Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Does this need a citation

Opening section concludes " although another old celebration, Halloween, has lately increased in popularity, and according to some writers, may threaten the continued observance of 5 November" yet this fact is never supported in the article. Use of "some writers" sounds wishy-washy. Metre01 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is supported later in the article, under "Similarities with other customs". Since it's cited there, and since the lead includes no direct quote, it need not be cited in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

'Decline'

A lot of this articles focus on the present day bonfire night makes it sound like it's all but died out. But from my personal experience Bonfire night is as celebrated now as it was in the late 80's and early 90's. Is the whole decline thing actually impartial? I don't see how we can't find counter arguments as no where tends to write about Bonfire night being consistently popular because there's no need to. Patternofknives (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view, GFN has most certainly declined in popularity. When I grew up (70s) practically every street had its own bonfire. Guys were regularly trawled around the town. Much bonfire toffee was eaten. Fireworks were let off in one's back yard. People these days seem to be averse to any kind of danger, and would rather wear plastic Halloween masks instead. Parrot of Doom 09:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Interesting conjecture- growing up in the 50s/ 60s in suburban Stockport- the tradition was weak. As kids we had a 5 shilling box of Standard fireworks, but the big communal bonfires that my grandparents had in the prewar years were lamented. Everything was done through the church in those days and I remember that in 1965 we organised a church bonfire at the school, so that the little children could bring and share their fireworks. We has so many to light that I ended up using a Golden Rain as a lighter, just to get through them all. This went on for four or five years- until the popularity waned as civic organised bonfires took over- but it was ten years from them before the guy making competitions arrived. Certainly twixt 68-72 in Withington, kids were obsessed with guy making going door to door to collect old clothes.
This year in North Kent, I had the usual open house and bonfire for the local kids (no deaths of serious injury- but some alcohol abuse by their parents) and I was told that the numbers were down on last year- but I blame this on the fact that this was a Monday, and the officinados had done three civic displays (Fri,Sat, Sun) and Monday was a step to far. No children of the guy building age are allowed to be out alone on the streets scavanging in the manner of the seventies.
Whether this is a decline or cyclical behaviour-- one anecdote doesn't prove much. (Why am I posting this? the alternative is tidying up after the party and restoring the garden)--ClemRutter (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Day?

This festival isn't known as Guy Fawkes Day. I've heard Amerucabs mistakenly call it Guy Fawkes Day, but that doesn't mean that it's correct.--176.25.9.50 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a great many positive results on a Google News search for "Guy Fawkes Day", so you are incorrect. Parrot of Doom 14:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Other Countries

There's a section titled other countries but it just talks about the US/North America. What of other parts, NZ, Oz, South Africa, ...? No idea which celebrate it - NZ does I know but ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.163.199.182 (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. There is clearly no support for the rename to take place (Guy Fawkes Night -> Bonfire Night). The scope of the article, and whether Bonfire Night should be merged here, is not clear. There is an RfC below to determine the scope of the article. Following this, if support seems likely, a merge request for Bonfire Night to Guy Fawkes Night can be submitted. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night – The most common name for this event appears to be "Bonfire Night". See Google Books [1], where "Bonfire Night" is twice as common as "Guy Fawkes Night". Bonfire Night is already a very small article simply summarising this one. The few details on that page about bonfire traditions elsewhere (Eleventh Night and St John's Eve) can be merged with Bonfire Night (disambiguation): these nights are infrequently referred to as "Bonfire Night" (often just by their proper names, occasionally as a lower case "bonfire night"). To see this, notice that Google results [2] for "Bonfire Night" mention overwhelmingly the contents of this page, not Eleventh Night or St John's Eve. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the post to make that clear. Thank you. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note (WP:NPA).
How clever you are IP, managing to know how to log RfCs when you're such a new editor. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a sock of someone with a motive. CassiantoTalk 22:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. The fractured nature of coverage of this subject is entirely due to a few editors (see discussions above) arrogating complete control over this page and thereby excluding much relevant information purely because of their narrowly antiquarian tastes. As a result, other pages, such as Gunpowder Plot in popular culture, appeared as a last resort for people wishing to bring more popular, folkloric and recent aspects of the ongoing annual celebration into Wikipedia coverage. Urselius (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Ultimately, a page on Bonfire Night/Guy Fawkes Night should present a thorough commentary on the event, both in historical terms and what occurs nowadays. If there is a problem with certain editors, it might be worth posting elsewhere (WP:England, WP:HOLIDAY?) for outside advice from other users. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I have requested here some input from other users. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose remember, remember, the fifth of November and all that. This is a historical reference, and the historical nature of the origin of the term and event should probably be kept as the primary name. It is also a feature article. Maybe 'Bonfire Night', which seems to be mainly about the same subject, should be merged and redirected to here, the featured page, or that page renamed. Randy Kryn 14:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
"Bonfire Night" does seem more common nowadays. Whatever this article is called, it does make sense to merge the two articles and create a redirect: at the moment, editors are reaching Bonfire Night instead of this page. There is also Bonfire Night (disambiguation) for other nights that involve bonfires. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize that this page had such a strong opinion base, just happened to notice it on the 'Requested move' page, thought of the movie "V", and what I knew the event as, and came by to comment. Possibly a neutral name such as "5th November, British Commonwealth" could cover all related topics. Guy Fawkes Night wasn't even the original name of the event, so it's possible that all points of view aren't being covered by choosing one title over any other. Just an idea to see if any consensus develops. Randy Kryn 21:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note There is currently also a dispute about what to include at Bonfire Night. This version is supported by sources and describes how "Bonfire Night" is the British/Commonwealth tradition on 5 November, while other cultures also have celebrations involving bonfires under different names. This version has deleted the references and uses "Bonfire Night" as a general title for any celebration involving bonfires, including those with entirely different names (Eleventh Night etc.). 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And there is a discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Lead. And another one at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#A topic can't be both a part and a whole. --Scolaire (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
See this from Google Trends: precisely once a year, there is a huge jump in interest for this "Bonfire Night". There is no such observation for any of the other events that involve bonfires. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is about the history of Guy Fawkes Night, up to the present day. For at least 200 years of that 400+ year history, it was known primarily as Guy Fawkes Night. Only in the last few decades has it become known as bonfire night. Insofar as it pertains to 5 November, the Bonfire Night article is basically trivia that has no place here. Parrot of Doom 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It is interesting that Debrett's (the most trusted authority on British etiquette) describes the event simply as "Bonfire Night". It is also interesting that the Google Books analysis given above shows that "Bonfire Night" has been more commonly used for all but 13 of the past 135 years. A simple Google search result gives the same conclusion (2,890,000 results vs 656,000 results). Does WP:COMMONNAME suggest we ignore what the common name has been for the last century and just use the name that was most used 200-400 years ago? Please provide some sources. You have already agreed that the celebration it is now known as "Bonfire Night". 81.152.36.213 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
"Please provide some sources" - they're right there, in the article. Read them if you'd like to know more. Parrot of Doom 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Parrot of Doom the article only has its current emphasis on the history of bonfire night in England, because of your repeated edit warring to keep it so.-- PBS (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And what have you bought to the table PBS? I suggest nothing. CassiantoTalk 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest even less that nothing. Eric Corbett 10:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I couldn't oppose this strongly enough! Per Randy Kryn's comments above, this has historically been known as Guy Fawkes, and this is still the case in all of the Commonwealth. I'm tired of these useless move discussions based on inaccurate Google searches, which by the way are different for all users. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Bonfire Night into this article (and other Bonfire Night articles) per WP:NATURALDIS. "Bonfire Night" is ambiguous, hence Bonfire Night (disambiguation). Having it as a redirect to this article – with a Redirect hatnote – would give us the best of both worlds. Scolaire (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Support this idea, which was the position until User:Parrot of Doom started to edit the article. -- PBS (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • ...and had he of not, this article would have been languishing in the world of C class or worse. CassiantoTalk 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- This same, boring thread comes up almost as often as bloody Guy Fawkes night! What a lot of wasted time and effort! CassiantoTalk 19:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note
Users might wish to note that there has been a long-running dispute about this article between User:Cassianto and User:Urselius. In particular, Cassianto is accused of preventing others from editing the article and restricting its scope to just the history of the night, not how it is today, whilst Urselius is accused of adding unnecessary information. See the previous discussion. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming. As an American, I must say that I have never heard of a "bonfire night." It is a term simply not used. The burning of a Guy Fawkes dummy, however, is very well known among the cognoscenti. So I can't see any reason for renaming this particular article. As for other bonfire traditions, well, I suppose they can be handled either by themselves or in a separate article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Bonfire Night to here and move Bonfire Night (disambiguation) to Bonfire Night. Because there are other events referred to as "Bonfire Night" it follows that there would be more references to that name; that doesn't prove it's a more common name for this subject. Also, since there are several "bonfire nights" clearly some disambiguation is required - so it makes sense to keep Guy Fawkes Night right where it is. WaggersTALK 10:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Request for comments Looking here, and above, there is clearly a long-running dispute about the scope of the article. It appears as if this is why we have two articles (Guy Fawkes Night and Bonfire Night). I have begun a "request for comments" below for the scope to be decided. Might it be worth suspending this requested move until the scope is decided? 81.152.36.213 (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, the consequence of which would be that this article turns in the entropy soup so beloved of some editors (bonfire night in Outer Mongolia, bonfire night in Greenland, bonfire night in Lithuania ...) and would promptly be delisted as a featured article for lacking focus. Eric Corbett 10:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment All of the hypothetical examples you give would not be in this article, they would properly appear in Bonfire Night (disambiguation) along with the real examples currently listed there. This article should not have been promoted to FA status nor should it be kept as such, because it failed and continues to fail some of the featured article criteria. PoD was breaching the 3RR rule during the months running up to and including the FA process (diffs can be presented if proof is required), this means that it failed the "e stable:" criteria. It failed and continues to fail "b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" because it ignores contemporary celebrations around the globe. Due to this failure to be comprehensive it also fails "well-researched", "neutral", "Media" "Length (it does not stay focused on the main topic)", because it is not comprehensive in its coverage. So the sooner FA status is taken away, the sooner this can become more comprehensive article. -- PBS (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      You are of course entitled to your opinion, however misguided and misinformed it may be. Eric Corbett 14:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      I do not think that your comment is not constructive, because it contains no explanation as to what you think is the correct information over which you think I am misinformed. I wait with interest to read what it is that you think is the correct information. -- PBS (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      If you do believe this article should no longer be featured, you might wish to read through WP:FAR. The issue has already been raised at the talk page, so listing the article at "featured article review" might be best. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      You may not have noticed that it was PBS that raised it on this page. Scolaire (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      You might want to brush up on your understanding of double negatives PBS. Eric Corbett 15:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      Thank you for pointing out my error, however as I recognise it as an error I do not believe that I need to "brush up [my] understanding of double negatives". I started out by writing "Your comment is not constructive" but decided that it was a matter of opinion as clearly as you spent time writing it you must have thought it constructive, so I tacked something on the front to make allowances for that and made a mistake. I still wait with interest to read what it is that you think is the correct information. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      The correct information is the information already in the article, not the rag-tag of half-understood facts you seem so keen to add. Next question? Eric Corbett 16:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      Whether the information "already in the article" is correct is not currently the major issue for it FA status. I think a more pressing issue is that the criteria "b comprehensive" is not met and has not been met at any time since before it was designated a FA. Do you think that it does meet the criteria "b comprehensive" in its current form and that there is noting more to be added to this article? -- PBS (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to renaming or merging any trivia about bonfires into this article. The article is about what the title says it is about, Guy Fawkes Night. A featured historical article is infinitely preferable to a trivia magnet diluted with everything and anything mentioning bonfires. J3Mrs (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pope burnings, misleading wording

From the article:

"In 1677 elements of Elizabeth I's Accession Day celebration of 17 November were incorporated into the Fifth, with the burning of large bonfires, a large effigy of the pope—his belly filled with live cats "who squalled most hideously as soon as they felt the fire"—and two effigies of devils "whispering in his ear". Two years later, as the exclusion crisis was reaching its zenith, an observer noted the "many bonfires and burning of popes as has ever been seen". Violent scenes in 1682 forced London's militia into action, and to prevent any repetition the following year a proclamation was issued, banning bonfires and fireworks."

This section is misleading, Pope burnings were always far more closely associated with Accession Day than with Guy Fawkes Day/Night. This continued to be the case after 1677; the largest recorded Pope burning, with 200,000 spectators, took place on November 17th 1679. The present wording suggests that the Guy Fawkes celebrations arrogated Pope burning from the Accession Day celebrations and this was not the case. The latter part of the above quote certainly relates to Nov. 17th rather than Nov. 5th celebrations. The wording should be made less ambiguous.

My source for this is: Harris, T. (1990) London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration Until the Exclusion Crisis, Cambridge University Press. Incidentally, a book written by a real academic. Urselius (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have double-checked the source used for this section and you were almost correct - the cats thing was an accession day celebration. The latter part of the paragraph remains correct. I have reworded to clarify. Parrot of Doom 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"On 17 November 1677 Londoners marked Elizabeth I's Accession Day with the burning of large bonfires, a large effigy of the pope—his belly filled with live cats "who squalled most hideously as soon as they felt the fire"—and two effigies of devils "whispering in his ear"." is imho too much about Accession Day, not the topic of this article. I'd replace it by something like: "Elizabeth I's Accession Day saw the burning of pope effigies from its first celebration on 17 November 1677." --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I've shortened it a bit more but I think the cat burning incident is useful to demonstrate just how crazy the anti-Catholic scenes were then. Parrot of Doom 08:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This article is not about anti-Catholic scenes and their crazyness in general (can be mentioned in articles on such topics but is too much detail here): unless cats were demonstrably involved in Guy Fawkes Night celebrations they have to go from this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Wait...it's your opinion that anti-Catholicism is not an inherent part of the history of GFN? Parrot of Doom 08:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
No, but apparently cats aren't (unless there's a reliable source contending it of course). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
They're important enough to be mentioned by the source I used. I think you're wrong and I'm not going to remove that section. Parrot of Doom 09:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia summarizes, and has another article for Accession Day. The source has 230 pages, "being mentioned by a source" is hardly enough reason, ever, to override WP:BALASPS. Exactly how many pages are devoted to cats in the combined reliable sources on Guy Fawkes Night? No cats (nor even burning pope effigies or anti-Catholic sentiments) are mentioned in our article on Accession Day tilt – if that's a problem with that article solve it there: the Guy Fawkes Night article can't be used to remedy it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You can quote all the WP:BULLSHITACRONYMSFORWINNINGARGUMENTS you like, my view is unchanged. Parrot of Doom 09:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "—his belly filled with live cats "who squalled most hideously as soon as they felt the fire"—and two effigies of devils "whispering in his ear"." has been removed before, as not pertaining to Guy Fawkes Night. Only one editor wants to keep it in, let's see which way the consensus goes. Afaics replacing "On 17 November 1677, anti-Catholic fervour saw the Accession Day tilt marked by the burning of a large effigy of the pope—his belly filled with live cats "who squalled most hideously as soon as they felt the fire"—and two effigies of devils "whispering in his ear"." by "Elizabeth I's Accession Day saw the burning of pope effigies from its first celebration on 17 November 1677." is a solution that garners enough support. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Not when the sentence is factually incorrect. Parrot of Doom 11:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Tx., trying to get it right I struck my proposal above and propose this replacement: "The Accession Day tilt (17 November) of 1677, sharing in the heightened mood of anti-Catholicism, saw the burning of a large pope effigy." --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Market research

Parrot of Doom and I have both reverted the addition of this paragraph:

The size and level of popular participation in the modern celebration within Britain can be gleaned from UK government online sources, the most recent being for 2012. While only 29% of adults will actually participate in an activity to celebrate Bonfire Night (Guy Fawkes Night) those who do take part are expected to spend an estimated £386 million. 12% of adults will buy fireworks to use at home or take to a party, 12% of UK adults will either attend or host a party, however, 29% of adults expect to attend an organised fireworks display. Not everyone is enthusiastic about private celebrations, with 67% of adults saying that fireworks “should only be let off at properly organised displays”.[3]

My concerns here are that first, while we claim to be gleaning information from "UK government online sources", this source is not that - it's actually a market research survey. Second, I question the reliability of this source for inclusion here. The argument made in restoring it was that something is better than nothing - no, let's see if we can get something acceptable via discussion here first, per the close of the RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

We really need a handle on the size of the modern celebration. I made a mistake on the origins of the information. However, for an ongoing celebration, newspaper reports and market research are valid sources, as the subject is constantly evolving. A truly encyclopaedic treatment of an ongoing folk celebration cannot wait for a book to be written (by Antonia Fraser or anybody else) before aspects of its modern nature are admitted into it. The nature of the subject imposes a more immediate demand for information than can be provided solely by academic or even populist books. Urselius (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
But books and market research are not the only two options out there. If this is to retain FA status, it needs to use only high-quality reliable sources - that's not limited to books, but it doesn't include that particular citation. (Also, could you please match the existing citation format when adding new sources? Bare links are strongly discouraged). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
People have been asked time and again to present a high-quality source that lends as much detail to the modern celebration as they would like. And not one of them has ever found such a source. I'm tired of explaining it. Parrot of Doom 19:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The point has been made, time and again, that retaining FA status is not very important. What is important is presenting readers with a good enough overview of the celebration, including the celebration as it currently exists. Writing that will inevitably require sources different to those which present the historical background on how it developed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"What is important is presenting readers with a good enough overview of the celebration, including the celebration as it currently exists." - [citation needed] Parrot of Doom 20:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Sounds familiar? DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, and what nobody has been able to demonstrate, through reliable, high-quality sourcing, is that any major facts are missing. Your opinion on what's important is irrelevant - on this project, we go with the sources. Find a decent source on GFN that demonstrates this article is lacking, and I'll change my view. And you people act as though the article doesn't already mention the modern day celebration. Parrot of Doom 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria you write "If this is to retain FA status, it needs to use only high-quality reliable sources". Wikipedia has a requirement for content to be supported by reliable sources for which there is a policy have definition. What do you think is the definition for "high-quality reliable sources"? -- PBS (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Parrot of Doom "through reliable, high-quality sourcing" where is high-quality sourcing defined and if it is not what do you think it means? -- PBS (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This again? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
He's like a stuck record, being listened to by a goldfish. Parrot of Doom 14:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, the POD-U-Likes are going against consensus, so it's business as usual here! The shibboleth of "high quality sources" is still active, you people learn nothing and are incapable of recognising common sense. Urselius (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The RfC close found that we should reach consensus here on updates to the article, not just add anything for the sake of having something. That's common sense. Do you have any better sourcing to support material you wish to add? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria and User:Parrot of Doom, neither of you answered my questions in such a way as to help explain what high-quality reliable sources are. Possibly the best way forward to for the article to be developed using reliable sources and if you think these are not "high-quality reliable sources" then ask for a FA review and perhaps were can discuss what is or is not a "high-quality reliable source" during that review. If the consensus during is that this article no longer meets FA status then it can be dropped. As the article should never have been granted FA status in the first place, this would not be a loss to the project. -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Or we can just discuss the source quality here and get consensus about what sources merit inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it is the same old situation. The log-jam preventing the article becoming comprehensive and relevant to the present day needs to be shifted. Urselius (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, sure – what's your counterproposal to get out of the "log-jam" situation? My proposal would be to stop this general discussion (we've seen enough of these), and discuss edit proposals and their respective proposed sources one by one. When there's unclarity about the viability of a source it can be brought to WP:RSN, to see whether it can be vetted "FA grade" (whatever that is). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality of the source

"Brits expected to spend over £650 million celebrating Bonfire Night and Halloween" is a press release by YouGov (see Bonfire Night Halloween SixthSense press release where the PDF is offered for download).

Press releases fall under "Self-pubished" material for the WP:V policy. As such it cannot be used for claims on third parties like "Brit consumers", "UK adults" or whoever else outside YouGov, per WP:SELFPUB. "In 2012 YouGov published the results of an online survey regarding Bonfire Night participation" is about all that can be retrieved from the source for Wikipedia.

I suppose the remaining issue is whether we wouldn't be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a press release, unless content from YouGov's market intelligence report regarding Bonfire Night & Halloween was picked up in reliable sources outside the market research agency. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Wikilegalist" twaddle. If a set of relevant statistics are the only ones available, then they should be used as anything on a vital aspect of an article's basic relevance is better than nothing.
The Following needs to be included in the article, and the government guide to which it refers:
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles said:
"Bonfire Night is a great British tradition, and it continues to have resonance as we give thanks for the longevity of :our Parliamentary democracy and the British Monarchy."
"This new guide challenges the municipal killjoys and health and safety zealots who want to stop bonfires and :fireworks. The public should be encouraged to celebrate this day in the traditional way, together with some common sense :tips to ensure a safe and fun evening."
"Important occasions like this bring people together across colour, class and creed. Britain is stronger as a nation :when we celebrate these ties and traditions that bind our country together." Urselius (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Why Eric Pickles' quote?
Re. "needs to be included" – nothing "needs" to be included unless it has consensus. So make your case why this would be worth including, and be open to what others say.
On first sight my answer would be: nah, we rarely need direct quotes in articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean direct quotation, I mean a mention of published modern day governmental guidance, and the refutation of 'nannyism' concerning the safety of fireworks and bonfires. Urselius (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Where can the Pickles quote be found?
https://www.gov.uk/fireworks-the-law would be the ref for the fireworks I suppose? "In the UK, Bonfire Night is one of the exceptions to the rule that no fireworks can be set off after 11 pm." is about all I can see deriving from that source for this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: picked up in reliable sources outside the market research agency - Some of the statistics in the press release are included in a BBC piece that is already used as the source for 'BBC's Tom de Castella...' in the present article. [4]. AnonNep (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Parkin in book

A book, The English Year by Steve Roud, Penguin UK, 2008, has a whole section, see p. 462, describing parkin, with a recipe. This section unequivocally connects parkin with Bonfire Night/Guy Fawkes Night.

This should make the subject admissible to the article; it is a book, it has been published by a reputable publisher, it is not a passing reference and it is intimately connected in the narrative of the book to Guy Fawkes Night. As a reputably published aspect of the folk celebration it is therefore not trivial and not irrelevant to the subject of this article. Urselius (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"last clean version" not an adequate reason

Several edits have been undone by Editor Sagaciousphil with an edit summary referring to "last clean version". That is not an adequate reason for such an undo. The undone edits were valid.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The reversion was good because it restored the article to a better, more clean, version. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, cleanliness is next to godliness. If we carry on this way, Wikipedia will soon be godly. I see we have a nice cliquey ownership in control of this article.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Quite true, they ignore formal processes of arbitration also. Urselius (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a sad irony that the site promotes itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", at the same time as "featuring" articles where that is demonstrably not the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Like many so-called history 'good articles' on Wikipedia, this is at core a rip-off summary of mainly 're-written for a popular/commercial audience' book/s, with a patrol posse who seem to want the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit' to be permanently frozen in chunks of damp, tepid, aspic. AnonNep (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

GB

This is celebrated throughout the country, and not confined to just the island of Great Britain.--98.122.20.56 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The "perceived" evils of Popery? These were not perceived. The Catholic Church was particularly pernicious under Mary Tudor, and Judge Jeffreys made a mockery of justice by having protestants executed en masse. The Statue of 1689 makes it plain the excesses perpetrated by the Catholics over the previous 150yrs.203.87.98.101 (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

See also Guy Fawkes Guy Fawkes Mask

38.104.209.46 (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:NOTSEEALSO, both are linked in the body. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

New Zealand

Since the PC-inspired restrictions on selling fireworks, Guy Fawkes Night has become less prominent in New Zealand. However the biggest threat seems to be coming from the American Halloween celebrations, which has even started to appropriate the setting off of fireworks - a major retail chain (already notorious for importing goods at the expense of New Zealand manufacturers) having gone so far as to promote the sale of "Halloween Fireworks".Royalcourtier (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

South Africa

The state of GFN in South Africa is alluded to in a 2010 article as declining. I added a reference to a current article (Nov 5), which describes the current GFN situation in Capetown. (version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_Fawkes_Night&oldid=748024234)

User:Parrot of Doom reverted the link, with the question (in the comment) " (what is this for?)".

I re-reverted the link, explaining (again, in the comment) : "What is this for? Last ref was 2010 ... GFN still alive and well in ZA 2016" -- User:Parrot of Doom deleted it again (flagging it as "minor", possibly so I wouldn't get an alert?)

a) I object to the deletion ... the information is IMHO relevant to the article, though it doesn't necessarily warrant a paragraph in the text -- though I'd be happy to provide that -- and maybe incorporate the NZ status too. b) I object to it's being deleted and re-deleted without discussion here. Alanf777 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Because it's largely irrelevant. Search the archives, this is the same old nonsense that various ignorant people have been arguing for for years. Parrot of Doom 08:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
What is the proposal? That a reference [5] be added so the reader can infer that "Some measure of celebration remains" is not sufficiently enthusiastic regarding South Africa? There would be no point to such an edit. No reliable source that compares the enthusiasm of countries is available, so the current wording is fine. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Johnuniq, what are you attempting to say? Please clarify, as your present comment is unclear in the extreme. Urselius (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Parrot of Doom to propose that this article includes informaion about Bondfire/Guyfawks night in the 21st century around the world is neither "largely irrelevant" or propose by "ignorant people". If you think that some of the people who propose adding such information are ignorant would you care to identify who they are? -- PBS (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Alanf777 do not be supprised that PoD reverted your edits, some of the people who PoD presumably thinks are "ignorant" have accued him of ownership of this article. I am sure you can draw you own conclusions if this is the slur as PoD considers it to be, or an accurate description. -- PBS (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Alanf777, please look at the archives, they will tell you all you need to know about the stranglehold that a cabal of editors, headed by Parrot of Doom, have exerted over this article. For reasons known only to themselves they object to virtually every addition that seeks to explore the modern celebration. They also ignore Wikipedia rules and the results of formal arbitration. Also PoD and his crew are notably abusive, you are lucky not to have been personally insulted as yet. Urselius (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I have a shiteload of detail - enough for a subsection - on the history of GFN in Australia with WP:RS but it is pointless while the self-appointed WP:OWN cabal will allow zero additions to the sacred article. AnonNep (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh look, the gobshites are all here, right on schedule. Parrot of Doom 22:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh look, the personal abuse kicks in right on cue. You just cannot refrain from insulting fellow editors, can you? Urselius (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Why not reply with substance? Enter into insult free talk on a Talk page? Is it really that hard for you? AnonNep (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Pope's Night in Boston

Someone on WikiProject Boston suggested creating an article about Pope's Night (Pope Night/Pope Day/Pope's Day). The "In other countries" section of this article looks pretty good to me, so for now I'm just going to redirect "Pope's Night" there. At some point, though, it might be nice to have a separate article just for Boston that can be expanded. Then I'm thinking we'd briefly summarize it here and provide a "main article" link to that article. Any objections, let me know. --MopTop (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, there's now a separate article for Pope Night. You can shorten the entry here, or just leave it as-is, it's up to you. --MopTop (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Enforcement of WP:CITEVAR

I have reverted this edit by John beta (talk · contribs) because it changed from {{Citation}} to {{Cite news}}. The citation template, rather than Citation style 1, is generally used in this article. WP:CITEVAR calls for the established citation stye of an article be left unchanged, and to be consistent throughout the article, unless a consensus for a change is reached on the talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section Origins and history in England/Guy Fawkes Day the sentence

Its celebration in Northern Ireland remains controversial, unlike in Scotland, where bonfires continue to be lit in various Caledonian cities.

should be edited to delete the word "Caledonian". It's redundant, since "unlike in Scotland" already tells us it's talking about Scotland. It seems to have been inserted just so that someone could show off his knowledge of the word, unless it's an unmarked verbatim quote from the source. 68.170.182.127 (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Scottish celebrations not in source given, second half of sentence removed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Eggishorn: On page 38 of the ref it states: "In Edinburgh and other Scottish cities, bonfires were a familiar site on the Fifth, and continued to be so after the political significance of the anniversary declined in importance." So I'm unsure why it's all been deleted rather than just the word Caledonian as suggested by the IP? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sagaciousphil:, it's because I screwed up. I'll fix it now. Thanks for pointing out my error. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Accession Day tilt

The article states On 17 November 1677, anti-Catholic fervour saw the Accession Day tilt marked by the burning of a large effigy of the pope, but the article Accession Day tilt states that this festival was discontinued 50 years earlier. Which is correct? Should it be 1577? Tigerboy1966  09:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're on about. The Accession Day tilt article states quite clearly that the tilts continued until 1624. "Tilts continued as part of festivities marking the Accession Day of James I, 24 March, until 1624". Eric Corbett 10:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, sorry,you're right. This needs looking into. Eric Corbett 10:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The wikilink to Accession Day tilt is incorrect. The source is referring rather to Accession Day. Eric Corbett 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that. I think a link to Queene's Day might be better. Tigerboy1966  07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
But Elizabeth I is just one of the monarchs whose accession was celebrated. Eric Corbett 19:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Penny for the Guy

Article currently reads in part Towards the end of the 18th century reports appear of children begging for money with effigies of Guy Fawkes.... In 1956 in Wantage this was still the practice (I was there). Senior primary age children would go door to door with the scarecrow-like figure of old clothes and straw that they had made and ask "penny for the Guy?" and often get one. The money raised was to be spent on firecrackers and generally was (although licorice allsorts also sold particularly well in that week). At the time this was perhaps the English equivalent of trick or treat.

Now I'm not a reliable source of course, and later in the article there are sourced references to the decline of the practice (notably a source from 2005). But our article currently does give a misleading impression IMO, and perhaps this source is not as reliable as it might be! I suspect that the sources quoted focus on urban England, and that in the smaller towns the practice continued peacefully (if a twopenny bunger can be described as peaceful) for far longer than in urban areas.

If any of that can be sourced it would improve the article. Andrewa (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This is dealt with under Songs, Guys and decline where it says "A survey found that in 1981 about 23 percent of Sheffield schoolchildren made Guys, sometimes weeks before the event". This shows it went on for a long time after the 1950s. Richerman (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Good point. So the information is there if you dig for it. But the lead doesn't reflect this later content very well IMO. Perhaps some rephrasing or refactoring might help. Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to dig, you just have to read the article - there is even a picture of children asking for a penny for the Guy. The article covers over 400 years of history and the lead is a summary of that - it can't mention everything, especially not traditions that have more or less died out, even if many of us still remember them. Richerman (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a most unfortunate problem with the article, which is that traditions that died out several centuries ago are described in minute detail, while contemporary traditions, and those still within living memory, are actively excluded or grudgingly given scant coverage. As a record of a continuing folk celebration the article is a failure and is far from being encyclopaedic. Urselius (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
What’s even more unfortunate is that you’ve felt the need to come here and be so offensive towards orher people’s work. Sure, point out what you think is wrong, but keep your stupid, throwaway remarks to yourself. CassiantoTalk 13:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
"Stupid throwaway remarks", your level of discourse, in resorting to insulting language, has not improved of late. I suspect that the heated nature of your response is a defensive reaction in relation to the deficiencies in the article that I have highlighted. Try to be civil. Urselius (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Had you not have resorted to such incivility in the first place, then my response to you would've been one of empathy. Instead, you belittled the work of others (who are far more capable than you of producing quality work), presumably to make up for the short-fall in your own abilities. I've advised you as to how I think you should've posed the question, if you wanted your comment to be treated with a comoditum degree of seriousness, but if you're too stupid to take that on board, then that's down to you. CassiantoTalk 18:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Cassianto, where and how have I been uncivil? I do not believe I have insulted anyone, I have not even belittled the work of anyone; I have merely indicated that the article is incomplete and unbalanced. You, in contrast, seem unpleasantly keen on using the word "stupid" in relation to myself, this is quite naked incivility. I quote: "Instead, you belittled the work of others (who are far more capable than you of producing quality work), presumably to make up for the short-fall in your own abilities." I fear you are mistaken here. I have had a number of historical autographs published in journals, one of which won an international prize - the judging panel being composed of authors and academic historians specialising in the relevant era of history. This is in my spare time, the scientific papers and book chapters I have authored as part of my career (obviously in conjunction with colleagues, science is seldom a lone activity in the modern era) have been cited over 1,000 times, I suspect that if my abilities in composition were notably inferior this would not be the case. "Comoditum", is this a word? Do you seek to obnubilate my comprehension? Urselius (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC) 'Modicum', I think, is the word you were after, or possibly 'quantum'. Urselius (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Calling the result of someone’s hard work “a failure” is deeply unpleasant. I’ve made my point and I don’t have anything more to say to you or anyone else. CassiantoTalk 22:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe that I said, "As a record of a continuing folk celebration the article is a failure", and I stand by this comment. As an encyclopaedic article on "Guy Fawkes Night" - which is a continuing folk tradition - it is a failure, as it is unbalanced and incomplete; as an article on "The history of Guy Fawkes Night prior to 1800" it is a resounding success and much kudos goes to the editors who wrote it. It is certainly not fit for purpose under its existing title, however. Having read this [6], I'm rather relieved at no longer being your interlocutor. Urselius (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@User:Cassianto, it is a shame that you do not practice what you preach. [7] However as you are preaching please explain which part of the remark is stupid ("but keep your stupid, throwaway remarks to yourself"). How can one be "offensive towards other people’s work" surly one can only be offensive towards the author(s) of the work? You also write "such incivility in the first place" which sentence in Urselius first post do you think was the most inappropriate?
@User:Cassianto I will reiterate what is wrong with this article, for those who unlike you may not be aware that several editors have already stated as much. This is an article about the "history of Bonfire Night" it is not an article about "Bonfire Night", because little of the article is about how the 5th of November is celebrated in the 21st century in various countries around the world (one reliable source in NZ; an external link about NZ; one reliable source in the UK", an external link about England).
btw, I particularly like the adviseadvice from Southwark "do: masking tape your letter box shut if you are worried about fireworks being put through your letter box" and "don't: leave combustible materials such as paper for recycling or washing outside your home", not the sort of adviseadvice given out by many councils in England, and there is no mention of modern mayhem that both of these reliable sources mention in two countries on opposite sides of the globe in the Wikipedia article. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Bearing in mind how you single-handedly dismantled a former featured list into the appalling state that it's in today, I'll treat any advice from you with a pinch of salt and tablespoon of contempt in equal measure. CassiantoTalk 19:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@User:Cassianto The diff between the article becoming a featured article and ceasing to be one, does not show much change in the body of he article—between those two bot edits there were about 20 editors involved in editing the article. If you would like to discuss what it is that you think is "appalling" about that article, then please do so on the article's talk page. But back on topic here. I asked you a number of questions (and you have not answer any of them). I do not think I gave you any adviseadvice. What adviseadvice do you think I gave you? -- PBS (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The word you are looking for is advice - advise is a verb. Richerman (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
A timely reminder that typos and/or malapropisms invalidate arguments, thanks. Urselius (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

{{subst:trim


The stupid bloody title of the page

In the UK (You know, the country where this commemoration is actually held) NOBODY calls it "Guy Fawkes Night" - we ALL call it "Bonfire Night"

 Question: What edit would you like made? qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 21:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I've heard it called Guy Fawkes Night many times. What I have NEVER heard before yesterday is "Guy Fawkes Day". Where did that come from? Google? Kickaha Wolfenhaut (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night is a major yearly event In New Zealand and has been so for decades,

yet barely gets a mention here. Instead, nearly a third of this article is about Guy Fawkes in regards to how it relates to the USA where it is basically unknown. Is wikipedia only about the USA and how things in the world related to the USA?


117.20.4.11 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Glen

good point no one gives a damn that the USA doesnt celebrate it. The americanisation of wikipedia is getting worse these days. An idea for the editors why not talk about who does celebrate it rather than who doesn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

See the archives. This has been raised time and again, but some editors are opposed to it. -- PBS (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night in South Africa

According to Avax.news: Guy Fawkes day is celebrated mainly in England by burning his effigy on a bonfire to mark a foiled plot to blow up Parliament in 1605, but Guy Fawkes Day has a different meaning in South Africa, where it is a day of absurd cross-dressing. Comical troupes of children in clumsy make-up and adult clothing sing special Guy Fawkes songs and dance in the streets as they playfully beg for coins from passing admirers. (Photo by Themba Hadebe/Associated Press). 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:343F:D1:7A8E:574D (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Change the Title

Literally NOBODY in the UK calls November the 5th "Guy Fawkes Night". I am literally flabbergasted that this utter nonsense is even a thing. Literally NOBODY calls it that. It is "Bonfire Night" to ALL of us — Preceding unsigned comment added by FimusTauri (talk • contribs)

Nice to know that when I call it Guy Fawkes Night, I seem to be the only person to do so. (ps. next time, could you sign your posts? Thanks) - SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Bonfire Night" is already the title of an article. If you want to change the title of this article, you'd have to call it something like "Bonfire Night (UK)"
While "Bonfire night" is the most common name, "Guy Fawkes Night" is far from unused in my experience living in London. Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, it's used fairly frequently in my experience. I see that the 'UK holidays' calendar on my Mac uses that term, and I didn't give it a second thought. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
What is far more worrying than the title is the fact that the subject is split over two separate articles. Everyone would agree that in the context of the UK, 'Guy Fawkes Night' and 'Bonfire Night' are merely synonyms for the same event. If you look at the history of this article you will find that a cabal of editors turned it into what is essentially a "History of Guy Fawkes Night concentrating on the first two centuries of the celebration". This cabal of editors, supported by some like-minded admins., have excluded most information on the night as a continuing folk celebration. As a result the article has reams of information about 'Pope burning' and virtually nothing about today's, or the 20th century's, celebration. The cabal of 'article owners' reject all information concerning current or recent forms of celebration on the fatuous grounds that such information is 'trivial' and that supporting references are not 'of sufficient quality', even though it is obvious that recent material will tend to be found in newspaper editorials and journals rather than books. As a result of this - which goes against both Wikipedia core policies and against a formal arbitration (see page archives) - people wanting to record more recent traditions created the 'Bonfire Night' article. The situation is pure lunacy. Urselius (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Quite so. The problem is that a disproportionate number of the high quality academic sources that are used in the article, and are used to justify its "WP:FA" status, are about the history of the event, rather than the event as it is now. That distorts the article. It would be of greater encyclopedic value to more readers if the criteria for including material were loosened, and the text amended accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
user:FimusTauri, to understand the current poor quality that this article—that the article is at the moment primarily a history of Bonfire Night and not primarily about Bonfire Night—see the talk page archives. During a dispute about this in 2011, one user, user:Nikkimaria, moved the disambiguation page that resided at "Bonfire Night" to "Bonfire Night (disambiguation)" and produced a rump of an article at Bonfire Night. As a first step I think that rump article should be deleted and the move should be reverted. The article "Bonfire Night" is little more than a dab page in paragraph form, because the events called "bonfire night" have little in common. Anything that is worth keeping from the current article "Bonfire Night" could be moved into the appropriate page to which it links. -- PBS (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Article is Seriously Misleading

If you were to read this Wikipedia article, you'd get the impression that Guy Fawkes is (a) usually referred to by that name in the UK and (b) of trivial concern in NZ. It's harder to demonstrate the pervasiveness of Bonfire Night other than by anecdote, but (b) is easily demonstrated and was once substantiated and everything in the article before being removed (as far as I could tell) by Parrot of Doom. Consider, for example, that the only time fireworks are available for sale in NZ is around Guy Fawkes and considerable attention is given to its/fireworks' nuisance properties in the media. This is not simply a question of balance, weight or whatever Wikipediaism is appropriate but, in fact, of Wikipedia and editors of this article going out of their way to create an article that misleads just as much as it informs.

I'd fix it myself, but it's fairly evident that there has been a systematic attempt to create this situation by, at a minimum, Parrot of Doom. In this context, an ignorance of Wikipedia's habits of thought is a serious hindrance. Is there some group of volunteers who look at articles to see if this kind of manipulation happens? 125.237.47.183 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline

There's some comment on American style Halloween antics helping the decline of Bonfire night/GFN. I can recall the restrictions on bonfires (what we could burn) and personal fireworks to displays helping kill off the huge popularity of GFN. Anyone any thoughts or links on this? Halbared (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation Style

User:Nikkimaria you reverted my edits, climingWP:CITEVAR as the reason. The citation style in this article is mixed and not consistent. All I have tried to do is make the citation style unform, harmonised and consistent , so that the article is easy to read and edit. I am going to restore my edits which are inline with with the following from WP:CITEVAR

Generally considered helpful The following are standard practice:

  • improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot;
  • replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more verifiable information to the reader, and helps maintain text–source integrity;
  • imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit;
  • fixing errors in citation coding, including incorrectly used template parameters, and markup problems: an improvement because it helps the citations to be parsed correctly;
  • combining duplicate citations.

Wayne Jayes (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Wayne Jayes , please do not restore your edits. There was previously a consistent citation style that did not match the one you imposed; it would be more appropriate to harmonize refs that have moved away from that back to that style, pending a consensus here for a different one. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

From very first sentence of article: "Bonfire Night (predominantly Newfoundland)"

I read that as saying that referring to this day/event as "Bonfire Night" predominantly happens in Newfoundland, and therefore that this usage is rare elsewhere. But "Bonfire Night" is what it is called in the UK, or at least GB. See Bonfire Night. If this page were not protected, I would have just removed "(predominantly Newfoundland)". 86.24.222.159 (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! I've lived in both the north west and the south of England for the last sixty three years and have never, I repeat, NEVER, heard "BONFIRE NIGHT" referred to as Guy Fawkes Night. It's very annoying when young Americans seem to know more about English things than the English do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.249.162 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Were bonfires lit during 1605 itself - any record proof?

In the immediate aftermath of the 5 November arrest of Guy Fawkes, caught guarding a cache of explosives placed beneath the House of Lords, James's Council allowed the public to celebrate the king's survival with bonfires, so long as they were "without any danger or disorder". This made 1605 the first year the plot's failure was celebrated.

I think clarification is needed as to how soon after Guy Fawkes' arrest the meeting took place and the failure of the plot was celebrated. Was the timing of the arrest reported (albeit it would be written retrospectively)? In a society less instantaneously paced than ours, with slower transport and communication means available, it is hard to believe the first celebratory bonfires were held on the day itself.Cloptonson (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I don't have a copy of Fraser to hand, but a search via Google books doesn't confirm that the quoted text "without any danger or disorder" appears in the book at all. Further checking definitely needed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guy_Fawkes_Night/Archive_9&oldid=1193327202"