Talk:Guy Fawkes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Inspiration?

I've read that the climax to the 1994 Tom Clancy novel Debt_of_Honor (which involves an attempt to kill the President and members of both the Senate and HoR) was inspired by the Gunpowder Plot. Does this ring true, and, if so, does this warrant inclusion in the popular culture section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 23:00, March 25, 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

A little etymological note. I've changed the "is" the origin of the word guy for man to "might be". There is a theory that several "jive" terms, including guy, hipcat, honky, and dig (understand), are from the West African language Wolof. I once combed the OED for these and, while I couldn't vouch for their Wolof origin, I was convinced that there were gaps in the histories of all the words. In the case of "guy", the English sense develops from "effigy" to "odd-looking figure, quiz, frump" by about 1800. The sense of "bloke, chap, ordinary joe" appears in the US in about 1840. There is no chain of shades of meaning between these two. This is a bit of a semantic jump, so I think the Wolof theory deserves being taken as a serious possibility. Gritchka 17:45 Jan 31, 2003 (

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. I was thinking of a G&S song (late 19th century) that mentions "the lady from the provinces who dresses like a guy". Deb 18:12 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

While a colorful story, I suspect Guy Fawkes being the eponym of the informal term for an individual is apocryphal. Rather than Semantic progression, I think this explanation is more likely just good old Fake etymology: someone in the past guessing at the origins and their conjecture spreading as an urban legend. Can anyone cite a scholarly reference for the assertion that Fawkes is the model? I couldn't find one, so I'm thinking the story belongs elsewhere or nowhere. Color me skeptical.--StanZegel 03:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How does the Oxford Dictionary do for you as a source?

Guy (1806). 1. An effigy of Guy Fawkes carried about in the streets on the anniversary of the Gunspowder Plot and burnt in the evening. 2. A person of grotesque looks or dress; a fright 1836. 3. A man, fellow (US slang) 1896.

The semantic progression seems pretty clear to me. What alternative etymology for "guy" can you offer? Adam 06:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact that OED may have multiple meanings for the same word does not mean that any of the meanings are derived from any of the others, and the OED entry does not say that they do. The etymology (not just the definition) would be interesting to see. Still, the connection between Guy Fawkes and American slang is extremely improbable. Americans think "Parliament" is a cigarette. Very very few of us would recognize the name of Guy Fawkes, and the uneducated classes that create slang are even more unlikely to have coined an eponym based upon a parochial event in a culture foreign to them. Even those Americans who had closer connections with English culture, back in the 1700s, did not use the term because, as the OED says, the first recorded usage of it in that way was not until 1896. One might as well say that guy wire got its name because Guy Fawkes was hanged for his crime; it would be just as far-fetched and another example of a plausible-sounding but false conjecture by a layman. I suggest the Wolof explanation by User:Gritchka, supra, or an origin in Argot, is more likely than the l-o-n-g s-t-r-e-t-c-h of belief necessary to embrace what is written about a supposed connection in this article and in Semantic progression. --StanZegel 19:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My copy of Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1985, p 544 definitively sources the etymology of "guy" to Guy Fawkes. "Guy" as in "guy wire" is sourced as a probable derivative of the French "gei" (brace). While no dictionary is perfect, I personally consider that more credible than the Wolof theory. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With the first recorded use as american slang for a person being recorded as 1896, I think the yiddish word goy (often heard on the streets of New York) that has a similar meaning is a better explanation than Guy Fawkes. StanZegel 20:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Encarta Dictionary says this about the word Guy [Early 19th century. < Guy Fawkes (see Guy Fawkes Night]. So I think it's pretty established... Then perhaps there were several things that made the word to continue in the english language. Maybe it was the Guy Fawkes incident and the yiddish word, who knows? Both theories could be mentioned in the article(if it isn't already mentioned).--84.217.14.238 01:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In the Literature section, the 'bit' about "The poet T. S. Eliot also mentions Guy Fawkes in the epigraph for his poem The Hollow Men, "A penny for the old guy"." in British & Commonwealth nations it was tradional for children to make a efiguy of poor old Mr Fawkes. The Children would ask for a 'penny for a guy' so they could buy fireworks for Guy Fawkes Night, which is still celebrated. I realise its cutting hairs but I think this quote refers to this english tradition, than Guy Fawkes the subject/body. Cheers, Mark.

Sigh, Sigh

Um, isn't that false. If you read the Horrible History book which focuses partially on the event, you would find that was in fact someone else, not Guy. I guess that you can't just rely on one source of information.

Links

Although this Article has an internal link to the Houses of Parliament, there is not mention of Guy Fawkes under that topic, House of Commons or Palace of Westminster.

What is the best way forward as I don't want to mess up the current layout? --Martin TB 13:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There probably shouldn't be a reference under House of Commons anyway, because the building he sought to blow up was the House of Lords. They were not in the same building in those days. It was only after the fire of 1834 destroyed all the collection of structures that constituted the Old Palace of Westminster, that the present building putting them under the same roof was designed and built. --StanZegel 03:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also there is an empty link to Guy Fawkes night, but a valid one to Bonfire night. I don't think we need two links, can one be redirected internally to the other? --Martin TB 13:50, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why Guy?

I have always puzzled about why we call him Guy when his name was Guido. The article doesn't mention this. Can anyone shed any light? — Trilobite (Talk) 02:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While serving in the Spanish Army in the Netherlands, he adoped the Spanish form (Guido, pronounced Gheedo) of his French/English name (Guy, pronounced "ghee"). --StanZegel 03:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This piece of information is very interesting and useful; it should be in the article, in my opinion. 200.55.119.173 05:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, why does the article also start by saying that he adopted the LATIN version of Guy, then go onto say he adopted the SPANISH version of his name? Either is classic Romanticism, however, it's not consistent. I get that both languages are romantic, and that the Spanish language is derived from Latin directly. 74.7.17.26 00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Two very similar articles

Hello. For one reason or another, the Gunpowder Plot, Trial and Aftermath sections of this article seem to contain very similar information to the dedicated Gunpowder Plot article. (Or at the very least, it seems to me as if they'd fit there better.) Is there any particular reason why they haven't been merged? If there's a good reason then no problem, but otherwise I wonder if it's worth moving/merging most of this text into the other article, and altering this article to primarily refer readers over there for more information. It seems a little redundant to have parallel information in two places, not to mention more complicated to maintain and review. Any thoughts? Izogi 07:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. --StanZegel 13:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I've now merged most of the content that I think is relevant to the Gunpowder Plot, and hopefully I haven't missed anything important. If nobody beats me to it (or raises objections), I'll next see what I can do about reducing the information in this article, and point a Main Article link over there. Meanwhile, I've come across one apparent inconsistency -- this article claims that "Mark Tresham" probably wrote the tip-off letter, but the GP article claims that it was probably "Francis Tresham". Does anyone know if these are the same person? Izogi 05:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

All done --- hopefully there's general agreement that this is a good way to do it. It only just occurred to me that this November is the 400'th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot. Izogi 07:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest removing information about the Gunpowder Plot from the Guy Fawkes article altogether, as a link to the Gunpowder Plot article would be sufficient: There is no need to repeat information on it when you can just provide a link to the event in question. Furthermore, this article is about Guy Fawkes as an individual and thus providing detailed information about the Gunpowder Plot in the article is somewhat off topic. Thoughts? --BloodDoll 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed a paragraph

I've just removed most of the following from the Early life section, and merged the rest into another paragraph:

In his person he was tall and athletic, his countenance was manly, and the determined expression of his features was not a little heightened by a profusion of brown hair, and an auburn-coloured beard. He was descended from a respectable family in Yorkshire, and having soon squandered the property he inherited at the decease of his father, the restless spirit associated himself with the discontented factions of his age.

It seems to have been lifted directly from here. Although the source is out of copyright and therefore probably okay (except it should have been credited), I can't actually see much actual content in the paragraph besides artistic window dressing. I hope nobody minds. Izogi 07:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing that was stupid.. duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.218.120 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

plaguarised text

I've just been going through tidying up the text that was recently added by 208.242.127.52, and noticed that the following text (about songs that refer to the Gunpowder Plot) was just copied and pasted verbatim from the page that the user cited. I'm moving it to here for now, but maybe someone would like to re-work it so it's not as much of a rip-off. I actually think it belongs much more in the Gunpowder Plot article than this one.

They include:
Guy Fawkes Day
Paul Melancon/Slumberland/M.records/2000

Mr. Guy Fawkes
A strange little song about the warmth of love and Guy Fawkes out on the town again.
Eire Apparent\Jimi Hendrix- Recorded 1968
The Dave Miller Set - 1969 (Formerly Dave Miller and the Byrds) Single

Song for Guy Fawkes
Wat Tyler- On the album: Tummy,Piano Instrumental, 1995.

Guy Fawkes
Krewmen, THE ADVENTURES OF THE KREWMEN (1986)

Guy Fawkes Night
Peter Astor and the Holy Road, 
Paradise   (Danceteria; ex Weather Prophets)
He met her on guyfawkes night...

Remember
John Lennon, John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band,  1970.
(Remember Remember the Fifth of November is the last line)

Not! I am the creator of the text so I pasted it it with my OWN permission and it may remain so...now you may put it back with my permission....Yes perhaps more gunpowder plot but it also shows the importance of Guy himself! CB

(Note from Izogi: I've just moved the above paragraph by 208.242.126.183 from the previous section to here. I think it was actually supposed to be entered in this section, and that 208.242.126.183 accidentally put it in the previous section by placing it before the section heading during editing. Izogi 06:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

um, who fiddled with the extremists?

Somebody "clever" changed the origins of the Gunpowder Plot. I'm not intimately familiar with the incident, but something sounds a bit off here... "The plot, masterminded by Robert Caster, was a failed attempt by a group of provincial English Islamic extremists to kill King I of England, his family and Robert Caster, and most of the Protestant aristocracy in one fell swoop by blowing up the White House during its State Opening."

Could somebody please fix this? 68.190.26.221 20:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Concerned Reader

Comic book references

Why is there a need to have an image of a comic book? I would question the very need for the mention of the obscure V for Vendetta, but the image is utterly unrelated to the article's historical context. Too many Wikipedia entries work in some comic book reference and the self-serving bias of "graphic novel" fans is turning Wikipedia into a joke. Even if you can make a case for such additions do you seriously consider them worthy of placement above references to Dickens and Harry Potter?

Yes.  :)

If you think that the references to Dickens and Harry Potter are more important, why don't you just rearrange it and see how people react? That's what the Edit button is for, after all. Izogi 10:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the discussion page for then, "after all"? Maybe I am considerate of others and am willing to weigh the opinions of other people. If you can't add anything to the discussion why not hold your tongue and can the sarcasm?

Sorry if it didn't come over well -- there was no sarcasm intended. I just think it's better to edit straight away if you're sure about something (which you seem to be), but be prepared to argue your point and possibly consider and accept others' points of view and work out a reasonable compromise if there turns out to be a disagreement. If you're not sure about something then go ahead and ask. Discussion pages are great, and it's good to see them used, but I've also noticed that people often suggest things, others agree, and it never actually gets done (or doesn't for ages). Especially as you're editing anonymously, there's really no indication of whether you've taken this up as your own responsibility, or if you're just passing through expecting someone else to take initiative on what you've said, which seems to happen quite a lot. Izogi 07:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as the premiere of the V for Vendetta movie is today, I thought I would see if this page mentions the reference. Most people in the US would not catch the obscure reference to UK history. I think it warrants a mention on the page.--BohicaTwentyTwo 21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that V for Vendetta the movie is out (and wildly popular where I'm from, anyway), I think most of the people looking at this entry are going to be looking at it because of V for Vendetta, and as such a reference to it is likely a good idea. Arianna 12:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not? It's probably the best reference to Fawkes since the holiday itself, Is that not what the Popular Culture section is for? As long we find it in the Popular Culture section it doesn't bother me one bit. --Yadrin 15:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead image

I see that the lead image has been deleted — it was probably unsourced or a copyvio. An alternative (if anyone can find a good, clean, source image) would be a detail from The Conspirators a contemporary drawing/etching by Crispin Van Der Passe. -- Solipsist 18:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Signature Image

The description of the "signature image" that is shown in the article does not match (even contradicts?) the image description that you get when you click on the image. I have no idea what the correct version is, so I'll refrain from editing it for now. -- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Appearance?

How do we know what Fawkes looked like? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article.

What does it say about a people that celebrate a national holiday that recalls the hanging, drawing and quartering of a human being? I wonder did the English kiddies play with the entrails of Guy Fawkes to give to their pet doggies? The English have always been better at Propaganda than the Germans or the Arabs.

Are you intentionally inviting the comparison to Easter, i.e. the recollection of the beating, humiliation and crucifixion of a human being? Or are actually that thick? Dangerdan97 12:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

‘The fact that Guy Fawkes was hanged drawn and quartered was merely incidental. If anything it was unremarkable, as he simply died the death that all traitors died and had died for centuries. He was clearly guilty of treason as he was found in the cellars with match and lantern. His place in history belies that fact that he was really just a servant of the other plotters and responsible for the technical aspects of the explosion.

Contemporary accounts actually record that Guy cheated the hangman by jumping from the gallows with the noose around his neck, causing a so called 'hangman’s fracture' which would have killed him instantly by severing his spinal coulomb. So Guy was actually dead when they cut him open. He probably felt very little in the end and the only problem with his treatment at all was the fact that he was tortured. He was hung for the ceiling with iron pins through his wrists, which probably led to the problems he had in signing his name on the confession. We can understand this behaviour when we realise the panic that the state would have gone through over this plot, which by all accounts nearly succeeded. James I was also famous for his cowardice and had a fear of being assassinated, to the extent that he would wear armour under his shirt when attending events like state openings fo parliament. In celebrating Gunpowder treason day English protestants (especially more puritanical ones) and to a lesser extent the state, were declaring war on the papacy. Originally bonfires were simply a celebration of the saving of the English nation. Church bells might also be rung and official prayers and sermons were preached to firmly place the fifth of November in the protestant calendar. This had been so on the anniversary of the defeat of the Armada, and the succession of Elizabeth. The celebration of the providential savior of English Protestantism through such happenings became quite a culturally accepted. So bonfires were celebratory in origin not an act of vilification of an individual. Samuel Pepyes recorded with great sadness that he saw no fires burning on November 5th 1667 in the city of London; it was of course the year after the plague and the great fire of 1666. However this does show the way that even many years after the plot the memory had been firmly embedded into the national consciousness For many years, of course, it was Effigies of the Pope, not Guy Fawkes, who was burnt on the fires as the Pope had after all issued absolution to anyone who would assassinate Elizabeth I, so it was entirely reasonable that he should be hated by all good protestant Englishmen.

Ok nice paragraph there. So how do we know what Fawkes looked like?

Well of course we don't really know what he looks like, but the c.1605 engraving of the plotters probably gives us a good aproximation. Why do we want to know anyway. By all accounts he was unremarkable in appearance. Had two legs, a head, arms, full complement of digits etc... well until they cut him into four pieces. Little pointy beard and whiskers in the stye of his time, dressed like a jacobean gent. of the middling sort.

Improvements

Has anyone actually read any books on Guy Fawkes or the the legend that has grown up around him? This article appears to have been incoherently cobbled together from various websites.

Has anyone read a biography of Guy Fawkes?

H. Garnett, Portrait of Guy Fawkes: an experiment in biography (1962)

Has anyone read Bonfires and Bells - David Cressy (1989)

or his article in Roy Porters book - D. Cressy, ‘The fifth of November remembered’, Myths of the English, ed. R. Porter (1992)

R. Hutton, The stations of the sun: a history of the ritual years in Britain (1996) (chapter 39 I believe)

or on the explosive potential itself: S. Middelboe, ‘Guy certainly was not joking’, New Civil Engineer, 5 (Nov 1987)

This is a quote from the dictionary of national biography

"only son and second child of Edward Fawkes (d. 1579) of York and his wife, Edith Jackson, was born in the Stonegate district of York and baptized at the church of St Michael-le-Belfrey on 16 April 1570. Edward Fawkes was proctor, later advocate in the consistory court of York, possibly registrar of the exchequer court like his father, and, so far as can now be discerned, a staunch protestant. Guy's paternal grandparents were William Fawkes (d. 1558×63) and Ellen Haryngton (d. 1575), daughter of a prominent York merchant"

are his parents not diferent from that in the article.

There very little on his actual life. The section 'his early life' contains a mere 165 words. Nineteen of which tell us that he has he has brown hair and a beard that is 'moderately brown' whatever that means. Just brown presumably.

Much of the article is taken up by references to popular culture that are either to fill space or simply purile.

One section is called 'General Popularity'. Which gives us the inciteful comment that he appeared in the same poll as David Beckham. A figure that I would gladly burn in effigy. However is this relavent.

The Literature section contains an interesting number of Pub quiz facts. I suspect it contains everyones collected rememberances of where they have seen Guy Fawkes in 'stuff that theve read.' It contains none of the ballads or songs of the time of which the famous verse is just a part (not even the full version) of one. NOTE : Harry Potter is not literature. It contains a standard of prose that every child has a right to be disapointed with. Any adults reading it are missing out on a world that contains many better books. That is my opinion. However what is not opinion is that Harry Potter is not known for its reference to Fawkes. Modern references should be cut to two sentances, they are only there because no one can think of anything else to say.

Why is Thomas Winter constantly refered to as wintour? The spelling on the engraving c1605 is Winter. Why is the engraving not there? It is the only known contemporary depiction of the plotters.

The Gunpowder Plot section forms a large part of this article and whie important it largely covers things from the article 'The Gunpowder Plot'.

In short this is a bad article.

Can we not do better?

Yeah, I have some problems with the article, too. Maybe Fawkes is a hero to Irish Catholics, but why would the rest of the British see him that way? And the analysis of his impact on history, then and in times present, is very shallow. There's a poorly written paragraph on this talk page that provides a lot more insight. Maybe a british person with some brains and education could help us out. 38.117.131.2 15:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture

I suggest fixing the part that says the rhyme is used in the V for Vendetta movie. It's not exclusive to the movie; the comic cited it on several occasions.--The Individual 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Small note: V For Vendetta was made in 2005, not 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.16.194 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions

1., Is it fact or theory that he was a (double) agent who actully truely worked for the crown to organize the faux bombing and so make the co-conspirators executable and help invoke tyrannic measures with terror hysteria? The fact he himself was hanged does not exclude that, it happened elsewhere, for example the hungarian Ignazius Martinovich is now proven to be an agent of the Habsburg-Austrian court, he organized the hungarian jacobinian resistance movement on purpose in 1792 until caught. He was beheaded alongside the other, true jacobinians to get rid of witnesses.

2., Is the phoenix bird in Harry Potter novels named in honour of Mr. Guido? 195.70.32.136 12:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Who named the Isla Guy Fawkes, an island near the Isla Tortuga ??

4. the movie V for Vendetta is based on the gunpowder plot and uses the nursery rhyme.

5. Evey Hammand is not the charactor V's lover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.166.82 (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

About the dates

I think the dates written in this article must be annotated (for example, the date "November 5, 1605" needs to be written "November 15, 1605", according to the Gregorian calendar).--Lombroso 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

de Faglio

Where does the "de Faglio" bit come from? A place? A Catholic saint? Italian ancestry?

Vote for Guy Fawkes

There is a "proof" of the common phrase here: Vote for Guy Fawkes. :-) -- 151.37.90.133 01:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Illustration

Fawkes is painted in front of the House of Lords, not "Parliament". At that time, the Lords and Commons were in separate buildings. The Commons sat in St. Stephen's Chapel, Westminster. The Lords sat on the entire second floor of this 1 1/2 storey building.209.217.83.31 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Its spelt Winter

why do people think that they are being extra specially authentic if they use the spelling wintour. No historians use this spelling and the engraving of the plotters from 1605 uses the spelling winter. Its just phony authentication of something. It must be right because the spelling looks old. Like those terrible pub signs with ye olde pube on them.

why has the section on his life dissapeared?

Some really "special" people have been editing this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.247.253 (talk • contribs)

I dou find it a quite hourible spelling of the wourd. Zchris87v

I laughed at the "pube" joke...--Foot Dragoon 03:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a decendent of Robert and Thomas, and I can say that the spelling can be in several ways, from Winter to Wintour and even Wynter. The reason for several versions of the spelling is depending on which source you use. The 1605 picture does say "Winter" but the creater of this never met or even saw the plotters, so used the spelling he felt appropriate. I can say that some historians do use the Wintour spelling and it isn't just "phony authentication".

Ol'Pope

does anyone know who the ol'pope is in the poem? DemonOWA 21:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

External link

I've written an article about places in London where they have the best Guy Fawkes celebrations, and I wondered if it might be possible to put a link to the article? The URL is: (Removed by a later editor, I was forced to delete it when trying to write my comment later, and it was blacklisted. My apologies.) 128.61.38.107 02:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is how to go about this or not. I read Wikipedia a lot but have only just registered and this is my first post to a Discussion.

I don't think the guy on youtube is a descendant of Guy Fawkes. If he is, I don't think its in the video. 69.110.1.168 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Information

This page is a fantastic source of information. I never knew before reading it that the group were not in fact planning to blow up the Houses Of Parliament but Westminster Palace at the opening. It is excellently accurate but more research should be added. Very interesting.

Guy Fawkes - Alternative Version

GUY FAWKES

Note to editors: there should be a distinction made between ‘Official Versions’ and below which is an ‘Alternative Version’.

Alternative Version←

The Guy Fawkes Conspiracy (1605) is, perhaps, one of the most successful False Flag (see False Flag) operations in history. It ushered in the British Empire.

In 1603 Scotland and England united under James the First, a Protestant, who considered a rapprochement with Spain, the leading Catholic power at that time. He also considered easing the discrimination practiced against Catholics in England as many of the landed gentry were still loyal to Rome.

The Royal Chancellor, Lord Robert Cecil, recognised the wealth that had accumulated by the Spanish Empire and intended that the newly formed Union should embark on a strategy that would overcome the Spanish influence.

As part of his strategy, he sought out acquiescent Catholics he could use in order to change the mind of the King and mobilise the population against Spain. In this he found Lord Thomas Percy, a bigamist, who would infiltrate a group of fanatical Catholics of which Guy Fawkes was a member.

Together the group devised the plot (whether the plot was devised by Cecil via Percy is uncertain) to blow up the Houses of Parliament that would turn the Crown and people against Spain. In this he was successful.

It is debatable whether Cecil devised the Plot or, knowing of its existence, allowed it to proceed as far as it did. These prognoses are known as LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose); the second, MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose).

This page is on Guy Fawkes, not the plot. Go to that page. We ought to include more information on his life. This page is quite bad and has got worse due to the profusion of editors deleting the sections that dealt with his life and adding informatin about harry potter or how some Enid Blighton book once mentioned someone who looks like Guy Fawkes.--86.20.240.225 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Poem inconsistency I have an issue with this page and the "Gunpowder Treason" page- the famous nursery rhyme is given in multiple forms- just compare the first 4 lines of each. I'm going to replace the one on this page with the one on the "Guy Fawkes Night" page for consistency. 128.61.38.107

Trivia

This article is some three thousand words long. Roughly one third of this is non specific trivia such as 'Charles Dickens referred to Fawkes quite often, particularly in his history of England'. Which is perhaps one of the most banal observations in the entire article. The literature and popular culture blend into each other and contain lists. Lists are alright for items of the same class of a specific number. These items should have been worked into the text.I have deleted some material. I think more needs to go. If you put it back please be discerning about which references you put back and describe their relavence to attitudes to Mr Fawkes both then and since.--86.20.247.36 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Was it April 13th or April 15th?? The article contradicts itself. Iamvered 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be the 13th - I've changed the erroeneous reference to the 15th StuartDouglas 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Took out painting

I took out the painting "Guy Fawkes" as I felt it added nothing to the article and was just kind of there, plopped right in the middle of the trivia section. May have very well been a plug for the artist. This is an article on a historical figure and therefore I believe that the images provided must be of some historical signifigance and relate to the material in some (important, notable and verifiable) way. To my knowledge it has never been displayed as a major work of art. If someone wishes to add this painting again, please provide a valid justification including some comment on the above qualifications. Thanks.

--IRelayer 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Early Life

Who Removed everything that actually refered to his life AGAIN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.247.36 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I have removed a recent case of vandalism in regards to Guy Fawkes' early life, by 24.205.161.245, stating that he had a sexual relationship with his mother. I have also warned 24.205.161.245 on his/her talk page. --BloodDoll 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Guido from latin or spanish? There is a controversy on the page. 69.110.1.168 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"a dangerous disease required a desperate remedy"

Couldnt find a reference to the quote "a dangerous disease required a desperate remedy" attributed to Fawkes in the main article.

As in:

"When questioned by the King how he could conspire such a hideous treason, Fawkes replied that a dangerous disease required a desperate remedy, and that his intentions were to blow the Scotsmen present back into Scotland."

Just seems an important point of note.--Nasher 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Modern uses of the word guy

Does the modern use of the term "guy" to mean male (and the term "guys" to mean a group of people of any gender) actually have anything to do with Guy Fawkes at all? Is there any evidence to show a direct link between building a "guy" and calling a man a "guy." I think that the use of the term is nothing more than coincidence, especially as the term "guy" meaning a man originated in America.Wizlop 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Penny for the Guy

I have included a brief reference to Penny For the Guy in the main article. I also removed the vauge comment that the tradition continued until " at least the late 80's " as the traditional continues still. I have also hinted at the controversy- sometimes seen as nothing more than begging, also seen as a way for children to raise money to buy nuicence fireworks (now banned outright.) Is it also worth including comments that the modern "guys" tend to be or much poor quality? A plastic halloween mask on on old jumper, for example. I remember building some fantastic guys, in the late 80's. We actually gave the money we raised to charity- and got a mention in the paper- if I can find that and source it properly I will include it.

But back on track- Penny for the Guy is an important part of the guy Fawkes tradition, and should be included.Wizlop 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I have described the primairy source for the plot and trials etc...."James I The Kings Book-A True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings Against the Late Most Barbarous Traitors. Robt. Barker,Printer to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty, British Museum 1606. In the text because it iis important to note that this central source was infact written by the governent etc...that said it is the source for the history provided the article and citing the Kings Book should take care of the citation problems which have been noted. I also included a link to a good edition of the Kings book on line. Anamanam 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Without objection or further discussion here the sources lacking tag is removed....Anamanam 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth

Where was Guy born? According to the current version, he was born both in York, England (as shown in the "infobox" data for birthplace) and Stonehenge, Scotland (as written in the "Early life" section). Amazing, 86.156.194.128 02:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

York, actually very, very close to York Minster. - Yorkshirian 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

His Flesh Used As Cover of Book?!

WHY is this[1] not incorporated in the article?! (Rhetorical question. Do it =] ).Yeago 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture + Ron Paul?

Anyone else think the bit about Ron Paul is not particularly relevant to the article? Guy Fawkes is not any kind of deal in the United States. I'm sure many people have done various things on the day that have much more relevance. This seems more like a Ron Paul thing than a Guy Fawkes thing. Moreover, Ron Paul is only a contender for the Republican nomination. Perhaps if this were a record setting event for the Republican nominee, it might be of some note but even then... My vote is to remove this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatttK (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would stop adding the Ron Paul crap too. I agree with you that it doesn't belong on the article at all, as its not relevent to Fawkes. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"In Film and Television" addition please

There is a particular scene in Blackadder Goes Forth I believe (Perhaps Blackadder the Third) in which Edmund Blackadder says somehting to the effect of 'It will be the quickest decision since Parliment asked, "This Guy Fawkes bloak, do we let him off or what?"' Could someone verify this euphemism for me and include it in "In Film and Television"? Aleksander

Incosistency concerning the discovery

This article says: The plot was foiled at the very last moment as Fawkes was holding a lit torch to light the fuse which would detonate the gunpowder under the Houses of Parliament.

The linked article, "Gunpowder Plot", says: At midnight on November 5 Thomas Knyvet, a Justice of the Peace, and a party of armed men, discovered Fawkes guarding a pile of faggots, not far from about twenty barrels of gunpowder, posing as "Mr. John Johnson". A watch, slow matches, and touchpaper were found in his possession.

The version in this article looks to me like a romantic rewriting of history.

It is. The latter version is true, the part about him being on the point of lighting the fuse is just a legend. I'm changing it to the second version. Katharineamy (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fawkes - Harry Potter

I see this has just been removed with the logic that "simply being called Fawkes doesn't mean it is related to Guy Fawkes", however, since Fawkes keeps exploding into flames during the course of the Harry Potter stories, I would have thought, in this case, that it is a direct reference to Guy Fawkes.

Eugenespeed (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've referenced it, on the article about Fawkes the pheonix, it has a comment from Rowling "Guy Fawkes (spot any Harry Potter connection?!)", which clearly alludes to the pheonix's name been conected to Fawkes. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I made my comment after the line regarding Fawkes (the bird) has been deleted)

Eugenespeed (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes' Name

The real reason he is called Guy Fawkes is 1) no one knew his first name or, 2) His real name was Gaitano Fauchese a paisano from sunny Italy and in order to avoid an international confrontation between Italy & England his ethnicity was covered up and his name was changed to "Guy Fawkes". Capice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who has seen the register of St Michael le Belfrey where he was baptised as a small child (which lists his name as Guy not Gaitano), and visited the actual place where he was born, then I can say, perhaps you should go easy on the glue. Maybe you're confusing Fawkes (a full blooded Yorkshireman) with Roberto di Ridolfi? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(Addition of photo from) V for Vendetta movie related incident

Subheading re-factored for accuracy and to remove what could be perceived as an insult. For precedence see this diff from earlier today by JW, and I'm sure if needed I could find others. Subheadings are primarily for coordinating discussion. In the interests of civility, please do not revert. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

An Internet protest group called Anonymous held protests outside Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 wearing the Guy Fawkes masks popularized in V for Vendetta.

A user, David Shankbone‎, has uploaded a picture which demonstrates some yank athiests squabbling about scientology. What on earth could this have to do with Guy Fawkes, a Catholic from the 1570s, you may ask? Well, absoutely nothing at all is the answer.

The people with all the masks on, is a direct parody of a scene in the fictional movie, "V for Vendetta". The masks the people are wearing are merchandise from that movie. Since it is a parody of the movie and absoutely nothing to do with Fawkes' life then the WP:SPAM does not belong on this article of such a highly noted figure at all. Guy Fawkes' life isn't a bulletin update for V for Vendetta's fictional movie as thus the athiest vs. scientology SPAM only belongs on the movie page, not here. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The protesters are mimicking Guy Fawkes, using a mask from a movie about a Guy Fawkes imitator (blowing up Parliament). Yes, I know the movie is fiction and I understand the references. The movie had nothing to do with Scientology, and the "pop culture" surfacing of Guy Fawkes today merits mention. This User is edit-warring, he isn't even discussing on the Talk page. His "explanations" are edit summaries. Two different editors have put the photo on, noting their preference, and Yorkshirian has against two users. Either way, a mask of Guy Fawkes used a highly coordinated, global protest makes his reference in pop culture worth of an inclusion under that section. WP:SPAM first is not policy and it also has no bearing on this discussion. --David Shankbone 20:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I support re-adding the image to the pop culture section, and also keeping the photo of the poster that is there already. Can this be arranged? Silly rabbit (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of not violating 3RR, I can not add it back, but since you, User:Cirt and myself think the photo is merited, consensus is to include it so you are welcome to add it. --David Shankbone 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DS for an excellent addition to an interesting article. R. Baley (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated to you on an other area. The "protesters" are mimicking a specific scene (where numerous people are wearing those exact masks) from the fictional movie V for Vendetta (film) even wearing official merchandise from the movie itself. This is not a bulletin update article for events referencing a fictional futuristic comic book turned movie written by Alan Moore. The scientology thing has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes and also, unlike what you're claimimg he never did anything like what these interweb athiests are doing, but it is extremely similar to a scene those USA people saw in a fantasy movie. Unless you're entirely ignorant of any events surrounding this real person and you're insulting Catholics during the murderous English Reformation where thousands were butchered, by comparing that very real repression to some people on the internet "protesting" against Tom Cruise? I didn't think so.

Admin Georgewilliamherbert said on my talk and yours about me having a point about your image not belonging on this specific article and even told you to leave the article as it was for a bit (yet you went against that advise).. he also brought up the point of WP:Recentism. Also building a consensus is not a strawman, yes, no vote. Sillyrabbit nor Cirt have not explicitly explained any REASONS or RATIONALE as to why they think the image is a direct reference to Fawkes and not the fictional movie V for Vendetta (which I've proven above its movie related). Strawman voting is not how a resolution consensus is built.

You yourself have been entirely unable to explain away the fact that this whole "thing" is a reference specifically to a movie, copying a scene from that movie and even using their merchandise. Thus I have transfered your image, as a compromise resolution as per WP:CON, instead to the article on the movie V for Vendetta (film), if its relevent at all and not just SPAM (IMHO its you self-promoting a thinly veined attempt at being "edgy", but I'll keep good faith) perhaps you could make a section on that article about this whole thing? I hope this will disuade you from degrading (perhaps unintentionally) the high key historical subject of this article by adding your irrelevent image back. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point four users, Cirt, R. Baley, silly rabbit and myself, have made it known they want the photo, find it relevant and many of your arguments at this point have failed to persuade. Please stop edit-warring against consensus. --David Shankbone 12:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As shown to you above with the citation of policy. Concensus is not built by a strawman vote (WP:NOT), its built by citing rationale and reason... Wikipedia is not "i like this i don't like that"... an administrator has even stated to you that you are wrong, warning you to leave it off for a while as discussion takes place and he cited rationale. So from those citing rationale, you've been proven wrong and outnumbered, accept it and stop waring against concensus.

As you were entirely unable to debunk any of the arguments above at all (nor did you attempt), you have proven to be lacking the knowledge to do so on this topic. Instead of trolling this article with what has now been proven to be simply a parody of a movie using official merch from it[2], perhaps you can go back to attempting to be edgy by posting more pics of your nude models on some articles or something? Instead of debasing a historical figure. Unless you are able to entirely debunk the points made up above, your pic will be removed as simple trolling. A compromise has been made and your image is included on the article it belongs V for Vendetta (film)[3], accept it like a man. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also you can stop changing the title of the section that I started. You do not have permission to edit my own messages. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A section title isn't part of your message. I reported you to ANI. --David Shankbone 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Two points rather make themselves clear here: First, Yorkshirian can decry the use of merchandise from V for Vendetta all he wishes; however, the mask from the film was a representation of Guy Fawkes, and has been cited as such. Where the masks came from is therefore incidental. What should probably be noted and cited is why the protesters chose Guy Fawkes' masks and not those of Bozo the Clown, the Queen or the the ex-presidents. That they chose Guy Fawkes masks is notable in and of itself.

Second, refactoring posts is usually frowned upon. That said, an inflammatory and subjective section header is very much like a repeated uncivil remark. Section headers should be descriptive and neutral. A post rendering it thus is to be considered a Good Thing. I would suggest that if Yorkshirian is not willing to allow his edits to be scrutinized and - as the text goes - be brutally edited, then perhaps Wikipedia is the wrong venue for his particular talents. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your questions,

1. These American students did not look at a picture of Guy Fawkes and think "hey lets look like this man". The masks are "V for Vendetta" masks, described as such on on Amazon.com where they are sold "V For Vendetta Mask". The V for Vendetta (film) is highly popular around the world. The mask is of the fictional character V (comics) invented by Alan Moore. Guy Fawkes is not "V", Guy Fawkes was a real person, who also didn't wear masks. Its in relation to a movie as I've proven, not Fawkes.

1. Err what? This is about Shankbone placing an image of interweb studes who saw a movie, on an article is has nothing to do with, not things I've added to the article. The point of this section is to scrutinise the image Shankbone added and prove whether or not it belongs. Note how the text next to Shankbone's image has nothing to do with the event at all, because this thing isn't notable enough to warrant a place on the article? It has its place on V_for_Vendetta_(film)#Influence_on_protests- Yorkshirian (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps User:David Shankbone and User:Yorkshirian should check out this fabulously useful link: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Petty squabbling and sniping at each other does not serve this article well at all.--Tafew (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The only one squabbling is Yorkshirian, who continues to argue because he did not get his way, despite now 5 editors expressing a desire to see the photo included. So he continually writes these long-winded responses nobody is reading, especially since he has nothing near consensus in his favor. --David Shankbone 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Shankbone if you have nothing contructive to add to the discussion and you're too lazy to reply to my stated points (as you've stated twice now), may I suggest that you sit down and be quiet instead of just showing up to attack? You have nothing to offer up in response because you know you're wrong. Your motivation is to get your corny image included, thats it. A consensus has not been built yet, I know you hate reading but I suggest you read WP:CON.

You have stated a rationale. I have stated a rationale. Georgewilliamherbert has stated a rationale. Arcayne has now entered the discussion to state a rationale.... I replied to Arcayne's points in the discussion and that is where its at at this point. 2-2 does not mean "keep Shankbones spam image". I await Arcayne's response to my reply... again if you can't be bothered to address the points Shankbone, then don't try to derail the conversation between other users. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to begin with, you are definitely going to want to back off the aggro, Yorkshirian; it doesn't serve you well either in the article or with me. There are folk here in Wikipedia that could - via sheer editing ability alone - send you weeping in the corner, cryin' for your mama, and they would have neither the problem nor the difficulty in dismantling you. Take that advice or leave it, but you cannot say you have not been warned. Tafew is right in that this debate should have continued on each other's talk page until resolved, following DR. This wasn't the place for it (though I should point out that it is commonplace to refactor section titles that are positively going to start a fight). I would have done the same thing, though I would have kept the commentary on York's talk page. Lastly, consider that if someone takes offense at your section title, agf and assume that they are offended by it and allow the change. Biggest case of angry mastodons in a while.

Moving on, the question remains: is the mask a representation of Guy Fawkes or not? If so, it is notable, just as the use of the William Shatner rubber mask in the Halloween series of movies is notable. Did they choose this mask because it was of Guy Fawkes? If so, then it is notable. Period.

What is required for inclusion, to my reckoning, is a specific citation that notes - clearly - why the V for Vendetta mask was used. That the mask used by the mysterious figure in the comic/film is a Guy Fawkes mask is undisputed. Yorkshirian contends that "These American students did not look at a picture of Guy Fawkes and think 'hey lets look like this man'". I would ask him to cite that supposition. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to have to side with Yorkshirian on this. The photo doesn't illustrate anything from the article, it only illustrates its own caption. If the photo wasn't involved, the caption would never cut it as a piece of information in this article, even in the popular culture section. This is because that little factoid is an irrelevant piece of trivia. It's of tangential importance to the topic V for Vendetta because the use of the masks reflects the film. We already have a picture of a mask from the film to illustrate what is said in the text; this additional photo is superfluous, off-topic, and distracting. Mangojuice^talk 19:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can see your point, and I would likely have suggested that the image have text to go along with it, as it is an instance of pop culture referencing, and not really "Spam". Forgive me for asking, but are you siding on Yorkshirian's behavior as well? Your commentary didn't seem to distinguish between the image and the behavior. For my own part, I would hope not, you being an admin and all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that I endorse Yorkshirian's behavior, just his view of this particular issue. I'm not here to comment on the behavior issue, but to comment on the content. In my experience, that's the best way to get a heated dispute to resolve. Mangojuice^talk 23:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I removed the image stack formatting as it was obscuring the text of the article. I see no reason to have two images of the same mask in this article, IMHO the one of the mask alone is more relevant to this article. Gnangarra 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Opposition to the image - At first, second and third sight, the use of this image in this article is clear effort to get from A to B to C, missing out B (where A is Guy Fawkes, B is Vendetta, C is Anonymous) using images - I will be nice and assume no conflict of interest between the image advocates and Anonymous, and just take it as simple wiki enthusiasm. But, if you need a whole paragraph of caption text to justify an image's presence, then something is clearly wrong. Even if the caption was just picture of a dude wearing a Guy Fawkes mask popularised in Vendetta without the extra padding of B to C wording, it is clearly still superfluous and trivial, given the better mask picture already included in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reactivate debate

As a few more editors have weighed in, and the original claims of support are obscured by the arguments, how about we start a clear discussion on whether the image stays or not? MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• oppose per above MickMacNee (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• oppose - first of all I'd like to thank MickMacNee and Mangojuice for getting the discussion back to the most important thing; article content and coming to a consensus. I oppose the image for the reasons which I've explained in depth above. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• oppose -- as I said above there isnt any additional value with two images of the same subject matter, given that the image that is just the mask gives a better representation of the subject and its association to Guy Fawkes. Gnangarra 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• comment - it would seem that from the discussion above, there is now a clear consensus built from rationale to remove that image. I would remove it myself, however I think somebody else should (perhaps an admin such as mangojuice??), as I don't wish to restart a fight with Shankbone. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's been removed by someone. I'd say that at this point, it's reasonable for the image to not be in the article. Those who disagree should make arguments for their point if they want that to change. Mangojuice^talk 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it solely on the basis of the discussion here - I figured it was probably best for someone uninvolved to take action, and it seemed the most reasonable course of action anyway. Orderinchaos 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Portrait of Guy Fawkes

I have changed the portrait of Guy Fawkes to a more factually corrrect image. The previous image was not. Guy Fawkes was not a noble man, and would not have been able to afford the lace he was wearing that picure. The source of this fact comes from the V&A. Prw.wilson (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The traditional print of the consipirators was in fact done by artists who quite possibly had met the principals involved or had direct access via travel from holland to england during the period. More later on this. Descriptions of Fawkes generally come from the primary source the kings book and records of the trial. Hutmanfawkes (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Juan de Jáuregui

Anyone else seem to think that the reference to the the Spaniard in the "See Also" Section is completely irrelevant? I move that it be removed. Matt White (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It and most of the trivia section is in need of severe pruning. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Gunpowder plotters

Template:Gunpowder plotters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chick Bowen 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

biased Article

This article is biased from a "religious american" point of view. Fawkes was and still is regarded by British people as a terrorist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.67.246 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 November 2008

DNB article

Today's DNB (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) life of the day is Guy Fawkes. Here is a link to the page. enormously long link

The DNB article is fairly extensive, and I am sure there is lots of information in it that would be helpful in this article. It's not my area of interest, though, so I leave it to those editors who watch this page. It should be free to access today. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Guy Fawkes "pd-old" painting

We've had to remove the same image twice now, and I figured that it was time to make a remark about it before it gets replaced again for those who may be watching this article. Please see to it that this copyrighted painting does not get replaced a third time. For your reference, the last upload was from <http://12angrymen.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/guy_fawkes_portrait.jpg> and was mislabeled as "PD-Old" on Commons and wasn't caught until we received a takedown notice. Please instruct anyone who uploads this image again that it's a copyrighted painting dating from the 1980s and ineligible for hosting on our servers. Bastique ^demandez 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture references.

There's another pop culture reference which should probably be added which is the Fallout 3 reference (As it's chart topping status I played it) Only to come across a character named Fawkes which in the game it gives you an option to ask about his name. And he responds by saying "A man of the same name also died for what he believed in." And thus I made the connection to Guy. I'll provide a source but I lack the wiki skill of editing the page myself.http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fawkes Read his character notes then edit please

16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Points

Continued from my talk: I've been working this article into shape, and since you were so helpful working out the continental politics on Gunpowder Plot I wondered if you wouldn't mind looking at the "soldier" section and checking it's ok? I'm not sure how "Catholic Spain", "Protestant Dutch rebels", "Spanish Netherlands", "Low Countries" should be linked, or if the terminology is correct. I'd also like to write a couple of sentences regarding the background to the war but don't know where to begin. Parrot of Doom 09:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done some - I'll copy this to talk there with some other points. Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps - do you need more on the war etc? I don't have any ready refs, I'm afraid. Looking at his article, more could be added on Stanley's connections with the extremist Catholic English, Allen etc. Other things:

"After leaving school at a young age," - can we narrow this down? Leaving school at 14 or 15 would be the norm then, so may be misleading.

I don't have any more information than this right now, but I've removed the "at a young age" part. Parrot of Doom 10:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"In 1592 Fawkes sold the estate in Clifton" - "estate" implies quite a large piece of land. Might "property", "land" etc be better, unless it was indeed big.

A few bits and pieces, probably about 12 acres. I only have an 1850 source right now, I'm trying to find something more up-to-date. Parrot of Doom 10:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If we have the sale document, do we have a price? I suppose 12 acres is a "small estate". Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a scan of the indenture floating around but its illegible. Parrot of Doom 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed "footman" and "waiter" as misleading. For someone certainly middle-class & well-educated, these jobs were prime "management trainee" positions with leading national figures, even if they did involve serving at table. Valet de chambre gives the flavour, I hope. I'll keep an eye on progress - you need to get him back to England now, as I'm sure you realize. Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Johnbod, I'll take a closer look later today. Its difficult to find a balance between Guy Fawkes the man, and Guy Fawkes the plotter. Parrot of Doom 14:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I feel some of the the information currently in the Intro section would make more sense under "Early Life" and "Gunpowder Plot". In particular, the entire paragraph about him his early life seems out of place in the intro. richard.decal (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you refer to the lead section, above the contents box? Parrot of Doom 07:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. When I read the article, the beginning seemed to have inappropriate (out of place) details. richard.decal (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead section serves as an introduction to and a brief summary of the article. Most Wikipedia articles have such a section. The article proper, begins after the contents box. Parrot of Doom 16:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't think of the lead as an introduction, think of it as a mini-version of the article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but I still feel some parts are should be moved into the body of the article. For example, "Fawkes was born and educated in York. His father died when Fawkes was eight [... ] his mother married a recusant Catholic" does not "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points". richard.decal (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That is already in the article though. I think we'll have to disagree on what defines the topic, and establishes context. Parrot of Doom 07:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Signatures

The unsteady upper signature was written immediately after torture. The bottom signature, however, is not an earlier version as stated; It was written 8 days later after Fawkes had to some extent recovered from torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.3.23 (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, however the source I have says the opposite. It does beg the question though, where does the "nicer" signature come from? Parrot of Doom 08:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This page, where the signatures are hosted, agrees with the anon IP above. I think the National Archives are probably right on this matter. Should we change the caption here, and at Gunpowder Plot? Parrot of Doom 08:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should, as I don't think there can be any doubt that the "nicer" signature is later, particularly as that's also what the National Archives page also says. Malleus Fatuorum 12:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'll do it. Parrot of Doom 12:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

all this information may not be completely true? so dont always believe wikipidia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.8.222 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Daria

In Daria series in one episode Guy Fawkes was portrayed as Sid Vicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.230.207 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Education

Proposed edit: about Fawkes's education in York. We know he was educated at St Peter's School, York - could this be referenced in the introduction to the article? It may also be of interest that Guy Fawkes's lantern is on display at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.232.140 (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved your comment down to the foot of the page (you can create new sections with the "new section" button at the top). I'm not sure if its necessary to mention the school he was educated at in the lead, unless you add more to qualify why it matters (educated alongside the Wrights, for instance). As for his lantern, its mentioned in Gunpowder Plot. Parrot of Doom 11:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture

What, no mention of V for Vendetta??60.240.14.140 (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In what way is V for Vendetta significant for an understanding of Guy Fawkes? Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's significant regarding Guy Fawkes because the main Protagonist in the story wears a Guy Fawkes mask through out the entire movie, not to mention the fact that the story is essentially a modernized and reworked version of the Gunpowder Plot Znel2010 (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |Z| 22:40, 24 Aug 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. It's not significant at all then. Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that there should be a popular culture section, as he is frequently mentioned nowadays, both in V for Vendetta, and as part of the Epic Fail Guy nomenclature.Stregamama (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

See the linked article Gunpowder Plot in popular culture where these items were relocated to. Keith D (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I'm not convinced any of the three External Links presented in that section are at all relevant to Guy Fawkes. The first is a walking trail only tangentially relevant as sites to see, the second is an outdated (and very likely inaccurate) site more about Bonfire Night and the Gunpowder Plot than about Guy Fawkes, and the final is a gallery of images more related to Bonfire Night. If there are no objections, I'd like to remove these links and perhaps replace them with some superior ones. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 23:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No objections here. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 91.125.8.33, 26 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

replace England with Great Britain as guy fawkes is celebrated in Scotland and Wales too. Fawkes became synonymous with the Gunpowder Plot, which has been commemorated in England since 5 November 1605. His effigy is burned on a bonfire, often accompanied by a firework display

91.125.8.33 (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is something I've never been able to satisfactorily establish. I know its celebrated in Scotland today, but I don't yet know if it was always so. Indeed I've read reports that in the 19th century Glasgow council stopped funding the celebrations. Parrot of Doom 10:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the exact rules--does this issue need to go to WP:BISE? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A load of people arguing about what to call a few bits of rock? I doubt it. The question is, was Guy Fawkes Day mostly an English celebration, or was it generally also celebrated in Wales and Scotland? I don't know. Parrot of Doom 11:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: As doubt has been expressed, per WP:BURDEN you'd need to provide a reliable source that states this has been celebrated throughout Great Britain since as early as 1605. Alternatively, find a source to back up something along the lines of "...been commemorated in England since 5 November 1605, and throughout Great Britain since at least...". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture of mask

I think we should have a picture of the iconic "Guy Fawkes mask" somewhere (probably in the Legacy section), as it's so often used to represent Guy Fawkes or the idea of rebellion. Sonicsuns (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then the mask image should be placed in an article about rebellion, since it tells us nothing about Guy Fawkes. Parrot of Doom 16:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewording needed for clarification

"...Fawkes jumped from the scaffold where he was to be hanged and broke his neck, thus avoiding the agony of the drawing and quartering that followed." This makes no sense the way it is currently worded. Was he to be hanged or drawn and quartered? If both (which doesn't seem to make sense), then it makes no sense to say that the agony (of the drawing and quartering) was avoided because if he had been hanged this agony would have been avoided anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.198.241 (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You're presuming that the modern definition of hanging applies. It doesn't. Read hanged, drawn and quartered. Parrot of Doom 10:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to expand a little on Parrot of Doom's explanation above, it wasn't until the late 19th century that the modern long-drop method of execution was adopted in England. At the time Fawkes was executed victims were simply suspended from a gallows by their necks after whatever supporting them had been removed, in this case a ladder. It could then take quite some time before the person being hanged was eventually strangled by the rope, ranging from a few minutes to over an hour in the extreme case. Those being hanged, drawn and quartered were first hanged and then cut down before death occurred, so their entrails were removed while they were still alive, the drawn part. The wording in this article is therefore perfectly correct. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Add V for Vendetta (film) reference?

Add V for Vendetta (film) reference? 99.39.184.39 (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A busy 'bot cleans out this page from time to time. Many previous discussions on this, for example here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting discussion on many levels, not least the number of times I get threatened with a block for not toeing the party line. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding film references to articles seems to be expected by many. I'm having a similar problem at Talk:Blackbeard, people repeatedly add it, I repeatedly remove it. Its only going to get worse as yet another silly potc film is released. Parrot of Doom 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A Penny for the Guy?

In the 1950s, at least, it was customary for children in England in the run-up to the fifth of November to push the "Guy" they had made around town, e.g., in a baby carriage ("pram") or perhaps a wheelchair, asking passersby for "a penny for the guy". I do not know how far back this socially accepted form of small-scale begging can be traced, but was surprised to find no mention of the tradition in the present article. Can anyone help us on this? Nandt1 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

When I lived in England in 1980, they still did it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Guy Fawkes Night, it's mentioned there. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter?

Well if your not cool with film references in the book series Harry Potter J.K. Rowling stated that she named Dumbledors pet phoenix Fawkes after Guy Fawkes. Don't believe me go to Harry Potter magical creature section and look under fawkes. Such informaion may be useful and interesting in your article. -James Pandora Adams

It may well be instructive for a reader of Harry Potter books, but what does it tell us about Guy Fawkes? Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading description of Guy Fawkes' ancestry?

Just noticed the explanation, "Guy's paternal grandmother, Ellen Harrington, came from a line of Protestant public servants." This seems to imply that Guy Fawkes' ancestors had been Protestants for a long time before the birth of his paternal grandmother. But as Guy Fawkes was born in 1570, and the Church of England was only established between 1533 and 1536, about thirty-four years before his birth, there could have been no "line of Protestant public servants" until some time after Fawkes' grandmother was born.

I admit to complete ignorance as to precisely when Ellen Harrington was born. But it must certainly have been when England was still officially a Catholic country, and when she was born her father and grandfather, if alive, would still have been Catholics. Even assuming that they immediately accepted the new Church of England, they would have been no different from the majority of Englishmen, who had little choice but to accept the new faith. But the statement that "Guy's paternal grandmother, Ellen Harrington, came from a line of Protestant public servants" suggests that they had always been Protestants.

Perhaps a better way to phrase this would be, "Guy's paternal grandmother, Ellen Harrington, came from a family that had readily embraced the new Church of England," or something to that effect. Otherwise, describing his paternal grandmother's ancestry as "a line of Protestant public servants" would seem to be anachronistic at best, and could have the unintended effect of appearing like pro-Protestant bias in the article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I support your wording. A line of Protestants implies several generations which could not have been possible considering Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 1530s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says this "Guy's paternal grandmother, with whom he spent some time in early boyhood, born Ellen Harrington, came of a line of Protestant public servants: lord mayors and sheriffs." Parrot of Doom 21:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if that's what the source says, it's obviously misleading to say so. Guy Fawkes was born about thirty-four years after the establishment of the Church of England. His grandmother was almost certainly more than thirty-four years old at that time, was born and baptized in Catholic England, to Catholic parents, whose ancestors were and had been Catholics for hundreds of years. Even if both her father and grandfather became dutiful members of the Church of England after that, describing her ancestors as "a line of Protestant public servants" implies something else entirely.

The best analogy that springs to mind is, if you were born in France to French parents, and emigrated to the United States at the age of ten with your parents and grandparents, all of whom were then naturalized, it would be grossly misleading to say that your ancestors "had been American citizens for generations," even though both your parents and grandparents became citizens. Even though the statement could be considered literally true, it implies something that is clearly not the case. Wikipedia entries should not be misleading, even if the wording of the source material is. There's no compelling need to incorporate misleading statements into the encyclopedia. P Aculeius (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Fraser means Protestantism in the sense that his family felt they did not belong to the Catholic Church. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems extremely unlikely, in the absence of any other information to justify such a statement. It would be the same as calling them "closet Protestants," or worse, admitting that they were Catholic in the technical sense, and then asserting as a "defense" that "they were Protestants in their hearts." I don't think a well-regarded historian would make dubious or biased statements without any explanation. I think that she merely worded her description of Fawkes' ancestry and childhood influences in a way that would be considered misleading.

But the point is, we don't have to know what Antonia Fraser thought when she wrote that sentence, or whether Guy Fawkes' grandmother's ancestors were "Protestants in their hearts" despite being Catholic in the technical sense. The point relevant to the article is that Fawkes himself had Protestant ancestors in that line, or rather, ancestors who had embraced the Church of England at some point in the thirty-four years before he was born, and who might have influenced his childhood upbringing, despite the fact that he came to be viewed as a symbol of violent anti-Protestant resistance. And that point can be made without misleading the reader to believe that his ancestors had been Protestants for generations before the Church of England actually separated from the Catholic church. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think she's using the "came of" idiom - ie, not that she "came from a line", but rather her side of the family were all protestants. That's probably my fault for mis-reading the original quote. If that's the case then I think we should certainly change it to suit, "came from a Protestant family" or similar. Parrot of Doom 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It would still be misleading. The question isn't whether the sentence could mean what the writer intends it to mean, but how it would be understood by most readers. But the importance of the assertion to the article appears to be minimal. Here is how the Dictionary of National Biography describes Fawkes' background:

"The father [Edward Fawkes], a notary or proctor of the ecclesiastical courts and advocate of the consistory court of the Archbishop of York, was second son of William Fawkes, registrar of the exchequer court of York diocese from 1541 till his death about 1565. Guy's paternal grandmother was Ellen Haryngton, daughter of an eminent York merchant, who was lord mayor of that city in 1536; she died in 1575, and bequeathed to Guy her best whistle and an angel of gold . . . . There can be no question that his [Guy's] parents were protestants; it is known that they were regular communicants at the parish church of St. Michael-le-Belfrey, and it is a fair inference that Guy was brought up in their belief."

This is to say that Guy Fawkes' early religious upbringing is more inferred than proven, and the best evidence of it is that his parents were regular communicants of the Church of England. It's fair to assume that his paternal grandparents themselves were members of the Church of England after it separated from the Catholic Church. But Guy's grandfather died before he was born, and his grandmother died when he was only four or five years old. Their influence on his religious upbringing would have been minuscule compared with that of his parents.

The article says nothing about the religious beliefs of Guy's grandmother's ancestors, mentioning only that her father was a merchant who was Lord Mayor of York in 1536, about the time that the Church of England was established. It's likely that he became a communicant of the Church of England, and that his father would have too, had he been alive. But the relevance of this to Guy's upbringing is minimal, and it isn't even mentioned by the Dictionary of National Biography.

There simply isn't any reason for this article to include a statement that is inherently misleading, when it could easily be reworded to avoid that problem, particularly when the assertion isn't really that important to the article in the first place. P Aculeius (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with what you've written, so feel free to make whatever changes you feel are necessary. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, reworded this section based on the 1921-1922 DNB entry quoted above. I tried to place proper emphasis on sources of Guy's religious upbringing, as opposed to ancestors who were prominent but not necessarily influential on his own religious belief, while at the same time keeping the reference to Ellen Harrington and her father. They seemed worthy of mention, even if they can hardly have directed Guy's religious education. You may wish to re-format the source citation, as the format used in this article is a bit more complex than I'm used to. Added a link and a couple of other minor edits for clarity in the same paragraph. Thanks for your input! P Aculeius (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotation from Northcote Parkinson

Has anyone actually found the quotation about the "scotch beggars"? It certainly isn't on the pages listed in the bibliography (i.e. Gunpowder, Treason and Plot by C. Northcote Parkinson, pp. 91-92) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.182.126 (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help here as I don't have access to the book. The quote certainly appears in older sources, however, like this. Parrot of Doom 10:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Fawke's step father omission

Edward Fawkes died when Guy was eight, and his mother showed her true sympathies by marrying another recusant, Denis (or Dionysus) Bainbridge, described by an acquaintance (according to the Gunpowder Plot Society) as "more ornamental than useful." The family moved to a home near the village of Scotton in North Yorkshire. From that point on, Fawkes likely began to come in contact with devout Catholics who were working through official channels and also by underground means to safeguard and advance the rights of Catholics under the country's increasingly entrenched Anglican regime.

Read more: Guy Fawkes Biography - life, family, name, story, death, history, school, mother, young, son, old, born, tall, house, marriage, time, year, Recognized by Superiors http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Ca-Fi/Fawkes-Guy.html#ixzz1IloqAObY

Celticanuk (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't quite see where the omission is? Parrot of Doom 19:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

He is not named in the main article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.90.191 (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find he is. Parrot of Doom 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Geographical features

The following section was in Gunpowder Plot in popular culture. I moved it (back?) here, in the Legacy section, because it is not about the Gunpowder Plot, and - more importantly - not about popular culture. "The Guy Fawkes River in northern New South Wales, Australia, was named after Fawkes by explorer John Oxley, who, like Fawkes, was from North Yorkshire. A collection of two crescent-shaped islands and two small rocks northwest of Santa Cruz Island, in the Galápagos Islands, are called Isla Guy Fawkes." But, it's been reverted, without any explanation. My simple question is - why? It's clearly part of the legacy of GF that geographical features, however insignificant they may be (though notable enough to have their own articles), were named after him. It doesn't fit within any definition of "popular culture" that I'm aware of. Explanation needed please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I recall no mention of this river or islands in any of the authoritative sources used to build this article. Their existence does not form a part of Fawkes's lasting legacy, which is his influence on 5 November celebrations and the literature based on him. Guy Fawkes may be relevant to the river or island articles but the same cannot be said for the reverse. They certainly have no place here. Parrot of Doom 10:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

But that presupposes that the article should wholly be based on the sources that were used in constructing it, excluding any additional new sources, and that his legacy is solely "his influence on 5 November celebrations and the literature based on him". The sentences set out additional, referenced information about notable geographical features. That may be a very small part of his legacy, but it is still part of his lasting legacy (their names seem unlikely to change), and there seems no good reason to exclude a brief mention (recognising due weight) from this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion carries much less weight than the experts who wrote the sources used to build this article. If they deem such details as unworthy of mention, then so should we. Parrot of Doom 10:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those experts knew about Wikipedia. Anyway, it seems (reliable sources yet to be found) that the explanation is that the features were discovered on Guy Fawkes Day, so were not named directly after Fawkes. In that case, I understand why they should not be included here. But, if MF knew that, it would have been polite for him to say so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

V for Vendetta and Guy Fawkes Mask

I think the movie should be mentioned in the Legacy section. Also would be interesting to learn more about the Guy Fawkes mask's history, can't seem to find any information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.48.115 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The film tells us nothing about Guy Fawkes that we don't already know. In fact, the film is historically inaccurate. Parrot of Doom 07:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Many users come here looking for precisely what you have in mind, and are unsatisfied with no apparent mention of it. It's in the entry "Gunpowder Plot in popular culture" (it's down a ways!)... which this entry's "Legacy" section starts with a prominent link to!... But it is not clear to readers that this leads to a discussion involving V for Vendetta, and the masks as used by Anonymous and others, etc., as they presume will be covered here. In fact, for that perceived lack, a recent user wrote a good-faith paragraph. It was quickly struck by user Malleus_Fatuorum with the note "not V for fucking Vendetta again!" and he is a Senior Level Three Editor so what he says is very important. Notably: his "again"-- it's because this issue is a persistently problematic one... Discussion of it all was on this talk page, but the thread was archived: See here.
Now, I'll see if I can get the See Also link to make its cross-reference steer those users away from this entry and off to what they're looking for.
(Very incidentally-- and do not take this as criticism but as friendly advice-- when you leave a comment on a discussion page or otherwise contribute to Wikipedia, please have an account and log into it. It really is worth the bother, because if the source of a comment is seen only as a dot address (as with your comment), it can detract from the weight of your comments.) —Your pal, Sean M. Burke (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone who wants to know about the Guy Fawkes mask or V for Vendetta not go directly to the articles covering them? Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple: Because they aren't aware of the connection between Guy Fawkes the man and the mask that is everywhere referred to as the "Guy Fawkes mask". To me, it makes complete sense that someone who is wondering about the history behind the mask would first come to the Guy Fawkes article. I think Sean's suggestion that the "see also" reference the mask in some way is pretty logical too. I understand the reasoning behind not using this article as a place to talk about the mask, as that would be getting pretty far astray of the man himself. However, someone who isn't aware of "V for Vendetta" (like I wasn't) isn't going to make that connection to the mask since it is always referred to as the "Guy Fawkes mask" and never as the "V for Vendetta mask". That's my argument for including a reference to the mask somewhere in this article. Nothing more. Just a single reference. --AnalogWeapon (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

But as I said, if you're interested in the Guy Fawkes mask (which has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes) then why wouldn't you search for Guy Fawkes mask? Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Most people interested in learning the story behind the mask would search for simply 'Guy Fawkes' and not necessarily think to search for 'Guy Fawkes mask'. I did just that, and found to my surprise that there was no mention of the mask, and came to this discussion page to suggest exactly the same thing. I agree with the original poster that the mask and the movie should be mentioned in the legacy section, or perhaps in a "References in popular culture" or 'Guy Fawkes in popular culture' section. I am sure that far more people arrive at this page as a result of the Guy Fawkes mask than otherwise. Justinform (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of the mask because it is irrelevant. It tells us nothing about Guy Fawkes and therefore has no place here. People don't wear that mask because they're honouring his role in the plot, or because they're sorry he was executed; they wear it because it was used in a film that also has very little to do with Fawkes. If you were surprised it isn't mentioned here, then good, because now perhaps you understand that a couple of years of hippies wearing masks doesn't really measure well against several hundred years of religious turmoil. Parrot of Doom 07:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• If you Google for Guy Fawkes mask then this article is the #1 hit. If people see some news coverage such as Guy Fawkes masks have become the global face of the Occupy protests then they will naturally want to know something about Guy Fawkes and how he has come to be a modern symbol of protest. The article should therefore provide a better explanation and linkage to assist understanding and navigation by our global readership. For an example of how this has become a hot topic, see the BBC's recent coverage. This includes reference to the original Guy Fawkes; for example: the widespread use of the mask "signifies a loss of trust in politics - Guy Fawkes is the most anti-political figure you can pick". We should therefore have a paragraph in the legacy section with links to other related main articles such as V for Vendetta and Guy Fawkes mask. Failure to do this is contrary to FACR 1b: which requires featured articles to be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Warden (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What Warden is saying makes sense. I came to this article after reading a BBC article about Guy Fawkes masks being used in protests all over the world. It's strange that no information about the modern use of the masks is even linked to from this page. For better or worse, Guy Fox's likeness has become a symbol to many people (similar to Che Guevera). Even if you completely disagree with them and the use of the imagery, it's still notable. Like the Che shirts that are mentioned in the Che Guevera article, there should be a corresponding 'Legacy' section here with mentions of the movie and mask. To omit this hurts the completeness of the article. --Stvfetterly (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that the mask is a likeness of Guy Fawkes? In reality nobody has the faintest idea what Fawkes looked like. If you want to know about the mask then go to the article on the mask. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but there is a Legacy section here, which is largely a summary of the linked Gunpowder Plot in popular culture article. Are you suggesting that a sentence or two about the mask ought to be added to it? What would it tell us about Fawkes? And what does V for Vendetta have to do with Fawkes? Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• This article contains a picture of Guy Fawkes in its lead. He has been recreated in effigy many thousands of times over the years and so it would be appropriate to have a section giving details of the conventional depiction(s). This would be similar to Jesus#Depictions of Jesus, for example — another person whose exact likeness is not known but who has been made in effigy many times regardless. Warden (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Your BBC link isn't exactly knowledgeable, incorrectly stating that Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Although it does contain one useful quote, from the mask's creator - "The Guy Fawkes mask has now become a common brand and a convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny - and I'm happy with people using it, it seems quite unique, an icon of popular culture being used this way". Popular culture is exactly right, and there's an article for that. Parrot of Doom 16:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Presumably you're talking about Gunpowder Plot in popular culture. That seems to be a content fork. The fact that Guy Fawkes has a river named after him belongs in this article, for example, as it has little to do with the Gunpowder plot or popular culture. Anyway, readers searching for Guy Fawkes mask are much more likely to end up here rather than there and the traffic there is about 3% of this one. To inform our readership properly, more details and linkage are needed here, where they will start. Warden (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in what traffic Google sends our way. Guy Fawkes may be relevant to the river, but the same cannot be said in reverse. It's no different with a mask worn by a bunch of jobless hippies who think they're sticking it to the man. The mask is inspired by a film about a character based on a historically inaccurate depiction of Guy Fawkes as some kind of freedom fighter, rather than a misinformed terrorist. It was not inspired by the real Guy Fawkes, and it has no place here. It belongs in the popular culture article, nowhere else. If you feel so strongly that it doesn't, then create an article on the mask - that way people searching for information on it can go straight to its article. Parrot of Doom 10:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused . . . why is the inclusion of (certainly fictional) kids stories and penny dreadfuls like The Boyhood Days of Guy Fawkes, or The Conspirators of Old London OK in the article? How is that any different from the likeness of him appearing in V for Vendetta? From your posts it seems as though you have some kind of personal hang up against the Guy Fawkes mask and what you describe as 'hippies'. --Stvfetterly (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Because those publications are referred to by the expert sources used in this article, presumably because their existence helps the reader better understand why it is that Fawkes's name has persisted through history. V for Vendetta is pop culture. Parrot of Doom 21:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Any references to back up that opinion? Keep in mind that you just classified Penny Dreadfuls (cheap sensational fiction written for working class adolescents) as OK, and a comic book (cheap sensational fiction written typically for adolescents) as 'pop culture'. The reason that there are no 'expert sources' in the article about V for Vendetta is that people keep deleting them.--Stvfetterly (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you'd taken the trouble to actually read the article you would not have needed to ask the question. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree the information regarding the mask needs to be presented. I have never heard of Guy Fawkes before reading "V for Vendetta" or seeing the masks used in demonstrations. Upon googling "Guy Fawkes" I am brought here. I know the information is placed elsewhere on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean I will know where to find it. On any other topic where a historical person has a pop culture or modern influence there is a subsection concerning it. Upon reading the posts that vehemently protest information regarding modern/pop culture usage of Guy Fawkes I sense a huge bias. This is the one time Wikipedia has failed me. 173.78.44.192 (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Jonathan Smith

Sorry, a bit confused here: If you had never heard of Guy Fawkes before V for Vendetta, then searched and found this article to learn more about the man, where's the problem? How has Wikipedia failed you? It seems to have worked exactly as it should. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose a solution. Gunpowder Plot in popular culture should be renamed "Guy Fawkes in popular culture" since the existing article includes information that has nothing to do with gunpowder, such as:

• In Theater and film – explores the dangers of telling the truth in difficult times
• Guy Fawkes Night
• Guy Fawkes mask
• Video games – a man who died for what he believed in
• Geographical features – a river
• Polls – 50 greatest people from Yorkshire and BBC's 100 Greatest Britons

USchick (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Much of this information belongs here, in the legacy section. In popular culture is a poor way of dividing the topic because the distinction seems to be a matter of local opinion here rather than being derived from sources and common usage. Warden (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am bewildered as to why a history article in an encyclopedia would need to contain such trivia. It is not a legacy, it just another symptom of the dumbed down society we live in that anyone would think it is.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm bewildered as to why a proposal for the renaming of another article is duplicated above. I removed it, but was reverted. As for Colonel Warden's comment, any attempt to insert trivia into this article will be swiftly reverted, and not just by me; fortunately there are plenty of experienced and knowledgeable editors here who understand the difference between facts worthy of mention and trivia. That's why the popular culture article was created - as a pail for all the irrelevant rubbish that people keep wanting to place in this article. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I came to this entry to figure out why in the world the "Guy Fawkes" mask is so widespread among hacker and liberal political communities in the United States. I suppose I'll search for "Guy Fawkes mask" next, but there really should be something here. I'd like to know why this person has become a widespread symbol of certain views in 21st century. - Atfyfe (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason as to my the mask in question refers to Guy Fawkes at all? I visited this page to figure out why it's called a "Guy Fawkes mask" when it is clearly not based on Guy Fawkes' face and found no information. Does the name come from the V for Vendetta comic? If so, say it in the article. As it stands, the name materializes out of nowhere and has no relevance to anyone or anything. Bbippy (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the above two questions is at Gunpowder Plot in popular culture - to which "Guy Fawkes mask" redirects. Not the best answer you're going to get, probably, but the best I can do. See earlier discussions for more background. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)