, make your next one a show-stopper! CassiantoTalk 18:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I'm not offended. I was a fucking sailor. I'm just telling you to stop being a jerk to your fellow editors. We're not here for an education in how trivial you think it is to treat another person with dignity even though they don't live up to your standards. There's no need to dismiss someone like that, not because we're all looking for the fainting couch but because it's designed to be maximally dismissive and provocative. You told someone they weren't worth listening to in the first comment. It's completely fine to tell someone their opinion needs to be backed up with evidence but there's no reason to do so like you did. It demeans any sense of level debate and coarsens things needlessly. Sure, if someone is pissing you off or not getting the point, responding like you did would be perfectly reasonable! We will all be blunt and discourteous when we're in a rush or egged on or whatever. In that context, what you said above is pretty tame (even around here). But you seemed to assume that posture the instant someone made an assertion you didn't like. If they felt they were making a reasonable contribution to the discussion (a comment such as theirs is pretty common in RfCs and elsewhere), then what were they to think when you reacted as you did? Should they have thanked you for your implicit education in how tough the real world is by comparison? Maybe leaving the discussion or ignoring the slight is easier. I certainly understand why people you've treated like crap wouldn't readily confront you about it. What would they gain from doing so? All I'm saying is don't be a jerk. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Option 2 This is a long-term editor here using a proxy server because of the potential repercussions associated with disagreeing with certain people on this page. As Scolaire writes above, the article should be about the event, not just the history of it. There is a small group of editors (namely, Eric Corbett, Cassianto, Parrot of Doom and User:J3Mrs) who are owning this article and forcing their point of view on others. Some of their comments, and dismissals of anyone who disagrees with them, are discourteous and offensive. 2A05:1700:0:10:0:0:0:6 (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have now reported this matter to ANI. The ownership of the article and hostility to anyone who disagrees is completely unacceptable. 2A05:1700:0:10:0:0:0:6 (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And you admitted at ANI that yu are socking. I await a block on your account on that basis. – SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Socking refers to using multiple accounts for an improper purpose. I have not voted elsewhere in this RfC and have made clear my use of this account. I am not comfortable with opposing these editors when there might be repercussions for me from them in the future. 2A05:1700:0:10:0:0:0:6 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• All this appears to have been rumbling on since at least the FAC; it strikes me as tendentious and disruptive for it to constantly be brought up every couple of months or so unless new evidence/sources etc are provided. Nothing new has been offered this time round either and to be using IPs to evade scrutiny is abhorrent, whether it be to initiate RfCs or comment. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Option 2. Here in New Zealand, Guy Fawkes night is as popular as it ever was decades ago. The 5th of November is the start of summer when the days are getting longer, and many take the opportunity to have an outdoors barbecue and fireworks party. Guy Fawkes night is all it's ever been known as, and 'bonfire night' is unheard of. Keep it as Guy Fawkes Night and describe how it's observed today. It's big in NZ, and fireworks can be heard in neighbourhoods for up to a week or so after the night of the 5th. Akld guy (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2 - unless we create a new article, under this name. Then re-name this article History of Guy Fawkes Night. GoodDay (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Seems perfectly reasonable to add current celebrations to it. Protonk (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• option 2 but probably focusing more on the history than current bits. current bits should not be random trivia, but focused on stuff found in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2 as per PBS a great many aspects associated with these events are far from trivial and present a significant part of the culture of the UK and associated countries. The tradition has been, in many places, to call the event Guy Fawkes Night and (while in Lewes Bonfire we also spend great effort in burning the likes of Gadaffi, Cameron and Clegg, Salmon, Merkel, Putin etc. as well as a yearly burning of the specific Pope involved in the marian persecutions) the "burning" (detonation) of the guy remains an important part of the proceedings. For us the histories of events are important issues (while typically eating burgers and the like) but the practices and traditions, past and present, of other groups are also of great significance and importance. GregKaye 10:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2 This isn't even good history - its popular, not academic, book summaries - as seems to be the 'ideal' standard these days. Despite its manifest limitations, I'd accept this becoming the flawed basis for a 'History of Guy Fawkes...' subpage to a general article, but the living tradition, placed in context, needs to take center stage. Given the options of keeping this selective historical paraphrasing with no modern events, and modern events, I'm with option #2. AnonNep (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 - Focus on how the event is celebrated today - Maybe being only vaguely aware of British history I'm missing something, but it seems obvious to me that Guy Fawkes Night is a commemeration of the Gun Powder Plot. An article about the celebration should be at Guy Fawkes Night. It should have a subsection called Origins, and the main article hatnote for that article should be Gun Powder Plot. I don't understand why this article (i.e. Guy Fawkes Night) wouldn't chiefly focus on the celebration. If primary topic of this article isn't the celebration, which article's primary topic is the celebration? NickCT (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1. Wikipedia has enough recentist news items already, and the danger of bloating is ever-present. For recent celebrations, the sourcing would have to be rigorous, with the depth of sourcing appropriate for an FA, and I don't see how that would be possible for many of the hip things and pop stuff editors have been wanting to insert here. Let them write a subsection in Gunpowder Plot in popular culture, or something like that. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2 Both? This seems like a false choice... why can't it be both? changing to option 2 EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 is for history only; option 2 is for both history and the modern celebration. You can't have only one thing and more than one thing at the same time. Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Missed the "also" in option 2. Striking vote and relaxing with option 2. Thanks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 11:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2 per my statements else where in this section. -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2. Not much I can add to other people's comments (or the comments I made at some length a few years ago). The article should be renamed as "History of Guy Fawkes Night" - as it stands, it does not give a good enough overview of the whole article subject. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2 though it should obviously include the history of the event as well. Calidum T|C 15:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1 this horse has been beat to death. Go read the archives --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1 This is a loaded RfC which does not acknowledge what a me-too list of news reports would involve. Please make another article to list what happened in your neighborhood. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2 - A no-brainer, really. You can't talk about its history without mentioning how it's currently celebrated, otherwise why would it be celebrated? It's like talking about Christmas and not mentioning how people celebrate it to this day. Stop the petty wrangling and provide an appropriate worldview of the topic. We strive to include the most relevant knowledge to any given article, not restrict its contents according to the whims of a handful of editors. If that's too much to handle, edit elsewhere. (Note that I'm not discussing the way in which the current celebrations section would be written, that's a whole different issue altogether) FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Firstly. everybody knows how Christmas is celebrated. It's celebrated the world over, aside from other religeous countries. Secondly, I don't care for your "petty wrangling" comment which is moronic at best. Lastly, where do you get off in telling people to "edit elsewhere"? If you can't engage brain before typing then maybe a discussion thread is not the best place for you to be. Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Firstly, Christmas is celebrated in many different ways in various parts of the world, there isn't even consensus on the correct day for the celebration between Christian denominations. Secondly, you don't engage in reasoned argument, you just insult fellow editors. Lastly, you don't engage in reasoned argument, you just insult fellow editors. Urselius (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  @user:Cassianto "where do you get off" what is it that you think FoCuSandLeArN is upon? Do you mean "moronic" literally ie the comment of a 10 year old, or do you mean it as an insult? If the latter then is it not a breach of civil guideline? I look forward to you answers. -- PBS (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  I trust you have the intelligence to be able to work the "where do you get off" comment out for yourself? The civil guideline is a load of old subjective bollocks and I haven't looked at it for years. The only guideline I abide by is to treat others how you'd expect to be treated yourself. If I was behaving like a fool, I'd expect to treated like one. So draw from that what you will. Cassianto^Talk 13:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  AFAICT the term "where do you get off" is an idiom, so what do you think is its origin? Personally I have always understood it to be a shortened form of "Where do you get off you high horse",[3] but that would be a different meaning to this "Yarhoo answer". The interesting thing about this exchange is first you state to someone that their comments "is moronic at best", then in the next sentence you use an idiom for which you write "have the intelligence to be able to [work it out]" isn't that rather inconsistent way to engage in a conversation? Many people do not like to be insulted and editing Wikipedia ought to be a pleasant experience, so why not leave the insults and the idioms (which can be misunderstood) out of your exchanges with others?-- PBS (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  Why don't you go away and improve something rather than waste your time goading me into arguments? Cassianto^Talk 17:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  Off topic reply posted to User talk:Cassianto. -- PBS (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly my point, as you've masterfully represented above (as a reply to my quite neutral assessment). People are evidently too attached to this article. My suggestion is cool off for an indefinite amount of time. It's just not worth it to fight against the entire community. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Option 2 If anything, a reader would expect an article entitled "Guy Fawkes Night" to be primarily about how it is currently celebrated with the historical description as background to that. It makes no sense to exclude how it is currently celebrated from an article with this title. Whether or not an account of the current celebration is "trivia", in any abstract sense, is irrelevant or, at least, a meaningless question. By definition, it cannot be "trivia" for an article with this title: the coverage of "Guy Fawkes Night" as a subject is incomplete without it. In any event, examples of non-trivia, on any basis, have been given by an editor in this post. If the article is to stay as is, it should be moved to "History of Guy Fawkes Night". DeCausa (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The article relies heavily on two books: Antonia Fraser's The Gunpowder Plot and J. A. Sharpe's Remember, Remember: A Cultural History of Guy Fawkes Day. The first thing to note is that neither of these books are on Guy Fawkes Night per se – one is on Guy Fawkes and the other is on the history of Guy Fawkes Night (or Day). When I type "Guy Fawkes Night" into Google Books, neither of these come up in the first few pages. The books that do come up talk about 21st century celebrations, including the historical context. Jack Santino, in Halloween and Other Festivals of Death and Life, discusses the event in both England and Newfoundland. I'm sure there are plenty of other reliable sources on celebration, rather than history, that could be used. Scolaire (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@J3Mrs, you wrote above It seems clear to me that there is no consensus to merge trivia into this article. Improve the Bonfire article if you think it is so important. Short answer "trivia" is not an appropriate word.

A longer answer. I think that the creation of the Bonfire Night article by user:Nikkimaria at 04:25, 25 March 2011 from a dab page was a mistake and I stated that in Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Edit on 25 March 2011, the subsequent conversation does not show a consensus for the change of the page from a dab to an article. I think the move of the disambiguation content (along with the history of the page) from Bonfire Night to Bonfire Night (disambiguation) by user:Nikkimaria at 13:49, 7 July 2011 and the creation of content with another edit one minute later was made clearly without a consensus. However it was very clever gaming of the system because when older ≠ wiser then put it up for deletion there was no consensus to delete it! It is clear from the people who expressed an opinion in that deletion debate that the opinions expressed were expressed by many of the same people who are still expressing similar views on this talk page.

You may say "there is no consensus to merge trivia into this article" but equally there is no consensus for limiting the article to its current scope. BTW User:J3Mrs you use the phrase "there is no consensus to merge trivia into this article", is a similar rhetoric trick as appealing to all "right thinking people" did you use this form or rhetoric deliberately? Few is any want to "merge trivia into this article", but that is not the same as wanting to include information that is covered by the expression "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" (Wikipedia:Featured article criteria).

IMHO The content of the article at the moment is limited to the "history of Guy Fawkes Nigh" and does not cover the topic. For example it has a section called "In other countries" the vast majority of which is about 18th century North America. There is one sentence about the Antipodes: "Sydney, founded as a penal colony in 1788, saw at least one instance of the parading and burning of a Guy Fawkes effigy in 1805, while in 1833, four years after its founding, Perth had Gunpowder Treason Day listed as a public holiday". But there is nothing to say that Guy Fawkes Night is not widely celebrated in Australia in the 21st century or that it is a major celebration in New Zealand and why two countries that have so much in common, including the time of year, have such differences over this celebration. Such information ought to be included in an article which meets the "comprehensive" requirement of a featured article and such information IMHO is not "trivia". Do you (J3Mrs) think it is?

-- PBS (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate that the above is addressed to J3Mrs, I can only re-iterate my comment further up: to me, this appears to be the same argument being churned out again and again every few months - for over four years now - with nothing new added, so it is little wonder responses are becoming strained. With respect, those four years could have been spent improving the Bonfire Night article to a reasonable standard and then perhaps the question of whether it would be beneficial to consider re-naming this article could be suggested. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your argument cuts both ways (one could equally state "it is not surprising that requests get a little strained") -- the last four years could have been spent improving this article with information about the 21st century celebrations. Sources have been bought to the talk page and ignored -- there seems little point in bringing more until there is an agreement that the scope of this article is too narrow. The Bonfire Night article is only a dab page with a little more text. It ought to be returned to its previous state (as a proper dab page), and any useful information merged into the separate bonfire articles, each of which have their own traditions and reasons for existance. People who have suggested renaming this article "History of Guy Fawkes Night" have not been encouraged to pursue it. Personally I think it is unnecessary, this article can be expanded further before it becomes so large that there the need for summary style. -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is already an FA; the arguments being presented are the same as those originally addressed at the FAC when the consensus was that the scope of the article was fine. As far as I can see that consensus has not changed, which is why I suggested you should try working on the Bonfire Night article (or alternatively present some new information), rather than returning to the matter every couple of months. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As of now, the survey above suggests that consensus has changed. At any rate, we should let the RfC play out and see whether it has or not. Scolaire (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was established at the FAC that the article met all the FA criteria, which it still does. The "survey" was initiated by an IP and already there has been another IP who has admitted to sock puppetry. As I and others have already respectfully suggested, why not spend time developing the Bonfire Night article? SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The FAC was in 2011. It's 2015 now and the RfC – whether you like how it was set up or not – is showing a number of established users with no previous input saying that the article could do with being edited. Pretending it's not happening won't change that. You have indeed been respectful in your suggestions, but others most certainly have not. And why waste time editing an article that's likely to become a redirect if the outcome of the RfC is to edit this article? Scolaire (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil you wrote The consensus was established at the FAC that the article met all the FA criteria. Where is the evidence that a consensus established? -- PBS (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

See below. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

PBS attributes to me motives I certainly don't have, I say what I think in as few words as possible and lose interest in walls of text with copious links. It's very sad, and somewhat disturbing to see editors bringing up disputes in which nothing has changed and harbouring grudges for such a long time. Why not start an article called Guy Fawkes Night around the world?— Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 August 2015‎ (UTC)

"harbouring grudges for such a long time" I do not know if you harbour any grudges, but I certainly do not because I assume good faith. Summarising the history of what happened in the past is useful for those who may not have been around that long and it help them understand how it is that the current articles are as they are.

J3Mrs, this article is about Guy Fawkes Night, to keep its FA status it ought to meet "comprehensive", so it ought to cover the subject of 21st century practices. Do you think that the coverage of this article is comprehensive and do you think mentioning the 21st century traditions in NZ and AUS more "trivial" than mentioning the "parading and burning of a Guy Fawkes effigy in 1805"? -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

A featured article, like any other, is still supposed to be a summary of sources not a compilation of every conceivable mention of the subject. J3Mrs (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Precisely! Is covering 21st century practices in NZ and Aus less relevant than mentioning that there was a burning of a Guy in 1805? -- PBS (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I trust that if this article sways in the favour of a merge, then it would be stripped of its FA status? Cassianto^Talk 19:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think you can discount the IPs. J3Mrs (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, and I would expect them to be. It's horrible saying it, what with all the hard work that's gone into making this article what it is today, but with the envisaged extra bloat and trivial bullshit added, a FAR would be inevitable. Cassianto^Talk 19:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If the article was moved to History of Guy Fawkes Night, it could take its FA status with it. Scolaire (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Replying to this and Scolaire's comment further up: My understanding of the situation is (a) the present article meets the FA criteria; (b) if the "survey" instigated by an IP (bearing in mind there has already been admitted sock puppets active here - hopefully efforts will be made to establish who is dishonestly using sock puppets and appropriate action taken against them) would mean those wishing to change the article would have to initiate an FAR to over-ride the present status. As the FAR route was suggested to PBS in March and he chose not to do so, I would once again respectfully suggest that PBS and Scolaire (who has indicated he has ample reliable sources about Bonfire Night and present day celebrations) should develop the Bonfire Night article instead. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so (emphasis added). It doesn't need a review or anything else to allow the article to be improved. There need only be a consensus to improve it. Scolaire (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The argument is made earlier on this Talk page that 'bonfire night' gets more Google hits than 'Guy Fawkes Night' and therefore the former term must be the more commonly used. Actually, the reverse is true. It is the lack of information about a topic that leads to more hits. Consequently, we can assume that 'Guy Fawkes Night' is the more widely known name, and as the day approaches and people start hearing occasional mention of 'bonfire night', they Google the latter to find out what it means - the same or some kind of distinction. I get the very strong impression that 'bonfire night' (in relation to 5th Nov) is a distinctly British appellation, and the Brits who are here pushing for its predominance are ignoring the rest of the world. Akld guy (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• If this article ends up the way you want to take it, I will personally make sure that it loses its FA status. The people who supported it during its FAC would have supported a version they saw, not the bloated, trivial mess you would like to see. Cassianto^Talk 05:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  This article should never have had FA status in the first place, because it is not comprehensive and just before it was given FA status, PoD was repeatedly breaching the 3RR rule (so it was not stable). Therefore removal of FA would be the correct thing to do, so let me know when you "make sure that it loses its FA status" and I will assist you. I posed some questions to PoD back on 9 March 2015 (which he did not answer), do you think any or all such additions are trivia? -- PBS (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  Please do not deliberately misinterpret my comments. The article as it stands at the moment is certainly FA quality and deserves the gold star. Your planned bastardisation would almost certainly devalue it. That is when it should be stripped, not before. Cassianto^Talk 07:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I tried to make it clear in my comment above that consensus was established at the FAC that the article met the criteria (and still does); in fact, the consensus was even summarised here on 29 May 2011. PBS is listed in the oppose section at that time. Four years on and the same point is still being brought up with no new detail offered. PBS draws attention to PoD, yet neglects to balance it by the warnings he received during the FAC about canvassing etc. I will not be commenting here any further as I seem to be repeating myself over and over again - it looks like my communication skills are seriously at fault - but to summarise: The article as it is at the moment meets the FA criteria; it has been suggested several times that the Bonfire Night article should be developed to include present day celebrations and I look forward to seeing what is done with that in the near future. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC) A few words removed per PBS request. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  Opinions are not votes. I do not agree that the ratios of opinions expressed indicates that there was a consensus, particularly as the concerns about edit warring and comprehensiveness were not addressed. -- PBS (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Phil, your communications skills are fine. It's a fair point and well made. I can imagine that it might be hard for somebody to get their head around the idea that there is anything more important than FA status. But what is emerging here is that a significant number of people think that the article does not address the topic, and that failing to address the topic is too high a price to pay for FA status. A word on consensus: the summary at FAC shows that only thirteen users !voted. Nine supports may count as a consensus among the thirteen, but it is a very small number relative to the size of Wikipedia. You can't really say that as long as the article doesn't change, the community as a whole still thinks it's FA class. Already in this RfC seven registered users using their usernames have indicated that they are in favour of change. If the article was an FA candidate at this moment, and all of the people who have commented in the RfC took the same view they are taking here, it would not pass. That's my take, and I won't comment further either. Scolaire (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"I can imagine that it might be hard for somebody to get their head around the idea that there is anything more important than FA status." So, what is more important then? Having it removed from FA just so you and your supporters can add in trivial bullshit about how different countries celebrate it and what type of cake is eaten? Cassianto^Talk 17:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"If the article was an FA candidate at this moment, and all of the people who have commented in the RfC took the same view they are taking here, it would not pass." - bullshit. FAC isn't a vote count. Parrot of Doom 21:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, I think the statement "you and your supporters can add in trivial bullshit" is divisive and not conducive to building a consensus, because "your supporters" implies some sort of leader and followers, instead of the reality which is that some disparate editors happened to hold the same opinions on this issue. Above you wrote "Please do not deliberately misinterpret my comments." I was not! I do not believer that this article should ever have been given FA status for the reasons I have stated several times and so I will happy to support you if you ask for it to loose its FA status. I posed some questions to PoD back on 9 March 2015 (which he did not answer), do you think any or all such additions mentioned in those questions are all "trivial bullshit"? -- PBS (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you deliberately trying to annoy me? You are again misinterpreting what I am saying. I said I would want it to lose its FA status if your preferred version makes it in. Until then, I remain convinced that this is one of the best articles we have. In response to your last question, yes, I do. If they were such pressing concerns with some substance and importance, then I'm sure PoD would have addressed them. I read his silence to mean "I can't be bothered to respond to such dross" and I suggest you do the same. Cassianto^Talk 18:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I find this RfC to be interesting and relevant reading: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PBS. Isn't it time this stick be dropped? Drmies (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

While I might be persuaded that this RFC was started in bad faith (or at least by someone not dropping the stick as you suggest), the question posed is neutral, and there seem to be quite a few people above who disagree with the status quo. I myself already had this page on watch from a few years ago, but are you suggesting that the rest of the !votes are somehow complicit/canvassed from PBS in a way that invalidates them? I buy that PBS (if that is the IP) was poking a stick at Eric by starting this RFC. That doesn't mean that there isn't an otherwise fair consensus for change forming. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A consensus of people who are almost entirely ignorant of the subject this article covers, and who couldn't write a decent article to save their lives. From that RFC, which I initiated more than four years ago - "Even when the talk page argument has been exhausted, he will revisit it, expecting other users to answer his questions" - absolutely nothing has changed. Parrot of Doom 22:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• No conspiracies here,Gaijin42. It's more about the stick than about PBS. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The current RfC is taking a completely different complexion to previous discussions over the past four years (consensus can change). It follows that there is no dead horse. Without a dead horse, WP:STICK is not relevant. Dragging up a four-year-old RFCU on a single editor does look like throwing mud in the hope that it will stick to that editor and to others. Scolaire (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that I am not PBS or any other user. I just saw a big problem with how the page is organised and thought something should be done about it. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have expressed an explicit opinion in the survey section on this issue, so that it is clear that I did not initiate the RfC by using an IP address. I have never knowingly used IP addresses since I created an account (but there have been occasional edits where I was unwittingly logged out when I saved an edit). -- PBS (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to add my 2d here: I came to this page as a result of edits by 81.152.36.213 to Bonfire Night and Bonfire Night (disambiguation), neither of which PBS has ever edited. I see no reason to assume that 81.152.36.213 is a sock, but if you wanted to make that assumption, PBS is not an obvious candidate. Scolaire (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• All this drama reminds me, I have a new book about Guy Fawkes downstairs that I'd completely forgotten about. I shall see what's written about 5 November and decide for myself if any of it is worth including here. Parrot of Doom 15:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For anyone who's interested, yet another biography of Guy Fawkes devotes an enormous one paragraph to discussing the celebration in countries not including the USA. Regarding the USA, a similar-sized paragraph details those events. Most of the book's discussion of GFN regards it's history. Half a single sentence discusses an effigy of Osama Bin Laden being burnt in 2001, the most recent observation a book published in 2010 makes. To my complete lack of surprise, I found no mention of parkin, toffee apples, bonfire toffee, or anything else of that ilk. Parrot of Doom 10:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It's possible, of course, that one reason may be that it's apparently a "biography of Guy Fawkes" - rather than, say, a study of the celebration known as Guy Fawkes Night... which is what this article is about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of American readers, this article forms an exact parallel to one written about Thanksgiving covering the Puritans in the 17th century in minute detail, but not mentioning that turkeys are eaten as the centrepiece of a meal that is part of an ongoing celebration. Would such an article be comprehensive or encyclopaedic?

Editors, such as myself, wish to add material on such vital factors to the ongoing celebration of Bonfire Night/Guy Fawkes Night (the terms are entirely synonymous) as: the annual expenditure on the celebration, the number of people attending organised events (usually organised by Local Government Authorities), the number of people making their own firework/bonfire parties in private, the annual expenditure on fireworks, the number of firework-related accidents, the air pollution caused by combustion of wood and from gunpowder, the local and regional variations in the celebration of the event, traditional foods consumed on the night, traditional songs and rhymes, the event as a cover for antisocial behaviour/arson etc. etc. Information on all these aspects of the celebration is available from reputable sources; sources including UK government statistics, academic folklore journals and specialist academic books and articles. These vital aspects of any encyclopaedic treatment of the subject of this article are being blocked from incorporation by a cabal of editors who have a narrowly defined antiquarian interest, who are self-appointed arbiters of relevance and what constitutes an 'admissible source' (in effect the few books they have access to themselves), and who just revert any such additions. They do not seem to have any comprehension of what an encyclopaedia is or should be. Urselius (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic commentary. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 'deciding for yourself' which parts of yet another popular history to summarise should really move things along. *rolleyes* AnonNep (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Only a complete fucking idiot would ever criticise a Wikipedia editor for buying source material in an attempt to improve an article. I neither seek nor need your permission to write anything here and I shall decide for myself what's worthy of inclusion. I suggest that if you don't like it, you go and suck your thumb. Parrot of Doom 20:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC) You should be thanked for buying source material, of course. Despite this, the content of this article is decided by consensus, not simply by you. An example is this request for comments, where your preferences are being over-ruled by others. Remember that you are no more important than any other user here. If anything, your incivility is rude and counterproductive. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Business as usual isn't going to resolve this & Library cards are a great thing. AnonNep (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing?

How long do Rfcs last? Is there a timetable? No big panick (regardless of outcome), just curious about this one. GoodDay (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. In this case I think it is probably best to let it run until the bot removes the template (30 days). -- PBS (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Since 1) the requester has stipulated that admin closure is preferred for what he or she believes to be the reasonable possibility that a NAC closure will be ignored and 2) the request by PBS that the discussion run the full 30 days, I've reverted my closure of this topic. I will, however, add my $0.02 here so that you can see how this discussion to date appears to an uninvolved editor (also, you guys are a hoot): Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There is consensus that the article, which currently focuses almost exclusively on the history of Guy Fawkes Night, should include content describing the manner in which Guy Fawkes Night is celebrated in the present day. The nearly 3:1 majority in favor of discussing modern practices comes alongside a common-sense assumption that that readers searching for this information (about the holiday itself or its history) would expect that an article called "Guy Fawkes Night" would not be limited solely to its history. Opponents' concerns about trivia and other issues could be addressed by strict adherence to WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:N. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate that if this article incorporates new information, then it should be stripped of its FA status. The material, which will presumably be added by those supporting option 2, will undoubtedley be shit. Although having said that, I doubt they will volunteer now that all the dramah is over. Off to the next one then; good work guys. Let's see what other FA's there are that you can ruin? Cassianto^Talk 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Referring to other people's work as feces is not civil, and neither is claiming that they're only here for the drama or that their changes to the article would ruin it.

It would be perfectly reasonable to request that the article be reevaluated if you feel that its quality has dropped, but there's no need speak quite this negatively. There's no reason why supporters of modern content couldn't find a few newspaper articles, sociological studies or other RS that could support a section on modern practices. Even a good travel book would have a section on British holidays and celebrations. They certainly do for other countries. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The quality will drop; there is no question of that. I would think a demotion is obvious. The bullshit information about parkin pie, and how the Mongolians swirl their sparklers will lower this article's quality, no matter who writes it. Cassianto^Talk 19:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Then insist on a cited source for every fact, sufficient to establish that said fact is notable enough to merit inclusion. We have processes for this, and contact WP:RSN or WP:NPOV if there is a dispute. That might slow things down, but there's no deadline. Plus, I'm pretty sure there's a happy medium somewhere between not describing modern celebrations at all and going into overly minute detail over the virtues of counterclockwise vs semi-horizontal counterclockwise baton twirling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, apart from a small number of elite content editors, nobody cares whether the article loses its FA status or not. Nor should they care. The only thing of importance is whether thousands of readers would get a better overall perspective of the celebration, both as it is and as it was, if greater weight were given to its modern celebration. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Completely agree. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nobody cares whether the article loses its FA status or not" -- And there lies the problem with this project. Based on that comment, let's do away with reliable referencing, copyright adherence, clarity rather than ambiguity, good prose and structure, and let's just do what the hell we want. Let's cater to the illiterate and the stupid who rely on factoids, (most) infoboxes, and irrelevant information. Will the last one out please turn off the light. Cassianto^Talk 20:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no. Not what I said. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It isn't a binary choice of "doing away with reliable referencing, copyright adherence, clarity rather than ambigiguity, good prose and structure" and FA status. The FA process has a minuscule impact on our readership and on Wikipedia as a whole. What is important is that articles are written within policy and meet readers' needs. That's far more important, and that and being an FA aren't synonymous. DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion. Cassianto^Talk 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion the current article comprises a mass of uninteresting content aimed at early modern history nerds, heavily reliant on three sources, and written in turgid prose. The fact that a handful of editors decided four years ago to vote it FA doesn't make it readable or interesting or well-sourced. I'm looking forward to seeing it transformed into something worthy of being called an encyclopaedia article. I don't care if it's rated C minus as long as there is an actual improvement in quality. Scolaire (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How can you think a C-class article which, by its very nature, is unresearched, unreferenced, badly illustrated (if at all), and badly written, be in anyway more encyclopaedic than a featured article? Your "the fact that a handful of editors decided four years ago to vote it FA doesn't make it readable or interesting" comment is moronic at best. It wasn't simply a case of turning up four years ago and voting support based on what you read; it was about offering opinions and comments about weak areas where things could be improved. Where were you by the way? Cassianto^Talk 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I was blissfully unaware of this article, or I would have had something to say about it. Yes, I do think that anything at all would be better than the present boring piece of irrelevance. You're not even able defend it on its merits. You have to fall back on the magic letters "FA", and calling other people's views moronic. Scolaire (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a fascinating article otherwise I wouldn't be here. When you're able to write an FA, I might take you a bit more seriously. Cassianto^Talk 23:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

When I join your little club, and start spouting venom at everyone who doesn't belong, is when you will take me more seriously. That is the day that I will stop taking myself seriously. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Little club? And who might that involve? Do share. Cassianto^Talk 08:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have written over a dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers - one appearing in 'Nature' - and book chapters in scientific textbooks, also I have had half a dozen historical monographs published in specialist journals; is this enough for you to take my opinion seriously? I think that the article as it stands at present is deeply flawed, which is why I have expended considerable effort in trying to get it improved. I also think that the FA process and consequent status has a more detrimental than positive effect on Wikipedia. Urselius (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

extended exchange that seems to be more about abusing each other than this article. DeCausa (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wasn't talking to you. So (you say) you've written a few science papers, why does that make you such a fucking expert on how to write a historical article?CassiantoTalk 08:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I understood this to be an open discussion; you questioned the qualification of an editor to express an opinion which is identical to my own, I therefore backed up the argument against your position by outlining my authorial background. If you look at my post closely, you will see that I stated that I have had a number of historical monographs published (one of which won an international prize - the panel for the prize consisted of academic historians). So yes, I am an expert in more than one field. Urselius (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Well we only have your word for that, so the point is moot. CassiantoTalk 10:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I could give you my real name and you would then be able to check my assertions. Except, of course, you are one of the cogent reasons why I use an alias on Wikipedia. Urselius (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC) What makes you think I'd be even remotely impressed as to your identity? I couldn't really care if you were Fawkes himself. I think you need to get over yourself. CassiantoTalk 13:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC) You seem to have a certain difficulty with logical progression in argument. You suggest that I'm dishonestly claiming something. I say I could prove the veracity of my assertions to you, but for the reasons I stated I am unwilling to do so. I have no desire to impress you, I am entirely indifferent to either your esteem or derision. I was merely replying to your assertion that only someone who is "able to write an FA" has any right to an opinion on this article. Urselius (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "You seem to have a certain difficulty" -- How can I seem to have something which you are certain of? I either am (which you're certain about), or seem to (which you're not certain about). This kind of grammatical contradiction is unbecoming of someone who proclaims themselves to be a messiah among academics, which you presumably think you are seeing as you're so eager to tell me your identity. As Iv'e said, I couldn't care who you are. I'm bored of this turgid exchange and have better things to do. I'm now removing it from my watchlist. CassiantoTalk 14:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Oh no, please don't go. Everybody here is looking to you for guidance. You are the only person here with any intelligence. If it weren't for you, I would have thought "a certain difficulty" meant "some difficulty". That's how stupid we are! And if you go, how will we make you like us? It's so important that you think well of us! Scolaire (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC) @User:Cassianto for reason best known to yourself you chose to remove three exchanges that we had on your talk page1,2,3, so although off topic I am posting this here. In the third exchange on your talk page, I pointed out to you that your comments indicate that between the 16th and 23rd of this month you went from implying an intimate knowledge of WP:CIVIL to stating (on this page) that you hadn't "looked at it for years". I suggest given you remarks during this RFC that you familiarize yourself with it. Discourse on Wikipedia ought at a higher level of civility that which would trigger a bar room brawl in parts of Britain In the part of Britain where I have spent the most time as an adult, if you were to say in a pub to a stranger (of the same sex) with whom you were having a verbal disagreement "why does that make you such a fucking expert" you could expect to get a glass in the face--end of discussion. It is not that such people do not use four letter words, most of them could not string a sentence together without swearing, but they would not tolerate such an insult from a stranger with whom they were having a disagreement. I think that the level of civility we should expect on Wikipedia talk pages ought set at a higher level that that which would trigger a bar room brawl in parts of Britain. -- PBS (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I won't give you my advice as I think it's a physical impossibility. CassiantoTalk 12:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If I'm reading the discussion correctly, changes will be made to the article content. We'll see by mid-September, how it goes. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't decided by vote counting, it's decided by who offers the best argument. So far, not a single person here has demonstrated, through sourcing, that this article is missing anything important. But then again, none of these people have any familiarity with the topic or the sources used to write this article, so that's to be expected. Parrot of Doom 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It's out of my hands. I support the proposed changes, but I've no intentions of pushing them through. I've already served a 1-year siteban (followed by a 1-year probation), therefore others will have to be bold :) GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.