Talk:Guy Fawkes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Explanatory note on calendar

In conformance to this closed RFC I have added an explanatory note about the dates in the article being in the Julian calendar. The need for the note is further demonstrated by this erroneous Wikidata edit which I will correct.Jc3s5h (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Continent?

The article reads, "Fawkes later converted to Catholicism and left for the continent..." Is this some sort of British way of saying Europe, because I feel it's confusing.

Yes. Parrot of Doom 21:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of using a British colloquilaism, should we not use the correct terminology, i.e. "Europe" instead of "The continent"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaerlynsRainbow (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It isn't purely a British colloquialism. Parrot of Doom 23:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not link it to Continental Europe? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the linking of "the continent" to continental Europe. Parrot of Doom 16:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mask usage by Anonymous irrelevant?

I'd say it's more relevant than it being used in V for Vendetta but oh, well. --uKER (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Eric Corbett 18:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily more relevant, but the use of the Fawkes mask in real-world anarchist activities is certainly relevant to his legacy (even if it comes indirectly thru the book and the film adaptation of it). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We have Guy Fawkes mask. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, this use is a very significant aspect of his legacy. ‑‑Yodin^T 20:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Guys ...

Ya'll are experienced editors. You know better than to keep edit warring rather than discuss. Someone made a bold edit, it got reverted, then the best thing to do is go to the talk page and discuss. The first edit should be explained on the talk page so that others can explain why they reverted it. Just going back and forth saying "reverting unexplained revert" is not discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added the quote with a parenthetical explanation, which should hopefully resolve the perceived "jargon" issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

An explanation was offered in the edit summary of the first reversion. I think you're criticising the wrong people here and personally I don't think the parenthetical explanation is warranted unless we're to presume the reader's IQ is less than 50. Parrot of Doom 09:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

edit

Hey!

How do I edit this article here, which is semi-protected? That is, the end of the first paragraph reads,

"was a member of a group of provincial English Catholics who planned the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605"

and it should be,

"was a member of a group of provincial English Catholics who planned the Gunpowder Plot of 1605" [without "failed" - they did not plan a failed plot, they planned a plot which happened to fail].

Thanks!

Hnnhn (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Gunpowder Plot certainly failed, I think your example is slightly disingenuous as you write "a failed plot" and not "the failed plot" - the latter makes perfect sense to me. I don't think this needs to be changed. Parrot of Doom 17:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Guy Fawkes. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

Please change:

such as Paul Kruger and Margaret Thatcher, have also found their way onto the bonfires,[64]

to

such as Paul Kruger and Margaret Thatcher, Including David Cameron, with other UK, foreign political figures, and celebrities, have also found their way onto the bonfires,[64] [70]

BFNGaz (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: It's clear from the context of two figures a century and two continents apart that these are representative examples and not intended to be an exhaustive list. I imagine Kruger and Thatcher have been chosen as they're people likely to be recognizable as divisive figures to Wikipedia's global audience; your suggested rewording would already be covered by other notable figures who have become targets for the public's ire. It's also clear that this section is intended as a very brief summary of the holiday, and that detailed coverage of it should be at Guy Fawkes Night rather than this page. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Question on date Fawkes was discovered

I've read on other sites (like History.com) that Fawkes was discovered about midnight on 4 November. This site says in the early morning hours of 5 November. It makes sense that it would've been 5 November seeing that if he was discovered about midnight on 4 November he would've been more than 24 hours early for the start of Parliament. Anyone know what's what? I just want to make sure I'm not missing something. Solri89 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't when he was discovered, but "discovered about midnight on 4 November" is poor writing, because it could refer either to the midnight that separated 3 November from 4 November, or the midnight that separated 4 November from 5 November. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Our article seems to avoid all these pitfalls. 87.81.237.158 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. But I'm not well educated on this subject (that's why I start reading about this in the first place) so I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Also I do believe this is the first time I'm willing to give more credibility to WP (since it's written by anyone) over most other educational sites. Well done Wiki people... unless I'm still missing something that is. Solri89 (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request Semi-protected edit request: the article states: "Fawkes fell from the scaffold where he was to be hanged and broke his neck, thus avoiding the agony of the mutilation that followed." Shouldn't this article be categorized under just "suicide by jumping" instead of hanging? He wasn't hung, he killed himself before he could be. 67.8.227.76 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No, since it is not known if he jumped or fell accidently. Parrot of Doom 10:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe his point was that he didn't hang. He was killed from the impact of a fall. Solri89 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

History isn't clear on what happened; nobody can say for sure how he died. Parrot of Doom 07:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Fawkes would almost certainly have been climbing the ladder to his gibbet with a noose round his neck. The idea would have been that the ladder would be removed when he reached the top, but the drop wouldn't have been enough to break his neck, he would instead have been strangled. But nobody can say definitively what happened. Eric Corbett 16:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me butting in, but as I read this 67.8 is agreeing with the pair of you, and is questioning the fact that the infobox unequivocally states "Cause of death: Hanging" without qualification. ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

That's one of the problems with infoboxes, no scope for anything other than black or white classifications, but the world isn't always that simple. Fawkes may well have died from hanging as he jumped off his ladder and broke his neck. But nobody knows. Eric Corbett 20:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

James VI and I

I propose replacing throughout this article "James I" with "James VI and I", because this is the title of the page that the link takes us to, and avoids giving the impression that James was only the King of England, whereas he was first the King of Scotland and then GB. It's important that readers who are not from England understand this fact. 153.98.68.196 (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• A very reasonable proposition but, as with all very reasonable propositions in this article, it hits up against a cadre of editors beset by the dreaded WP:OWN They don't respond to logic or reason and, with minimum explanation or debate, won't allow such a change to stand (revoking it, most likely, with a snarky and condescending edit summary). AnonNep (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Frown

Acts of regicide were frowned upon ...

Eyebrow-raising. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2016

Lukedyson (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no statement about what change should be made, so no change will be made. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Did Fraser know him personally?

Or is some context missing here?

"The author Antonia Fraser describes Fawkes as "a tall, powerfully built man, with thick reddish-brown hair, a flowing moustache in the tradition of the time, and a bushy reddish-brown beard", and that he was "a man of action ... capable of intelligent argument as well as physical endurance, somewhat to the surprise of his enemies.""

AnonNep (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's your brain that's gone AWOL? Eric Corbett 18:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is a back-handed acknowledgement that I had one to begin with. But what about the phrasing? "the author Antonia Fraser" This isn't about what you & I know. For the average reader stumbling upon this lauded, untouchable, featured article - who the bloody hell is she & did she know Fawkes personally? Please, re-phrase for clarity, as no-one else appears allowed to do so. AnonNep (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"who the bloody hell is she" - doubtless any one with that question would simply press the link to the article about her? SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You conveniently missed the point - "& did she know Fawkes personally?". This article is not about her relevance to him but the other way around. Would it really be that hard for the bards of the beautiful, the wordsmiths of the wiki, to add a phrase or two that clarifies the named writer produces modern, commercial (not academic) histories, and isn't one of Fawkes Jacobean drinking buddies who left a delightfully descriptive diary? AnonNep (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Modern Day Usage

The mask of Guy Fawkes face has become an identifying characteristic of the "hacktivist" collective called Anonymous, and has been frequently utilised by black bloc protesters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawby (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

How is Guy Fawkes a revolutionary?

The article is tagged "Category:English revolutionaries". But Fawkes never took part in a revolution. Neither the 80-years war, nor the attempted assassination of a Protestant king on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church were a revolution. And his potrail in "V for Vendeta" is not history but is fiction. I propose removal of the "English revolutionaries" tag of the article. 80.101.128.150 (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2017

Removal of the tag "Category:English revolutionaries" because Guy Fawkes was not a revolutionary. Change "Category:English revolutionaries" to (null). Guy Fawkes was not a revolutionary because he did not take part in a revolution. There is no historical record of him taking part in a revolution. The article provides no reliable source for the view that he was a revolutionary.

Apparently the idea that Guy Fawkes was a revolutionary arises from the confusion of the historic figure Guy Fawkes and the fictional figure Guy Fawkes as portrayed in "V for Vendeta":

"Once known as a notorious traitor, he is now portrayed in some circles as a revolutionary hero, largely due to the influence of the 1980s graphic novel “V for Vendetta” and the 2005 movie of the same name, which depicted a protagonist who wore a Guy Fawkes mask while battling a future fascist government in Britain. Guy Fawkes masks even cropped up at Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City and elsewhere. “Every generation reinvents Guy Fawkes to suit their needs,” explained historian William B. Robison of Southeastern Louisiana University." http://www.history.com/news/guy-fawkes-day-a-brief-history Rationale and reliable source provided as requested. 80.101.128.150 (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• My view would be that he was a revolutionary but I would be happy to execute the request if you can give a rationale as to why he isn't one. DrStrauss talk 20:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 00:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

"...Fawkes is now "a major icon in modern political culture", whose face has become "a potentially powerful instrument for the articulation of postmodern anarchism"[i] in the late 20th century, exemplified by the mask worn by V in the comic book series V for Vendetta, who fights against a fictional fascist English state."

I request that "fictional fascist English state" be changed to "fictional fascist British state". The comic is set in the UK and there is nothing to suggest that Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are not part of the state at the time the action is set. Lusobrandanecphrc (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Done One of the very early propaganda broadcasts we see on a background TV is a BBC-type documentary about the Norsefire troops suppressing resistance in Scotland. The state clearly claims sovereignty over the entirety of the former UK even if it doesn't have control over the entire territory. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 10:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Cause of Guy Fawkes death

Broken neck, he jumped from a window to avoid the gruesome alternative which was to be hung, drawn and quartered. Sarahsp8 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Spurious quote

It being Guy Fawkes night I came over to read this article, mostly expecting a bitter edit war over whether he was an 'evil terrorist' or a 'Catholic hero', I am well pleased this is a featured article.

"Guy Fawkes is sometimes toasted as "the last man to enter Parliament with honest intentions"." from the Legacy section. Well actually this quote is from the book that supports it, the quote has been discussed elsewhere (mostly due to its presence here), but there is no 'sometimes' about it, it is a quote from a well known professor of history. I think this quote should be properly attributed to the only reliable source mentioning it.

(Sharpe, J. A. (2005), Remember, Remember: A Cultural History of Guy Fawkes Day (illustrated ed.), Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-01935-0).

Something like: "James Sharpe, professor of history at the University of York, described in one of his books how Guy Fawkes is often toasted as "the last man to enter Parliament with honest intentions"." which is more specific. Dysklyver 11:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, done. Eric Corbett

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guy Fawkes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100318043708/http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/fawkes.asp to http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/fawkes.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

drawing

The "drawn" element of being "hung, drawn and quartered" is more likely to refer to the disembowelling element of the punishment. As in i.e. remove its guts. If it referred to being dragged to the place of execution it would surely be called being "drawn, hung and quartered" Morrisjen (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Jen

No. We've been through this dozens of times before. Eric Corbett 15:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Link the word "Recusancy" to the Wikipedia Article Titled "Recusancy"

While reading the Article, I didn't know what the word meant, so I had to go look. Would have been convenient of the link was right there for me. The Article is semi-protected, so I can't do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recusancy 2605:6000:6947:AB00:ED9A:618F:109D:5E4 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

the related terms "recusant" in the lead and "recusant Catholics" earlier in the childhood section both link to "Recusancy" EdwardUK (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

Guy Fawkes jumped from the gallows to his death and broke his neck before he could be hanged, therefore he was not "hanged" although he was about to be hanged. 2A02:C7D:70D3:1700:24F3:C248:DDB:E7CD (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done With the rope around his neck, it is equivalent to the standard drop. Breaking the neck is normal for hangings.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hanged drawn and quartered

This is misinterpreted in the text. The word "drawn" specifically refers to the removal of the stomach, bowel, and possibly associated organs by means of a long vertical incision made in the abdomen while the subject is alive. It does not refer to the means of dragging the subject to the place of execution. In the punishment "hanging" involved suspension of the victim by a rope around the neck to induce strangulation stopping short of death. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussions at Talk:Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered have arrived at the opposite conclusion - suggest you raise the issue there if you feel sources support your interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:This would appear not to be the case. In the article talk page I see only one editor disputing the interpretation I present. Sources are difficult for either interpretation due to the lack of significant non-fiction writing during the reign of the Stuarts. Apart from the actual wording of the judicial sentence I invite you to produce a source for your own interpretation. In the Tower of London there are on display instruments stated to have been used for the drawing of the bowels from the body; there are also descriptions in Shakespeare (which I concede are anecdotal) of the procedure.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:Also, note the sequence of events in the sentence. In your interpretation they should be sentenced to be "drawn, hanged and quartered"? The usually accepted version of "hanged, drawn and quartered" implies that the hanging precedes the drawing and quartering. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

We are not having this discussion again, surely? Anthony, if you think there's only one editor disputing the interpretation I present, I take it you haven't bothered to read the eight pages of archives in which this has been explained repeatedly, or the actual article itself which also explains (with sources) the derivation of the phrase and its disputed etymology? ‑ Iridescent 23:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

INCORRRECT REFERENCE TO KING JAMES VI AS ONLY JAMES I

As a Scot, I do not understand why Editors continue to represent James VI of Scotland as only James I of England, given that James was Scottish King first and later invited to be King of England. Therefore, please replace 'James I' with 'James VI and I' throughout this article (and others). Besides, 'James VI and I' is how the article title is presented on Wikipedia! 153.98.68.208 (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, he is known around the world by his common name of King James. No other distinction is necessary.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If he is indeed simply "known around the world as King James" (which contradicts the title used in his own Wikipedia page), why does this article introduce him with his English title of "King James I"...? S2mhunter (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

i would like to edit the Guy Fawkes page as some of the information is incorrect and i know the right information Guyfawkes1 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Guyfawkes1, what specifically do you feel is incorrect? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019

Swimming is cool. Mrs. Falzoi likes swimming in books.2604:6000:100E:841A:7C3C:854A:753C:36D0 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Masum Reza^📞 12:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternative surname spelling as Vaux

Charles James Fox was often caricatured as traitor, similar to Guy Fawkes. As part of the caricature, Charles James Fox was referred to as 'Guy Vaux', which is a pun because 'F' and 'V' seem to have been fairly interchangeable sounds in the 1700s. I can find a tertiary source claiming that Guy Fawkes was often recorded as Guy Vaux, but can anyone find better sources? It seems important that the wikipedia page should mention this alternative spelling if it was used in political discourse and art a century later.

Alternatively, was there some confusion at the time (or afterwards) between Anne Vaux and Guy Fawkes? IcknieldRidgeway (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Examples of the caricature using 'Guy Vaux'

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guy-Vaux_%26_Judas-Iscariot_by_James_Gillray_1782.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guy_Vaux_by_James_Gillray.jpg
• https://www.historytoday.com/archive/drawing-history-gunpowder-plot
• https://research.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1643554&partId=1

References

Death

This is confusing:

Weakened by torture and aided by the hangman, Fawkes began to climb the ladder to the noose, but either through jumping to his death or climbing too high so the rope was incorrectly set, he managed to avoid the agony of the latter part of his execution by breaking his neck.

Does this mean he fell off the ladder and broke his neck or he broke his neck by hanging. I think the latter, but it should be clearer.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

He either jumped or broke his neck by hanging - which is unclear. See for example the explanation here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a reliable source. In any case, the text of the article should be clear. A reader shouldn't have to look at other sources to work out what the article means.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that's not a reliable source, which is why I haven't quoted it in the article. What do you feel the article should say? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Not knowing what happened, I can't suggest a wording. That is the problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said, we don't know whether he jumped or broke his neck by hanging. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Guy folks

How old was he when he died 82.132.232.113 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

There are some miss-spelled words that I would like to correct to continue my research on Guy Fawkes for my school project Logansullivan11 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: @Logansullivan11: When you write miss-spelled words are you referring to British spellings? If so, please do not substitute American spelling for British. Please see our Manual of Style guidelines on national varieties of English. Please also note the {{Use British English}} template place at towards the top of the article, which is only visible while editing.

Guy Fawkes is already a featured article. That means is is a very high quality article. I think that Wikipedia would benefit from your work on lesser quality articles. Please see Wikipedia:Content assessment for more about that. An article's assessment is usually found by viewing the WikiProject boxes on the article talk page. Peaceray (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"(i.e. drawn)"

If this is an attempt to explain the word "drawn" in "hanged, drawn and quartered", it is incorrect. When a person is "drawn" their entrails are drawn out of their body. I have deleted it.--Hugh7 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

Change

from

Born 13 April 1570 (presumed) York, England

to

13 April 1570 (presumed) York, Yorkshire

For increased Personal, Historical, and Geographic Accuracy. 89.240.165.210 (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Not clear how this would be an improvement over what is currently there. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Spelling error

It's 'Hung, drawn, and quartered' 46.65.154.115 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes

He wasn’t died in January he died in November 5 1606 2A02:C7C:305C:D00:28F8:9822:63E4:F37C (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. You are wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)