Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Bonfire

Fireworks (gunpowder) to remember Guy Fawkes, sure, but am I wrong in believing that the bonfire element predates Guy Fawkes by many years, and was used as a celebration of the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, when bonfires were lit for signalling the approach of the armada? It may have even older roots as a pagan festival associated with disposing combusible rubbish at the end of summer, beginning of autumn.Petergans (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this up there ^^^ Parrot of Doom 10:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it may have earlier roots. The problem is finding reliable sources. A couple of suggestions, including this, are made in the discussion up above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The suggested source is accurate. When my children were young, in the late 1960's, the children made the guy, usually a rag doll and often displayed in a pram (remember them?). The money collected went into buying fireworks to be used with the bonfire in the garden at home. We always called it bonfire night, but knew that the doll was connected with Guy Fawkes. Incidentally, in Yorkshire the other night was known as mischievous night, but seems to have disappeared in favour of Halloween, which is now heavily commercialised. Petergans (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

would that be Miggy night? - according to this it's still celebrated. Richerman (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Never heard Miggy night spoken. It looks like journalese. Indeed I'd never heard of "mischief" night until I moved from London to Leeds (W. Yorkshire) in the middle 1960s. Mischievous was pronounced mischeevous, whereas the southerners would put the emphasis on the first syllable.Petergans (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You will find quite a number of references to Miggy Night with a google search. I don't think it's just journalese - maybe they just don't use it in Leeds. There's a reference from The Teachers Calender here and even Auntie Beeb uses the term, and they're always right :) Richerman (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So be it. My own view is that it started as journalese - mischievous - is too long for a sub-headline and then passed into common usage. It's been an interesting discussion, but I'm now signing off. Petergans (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night - or Guy Fawkes Day?

I ask because several sources I've read lately agree on the latter, and I think perhaps that a move might be in order. Parrot of Doom 00:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd stick with "Night". Nothing happens during the day. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The name appears to have changed a couple of times. Until the late 18th century it was known as "Gunpowder Treason Day". I haven't yet found anything to say when it became Guy Fakes Night (although I've sourced the "Day" part). Parrot of Doom 00:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I admire your stamina. I think I'll away to look at another hangman, or perhaps a witch trial, as I've had just about enough of the Plot for one day. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little bit concerned at so far only having one decent source (a problem I'll rectify when I can), but I think this article can be turned on its head, and much of the chuff removed. Parrot of Doom 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You've rescued this article from the awful mess it was and it now looks like a respectable piece of history. When I originally said it might be "a bridge too far" I didn't think you would have it sorted out so quickly. Should something go in to say "in the north of England Guy Fawkes night is a time for doing serious historical research and making silk purses out of sows' ears"? Richerman (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got a few pages left of Cressy, and then that's that one exhausted. Meanwhile, I'm off to bed to play Angry Birds for a bit. nighty night. Parrot of Doom 01:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

British Customs, Global Customs, etc

What should we do with these? I think there's value in keeping most of what's there albeit much shortened, if better sources can be found, but I'm also of the opinion that it might be better to find another book or two that adequately covers these sections, and writing from that. Parrot of Doom 23:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that everyone sees them as a place to add their own local traditions - usually unreferenced. Book references would be better but it's going to be a challenge to keep the rubbish out. Not that you're one to shrink from a challenge of course! Richerman (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing that's for sure is that the "remember, remember..." rhyme needs to be re-added... there's a lot of people who will be interested in it (I think more people outside the Commonwealth have heard of this rhyme than the Guy Fawkes Night itself (from the V for Vendetta movie, but that doesn't make it less significant)). There's even a relative redirect: Remember, remember the 5th of November, it's weird to not have the actual rhyme (or any mention of it) in the page's contents 150.140.233.133 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to reinsert it unless I can find a historical context. None of the sources (all of which are high quality) I have say anything about it. Parrot of Doom 20:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pope Day request

I don't suppose anyone is able to get anything readable from this book, are they? Specifically, a search for "Pope Day" reveals quite a few results, but I've used the book so many times in other articles that Google have barred my access to the most interesting pages. I'd rather not buy it (I've spent enough on Gunpowder-related stuff). Parrot of Doom 16:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of bits from the book you pointed to:

p.142 Wiiliam Hone’s Every-day book suggests boys celebrating Nov 5 in England might also call it Pope Day in the early 18 century.

On 5 November 1737, the ‘principal gentleman and merchants’ of New York along with members of the Council assembly and corporation joined the Lieutenant Governor in drinking loyal toasts to King George II

It goes on to say "The celebrations were not restricted to NY elite but..." unfortunately page 143 is not in the preview.

P.144 In Boston there was great rivalry between the north and south end parades but in 1765 the body of merchants and master craftsmen in Boston called the Loyal Nine (later the Sons of Liberty) persuaded the leaders of the north and south end Pope Day organisations to support their campaign against the 1765 Stamp Act and mob action forced the town’s stamp distributor, a local merchant to resign.

P. 145 It goes on to say that in the 18 century the celebrations were generally rowdy and in 1775 there was an attempt to ban the celbrations in the town square in Horsham, Sussex but there was a note of defiance pasted up in the town hall. I'll type that out later but I haven't got time at the moment.

P.146 There was a letter published in the Times on 7 Nov 1853 saying that every year near Tower Hill in London a crowd of about 15,000 assembled for 'robbery, brutal ruffianism and to let off fireworks'

I'm sure you can work this in somewhere. Richerman (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I forgot to mention, I got some limited access by using a free proxy server, and included what I could. I think there's scope in the article for adding something about Catholics in colonial American, but what I now need is more information on Guy Fawkes Day throughout the commonwealth. Sadly, hardly anything is written that is worth mentioning. Parrot of Doom 18:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bonfire night food

I can't find much that suggests that "traditional food" is anything of the sort. Historically the traditional food seems to have been alcoholic. Is bonfire night food a modern invention? Parrot of Doom 18:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Global customs

I've moved this entire section to talk for now. I don't think that mention of the day's celebration through the British Commonwealth warrants much more than three or four sentences (which I'll try to sort out today), and much of the text below seems to be more about fireworks and safety than the event's cultural significance. Parrot of Doom 12:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In Canada, Guy Fawkes Night is celebrated in a few places such as Nanaimo, British Columbia, the tradition having been planted along with other cultural practices by 19th-century British colonists. Guy Fawkes bonfires are still burnt in many parts of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2005 the celebrations were widespread enough to merit mention by the provincial Minister of Environment and Conservation, who asked reminded the general public of their responsibilities for safety and the environment.

In the aftermath of the Boer War Anna Maria Outerbridge—a leader of a "Boer Relief Committee" well known for trying to assist Boer POWs in escaping—was so unpopular with the British that in Bermuda, rather than Guy Fawkes an effigy of her was burned.

In the Caribbean nation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the night is celebrated in the town of Barrouallie, on the leeward side of the main island of Saint Vincent. The town's field comes ablaze as people come to see all of the traditional pyrotechnics. In Antigua and Barbuda, Guy Fawkes Night was popular until the 1990s, when a ban on fireworks made it almost non-existent. In the Bahamas, Guy Fawkes Day is celebrated in the Fox Hill area of New Providence, the main island. Other islands have smaller celebrations for their residents. On the twin island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis, the night is still celebrated throughout the country.

In Australia, Guy Fawkes Night has not been celebrated since the mid 1980s when, to prevent misuse and personal injuries, the sale and public use of fireworks was banned in most states and territories. Before this ban, Guy Fawkes Night was celebrated in private, with backyard fireworks and occasionally large communal bonfires or fireworks displays in public spaces. Some recent immigrants from Britain preserve the British tradition and arrange private parties with bonfires and sparklers.

Guy Fawkes Night (and the weekend closest to it) is the main time for both amateur and official fireworks displays in New Zealand, where most major cities and many smaller communities hold their own public displays. The range of fireworks on sale to the public has been increasingly reduced in recent years; firecrackers have been banned since 1991, and any fireworks that fly, such as rockets, have been banned since 1994. In 2007, the period when fireworks are allowed to be sold was reduced to the four days leading up to Guy Fawkes Night and the minimum legal age for purchase was raised from 14 to 18 years. Despite these sales restrictions, there are no restrictions on when fireworks may be lit, only a restriction on when they may be sold. There are some local bans on the use of fireworks, usually covering only the days around Guy Fawkes Night. Reacting to reports of a number of firework related injuries in 2007, Prime Minister Helen Clark threatened a ban on the sale of personal fireworks in New Zealand if people behaved badly. However, that year turned out to be one of the "quietest on record" according to the NZ fire service.

Guy Fawkes night is also celebrated in South Africa, but the use of fireworks is strictly regulated under the Explosives Act 26, 1956 and in many municipalities they are banned completely.

References

Now a harmless festival without any religious or political connotations

While the article goes into great detail about its history, surely it ought to be made clear that it is now just celebrated as a reason to let of fireworks and have a bonfire and an outdoor party? I'm sure that 99% of people who celebrate it know nothing about it except that its something to do with someone called Guy Fawkes trying to blow up parliament. I also see that the criticism here, that the article seemed to have been written by someone who was anti-catholic, has disapeared. 92.15.26.222 (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that had been made clear by this quote "the rockets go higher and burn with more colour, but they have less and less to do with memories of the Fifth of November ...it might be observed that Guy Fawkes' Day is finally declining, having lost its connection with politics and religion. But we have heard that many times before." As for anti-catholic comments, you should search this talk page's archive. Parrot of Doom 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nursery rhyme

If the nursery rhyme you were discussing before it was archived is "Remember, remember the 5th of November, Gunpowder, Treason and Plot."then I have a source for you. Iona and Peter Opie, The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren" OUP, 1959. Page 282 in my paperback edition. And they cite "Juvenile Amusements" 1797, no 50, as well as other sources of the same period. MidlandLinda (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To include information on the contemporary event around the world, or not?

What I am finding most unhappy here is that Parrot of Doom constantly imposes his own views on the article, ignoring those of other contributors as stated on this talk page. I proposed (above) that deletions of whole paragraphs should be discussed here first, others agreed, but Parrot of Doom promptly replied that he saw "a good deal of dubiously-sourced and generally irrelevant material which I shall be cutting down and integrating into the prose or removing completely." That is, he would do so whether others liked it or not, and he proceeded to do so. One of the directions Parrot of Doom clearly likes to take the article in is to make it shorter, while limiting its scope. Can we please restate our views on the general direction of the article? If Parrot of Doom continues to reject them, then I suppose we shall need to take steps to control the situation. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the previous section "#Bonfire night is not just an historical event" it should include a historical section but it should also include details of how the night is celebrated around the world and if it is available how participation had waxed and waned in living memory and (if we can find sources) the reasons for this. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. At the same time, we should recognise that the sources that indicate how the night is celebrated currently are unlikely to be as academically unimpeachable as the scholarly sources on the history of the celebration that PoD has used. But, if they are reliable, they are still valid. The alternative - which has been raised above but generally dismissed - is to have a separate article on, say, Bonfire Night (or Bonfire Night (celebration), or Bonfire Night (UK), etc.), leaving this article simply to set out the history of Guy Fawkes Night (which is what it does an excellent job of doing now). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dismissed by whom? I'm all in favour of having a general Bonfire Night article and leaving this one to focus on Guy Fawkes Night. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK - it was dismissed by PBS, but I misremembered your comment:

"So, do you think there needs to be a separate, new, article on the current cultural event that is Bonfire Night (UK)?" Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"No I don't. What would it say that this article doesn't already say? Perhaps there needs to be a general "Bonfire Night" article though, covering the custom in other parts of the world where it's got nothing to do with Guy Fawkes." Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actively proposing it by the way, just putting it forward as an option. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Creating a Bonfire Night article & leaving this article's content as historical, seems quite reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night does exactly what it says on the label, it sets out the history of Guy Fawkes night, and as it fulfils what the title promises, I don't understand why it needs to include other bonfire type events. It should not be watered down with in popular culture or mixed up with Diwali just because the celebrations take place at similar times. Mixing similar events just confuses the issue for readers. If there is sufficient material for a bonfire celebration, then those who wish to expand the focus of this article should write it, not attempt to dilute a good article with unrelated facts.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What J3Mrs said. Now who's going to write that article? Anyone? Or are we doomed to go round and round in circles defending this article against the attempted depredations of those who can't distinguish between a historical event and a modern-day custom that has absolutely nothing to do with Guy Fawkes? Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, "correcting" the disamb page that gives one of the prime meanings of "Bonfire Night" to be "Guy Fawkes Night, celebrated on 5 November in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries" would be a start. Of course, it is nonsense to say that one "has absolutely nothing to do" with the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well why not do it instead of trying to force others to do it for you? And if you want an article on Bonfire Night then why not write that too ... except that would be a lot harder than arguing the toss on a talk page, wouldn't it. Three editors have already expressed the strong view that this article is about the historical Guy Fawkes, not about the modern Bonfire Night. Several have argued in favour of a general Bonfire Night article, so it seems only to be you and PBS who are determined to wreck this article by hook or by crook. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 March 2011

Is that comment aimed at me? I don't think the disamb page should be changed. I think this article should be expanded to cover "Bonfire Night", because the two concepts are so closely linked. If others disagree, as they do, it is up to them to change that page, and explain why. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been explained repeatedly, but you don't seem to be listening. Take a look at the reports from NZ that PBS links to below. Do you see any bonfire's there? Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but why ask me to change the disamb page when I don't think it needs changing? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be much less frustrating all round if you actually read what I posted, and focused on this article rather than using the contents of a dab page to support your unsupportable argument. I'm not asking you or anyone else to do anything. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we at cross purposes somehow? A couple of paras up, you said - I thought to me - "Well why not do it instead of trying to force others to do it for you?" If that wasn't asking me to do something, what was it? More to the point, how should the opening few words of this article be rewritten, if GFN has "nothing to do" with Bonfire Night? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What I have tried to explain to you is that GFN is one of those occasions now known as Bonfire Night, but there are other Bonfire Nights in other parts of the world at different times and for different reasons, such as celebrating statehood for instance. GFN is a subset of Bonfire Nights in other words. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, and I understand the desirability of having an article (or articles) on "other Bonfire Nights in other parts of the world at different times and for different reasons". What I don't understand is whether there is a consensus for there being an article on Bonfire Night (UK), celebrated on 5 November, separate from this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've certainly detected no such consensus. What would be in such an article anyway? But I can see the logic of having a generic Bonfire Night article, separate from this one. Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

To repeat what I said in the previous section, no one is suggesting throwing unrelated events called Bonfire Night into this article. What is being suggested is that this article should include information on other places than the UK that currently celebrate Guy Fawkes Night -- and I am not talking about a few British ex-pats sitting around a fire in some distant corner of the world, but where the local population as part of their culture take part in such celebrations eg: Fireworks display goes ahead in capital -- PBS (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article to which you link nowhere mentions Guy Fawkes Night or Guy Fawkes and there wasn't even a bonfire. A strange kind of Bonfire Night. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It shows that many people in NZ celebrate Guy Fawkes Night but if you want a specific reference the tie the November 5 celebrations to Guy Fawkes here is one from 2008: Sky Show to Light Up Wellington for Guy Fawkes (29.10.08) www.wellington.govt.nz and a more general one to New Zealand Our guide to Guy Fawkes, by Ellen Dorset (Thursday Nov 5, 2009) New Zealand Herald, that make the point "WHY WE DO IT: Guy Fawkes night marks the downfall of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 in which Guy Fawkes and other Catholic conspirators tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament to end Protestant rule." -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, my view is that this article is about the commemoration, on or about 5 November of every year, of the Gunpowder Plot, in which Guy Fawkes was very visible until recently but is fast becoming less so. Until such time as new articles are created to deal with the commemoration of the Plot in certain places or at certain times, this article surely needs to deal with the subject in all places and at all times, and I support PBS in everything he has said. As Guy Fawkes is no longer to be seen at many 5 November Bonfire Nights, it may be useful to change the name of the article to Commemoration of the Gunpowder Plot. Failing that, then logically there may come a point at which the page needs to stop dealing with commemorations which have dropped Fawkes. I don't favour the second option — it strikes me as likely to cause confusion, and it would create the need for a new post-Fawkes article on very much the same subject. Thus, it seems to me that there is a real problem with the title of the article. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes no more sense to me than would renaming Christmas to Commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may say so, that is not a terribly helpful comparison, Malleus. Christmas is the second most important festival in the Christian calendar, and its name is immutable. I should be amazed if any encyclopedia lacked an article called "Christmas". "Guy Fawkes Night", on the other hand, is not at all an obvious title for an encyclopedia article and so far as I am aware is not one used by any other encyclopedia. It is merely one of a number of possibilities for this article, so I am surprised if anyone is unwilling to discuss it on the basis of a comparison with Christmas. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You may indeed say so, so long as I may say that you are talking complete cack. Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The downside of descending to such replies is that those who do so abandon any argument they had. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The upside is that it ensures there are no misunderstandings. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"'Guy Fawkes Night'", on the other hand, is not at all an obvious title for an encyclopedia article and so far as I am aware is not one used by any other encyclopedia". How many encyclopedias did you check before coming to that conclusion? Any? Britannica, for instance has an article on Guy Fawkes Day, here.

Then it seems you also made a brief search and were unable to find other encyclopedia articles called 'Guy Fawkes Night'? I don't understand which possible misunderstandings were escaped by the comment "you are talking complete cack" — which ones did you have in mind, please? Moonraker2 (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What is obvious to me is that you made no search at all, and are unaware of the earlier discussion here on whether this article should be called "Guy Fawkes Day" or "Guy Fawkes Night". Do try to keep up. The English Dictionary of Folklore clearly uses the name "Guy Fawkes Night"; did you check that? What in fact did you check before coming to your conclusion? Your navel? Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I must point out that I'm mostly ignorant on the subject with little prior knowledge. I'm not saying this has any significant bearing on the content discussion, but I just did a quick search on Google Books. A good bit of the works listed there primarily refer to the event as Guy Fawkes Night. The Encylcopedia of Observances, Holidays, and celebrations; a lengthly encyclopedia for example backs up the title (I realize it's a tertiary source, but it's worth mentioning). However, a lot of the works seem to say that Guy Fawkes Night is more commonly known nowadays as Bonfire Night - but only recently. Overall, the works focus more on the early "Guy Fawkes history" of the event although judging at brief glance there is still substantial information on the modern day commemoration of this day. I thought this book was really interesting because for a time in Australia and New Zealand it was called "Danger Night" or "Mischievous Night". It seems the Guy Fawkes Night title is used most often to describe the event's history while the Bonfire Night and other titles are becoming more prevelant to describe the event's growing transformation into more of a party/celebration commemoration. BV ^talk 04:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a Mischiefs Night "celebrated" in Yorkshire, certainly in the 1960s and 70s on November 1st that had more to do with minor acts of vandalism and nothing to do with bonfires. All these references confuse the issue, ie this article is about Guy Fawkes Night, not every firework lit in anywhere in the world sometime round early November.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an article about Mischief night which explains a little about the history. Richerman (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In other countries: two subsection sections

From the history of the article. "23:04, 24 March 2011 J3Mrs (→In other countries: this is not the focus of this article)" I do not understand the comment as it seems to imply that this article had never been about other countries. Yet until the end of last year that is what the focus of the article was on the modern event. So by it was the logic expressed in this revert we should revert all the edits that changed the initial focus of the article. This I think would be detrimental just as it is detrimental to remove these sections, which will allow for an expansion of this article. -- PBS (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment [1] and the answer above consider you are attempting to give undue weight to recent events that merely dilute the focus of a good article.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight has a specific meaning in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As a very large number of reliable sources discuss recent events, it is not giving undue weight to mention them in this articles. I could understand that point of view if you were arguing about whether to include sections of the historical text such as 18th century celebrations in the 13 colonies as this article not called the "history of Guy Fawks night", as those details are not mentioned in a lot of sources. However as this article is not large I do not see why we can not accommodate all of the current history and have a substantial section on the 21st century. -- PBS (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What I really meant was undue emphasis on trivia. Adding trivia just to make it bigger is well, diluting the focus. And anyway, what's size got to do with it? Are you confusing bigger with better? --J3Mrs (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How is discussing the 21st century commemorations around the world more trivial than comment such as "Generally, following Washington's complaint, American colonists stopped observing Pope Day,"? As I said this article has space for both. -- PBS (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the constant use of the word "trivia", but even more interesting is the expression "diluting the focus". May I please ask what this focus is, and who arrived at it and how? Moonraker2 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You're both puzzled and puzzling. Are you not able to read the title of this article? It's "Guy Fawkes Night", not "Bonfire Night". If you have a problem with the disambiguation page then I suggest that you take it up there. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely only J3Mrs knows what she meant by "to give undue weight to recent events that merely dilute the focus of a good article"? If she meant "to give undue weight to recent events that merely dilute the focus of the article on Guy Fawkes Night", which is what your answer is saying, that would be pretty surprising. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Without wishing to put words in her mouth, what I think she was suggesting is that you are a troublesome brat who is talking cack in a misguided effort to cause trouble. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have been less pleasant MF. I have lost the will to live catching up on this .........oh insert your own words.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed that one of PBS's admin colleagues has removed his Greater Manchester Cabal accusation thread from here? I think that Moonraker2 is just tagging along behind an admin in an effort to get that sheriff's badge for himself. Pity that he picked the wrong role model. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, it looks like Prodego was trying to prevent further drama by removing the thread which wasn't leading anywhere constructive, and to be honest I agreed with the action although it should have been archived rather than removed altogether. The ANI thread was removed for the same reason (although later restored). Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving or hatting would have been understandable, but Prodego deleted it. That's unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And Moonraker2 has removed a warning from his talkpage.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Kids will be kids. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Image in the lead

"23:28, 24 March 2011 Nev1 (makes sense to have the earlier image first" Why? Most articles about contemporary events have a contemporary image if one is available. -- PBS (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer, PBS, is quite straightforward. This is not an article about a practice that emerged in the 21st century, it has a history going back centuries. If there are to be two images in the lead – I suppose there is space – then arranging them in chronological order in the manner of the text of the lead makes a good deal more sense than doing otherwise. Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is space, two images in the lead is pointless, and more importantly, aesthetically unpleasant - or ugly. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I do prefer just having one lead image, this looks odd and unbalanced and moving one image effects the balance of the rest of the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So would I but when I placed one there it was reverted. So rather than revert a revert I added another. I think it better to move the historical picture down into the historical section and put a modern picture there. As there has been some debate on this page that most people now watch fireworks, then we could use one of those. On the other hand we also have one of a bonfire or one of a guy. I think any of those would be more suitable for the lead than the dull historical one. -- PBS (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the 18th century one is quite interesting. Having a historical image as the lead is fine. Nev1 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be fine, but is it the best? Why have a random historical image in the lead when there are 21st century ones freely available? -- PBS (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But what makes a 21st century image "better"? Nev1 (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that engraving is best actually, not particularly for the date but for what it shows. It shows a really good selection of revelry - bonfires, parties, fireworks - that none of the other images capture so well. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think some contributors here are perceiving Guy Fawkes Night as essentially a historical subject. That is clearly true of Gunpowder Plot, but Guy Fawkes Night has more in common with Maypole dance or Jazz: it is about a present-day reality which has a long history. Moonraker2 (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This article was a collection of crappy trivia before PoD turned it into a Good Article so I would be grateful if others would not try turning back into the mess that it was. It's called "Guy Fawkes Night" because it commemorates a historical event. An encyclopaedia is supposed to educate - not just be a collection of trivia. And as for the 21st century image - it's hardly interesting or informative is it? Richerman (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are so many of the people who pour praise on this article, and pour scorn on other editors, members of WP:WikiProject Greater Manchester? Yes, it's a well written, well researched, well referenced, article (which I don't think anyone seriously disputes) but its content is limited. If the article were retitled History of Guy Fawkes Night everyone would be happy, and a different article could be written about Bonfire Night. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it less interesting and informative than a 18th century engraving? It may not be interesting or informative to a person who has been to a recent GFN but it is to someone who has not done so. A recent photograph shows at a glance that this is a living national event and not a dead one like Oak Apple Day. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the engraving shows it's an event with a long history whereas the other image could be a group of people watching a car being torched - strangely, bonfires don't photograph too well. And yes, the secret cabal known as the GM wikiproject has been exposed before they can take over wikipedia - curses!! Richerman (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is an event with a long history, presumably the history did not finish in the 18th century. Putting up an historic picture at the start of a current event implies it is not a current event but a historic event. If the bonfire image is not there are other modern ones on this page to choose from. -- PBS (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree - and the comment above by mattbuck (Talk) sums up the other advantages of the image. Richerman (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We constantly come up against the side-stepping of the uncomfortable truth, underlined by PBS, which is that this article is not a sub-page of Gunpowder Plot and is not about an historic event, it is about a contemporary subject which has a long history. To say "It's called "Guy Fawkes Night" because it commemorates a historical event" doesn't convert 'Guy Fawkes Night' into a historical event. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be taking a minority view, this article is a stand alone article, not a sub-page of anything. --J3Mrs (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to speak with such authority then you need to start reading some decent sources on the subject. You might then realise that you're talking bollocks. Parrot of Doom 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, if enough people can be persuaded to support an incorrect view, it can become a majority view, but that does not make it correct. I completely agree that "this article is a stand alone article, not a sub-page of anything". To say "you're talking bollocks" is mere abuse, can we please have something more rational which does not evade the issue? Moonraker2 (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason why a page can not be in more than one category. Guy Fawkes Night is a modern commemoration/celebration and as such the Gunpower Plot is part of the history of the modern event, but equally the plot in its own right is part of the history of the reign of James VI. PoD you write "If you're going to speak with such authority then you need to start reading some decent sources on the subject." one does not need to be an expert on the history of the event to know that last year on November 5 Guy Fakes Night was widely celebrated, and to consider that describing the modern event is just as important to a comprehensive article as a decent history section. It does not have to be either one or the other as there is room for both in this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It may have been widely celebrated but on a scale that pales into insignificance compared to the historic commemoration, which was legally enforced by Act of Parliament. The modern celebration seems to be declining in popularity. It seems to me that lately it's become an excuse to let off fireworks - I do not recall the last time I saw children building a bonfire, as has happened for hundreds of years.

I agree that mention should be made of the modern celebration but I think it should be accorded due weight, and the simple fact is that most high-quality sources relegate it to a footnote, choosing instead to focus on its history. Much has been made in these discussions about Wikipedia policies but I've yet to see anyone point to a policy which says "ignore the reliable sources and place your own interpretation on the article". Parrot of Doom 11:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

PoD. It depends on the sources one reads. You are talking about histories, not news reports. Both are reliable secondary sources. If one was to do what you are suggesting then all contemporary events with a history would not have a contemporaneity section. For example, if I go to the Oktoberfest this year, then although the history is interesting, so too is the section entitled Facts and data. Rather than fighting tooth an nail against a much larger conrtemporary section by continually reverting edits that expand it, why not participate in making it better? -- PBS (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You know I could have written a long answer rubbishing everything you've just written, but the plain fact is that you do not have the first clue how to create a good article. I shall waste no more time arguing with you. Parrot of Doom 13:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK then, feel free to argue with me instead. If the sources you have read are to do with the history of a celebration, it is unsurprising that those sources do not go into any detail about how the event is currently celebrated. But, this article - by its title - does not claim to be simply about the history of the event, it purports to be about the event as a whole, including how and where it is currently celebrated and how it relates to other celebrations. Plainly, however, if it is intended to do that, it fails to do so. The options are either to develop this article to include more about the current celebrations; or to prepare an entirely separate (but linked, obviously) article on the celebrations that take place now on or around 5 November, which include those directly derived from GFN as well as others. Which of those two options would editors (and that is editors plural, please note) prefer? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand why this article needs to go into how it is currently celebrated other than what is there already. And I repeat yet again that to fill this article with odd facts from here and there (even with newspaper refs) would alter the focus of a good article. I have no objection to a broader Bonfire Night article but am opposed to trivialising this one. If the article PBS suggests as a model, Facts and data(?) is what he is suggesting, I think this article is better without it. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that proponents of the "modernization" of this article work on expanding Bonfire Night? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Because that would be better in principle, or because that is the only workable option in practice, given the opinions that editors have expressed about the merits of developing this article? Btw, partly my fault I know, but this thread is now covering matters addressed in the previous thread, "Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 3#To include information on the contemporary event around the world, or not?. Should we move this discussion back up there? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What expert sources do you suggest we use to document the modern celebration? Parrot of Doom 15:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The requirement is for reliable sources not expert sources. Beside just because a person is an historian and an expert on the history of Bonfire Night, that does not make them an expert on Bonfire night as it currently happens. -- PBS (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The history of which Bonfire Night? This article isn't about Bonfire Night, it's about Guy Fawkes Night. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I refer you the first sentence in the article and to my posting on this page at 23:30, 22 March 2011, where a reliable source explains that in England Bonfire Night is a common name for Guy Fawkes Night. -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would refer you to common sense, but I'm quite certain I'd be wasting my time, as you clearly have none. Time for another of your ANI reports now? Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Any article about Bonfire Night would draw on quite different sources - contemporary reliable sources, including journalism, rather than academic sources for the most part - and would be a quite different sort of article to this one. That doesn't mean it would be without merit. It would be useful to many readers, worldwide, perhaps as a general introduction to 5 November celebrations. Those looking to a more detailed historical perspective on GFN would turn to this article. Increasingly, it seems to me as though that would be the most workable solution. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

indeed it would, and it would address the topic of Bonfire Night rather than Guy Fawkes Night. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the two overlap - they are palpably not wholly unconnected celebrations - and any new article would need to address that overlap, just as this one (to some extent) does. The fact that this article has essentially originated and been expanded as "part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic" has led to it being developed in a certain, very well referenced, highly historically precise, direction. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not necessarily the full story. A more general - some would say more rounded, others would say more trivialising - article needs to be developed, to summarise and explain the links between the various celebrations which take place around 5 November. There is room for both articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum again I refer you to the first line of the article and to my posting on this page at 23:30, 22 March 2011, where a reliable source explains that in England Bonfire Night is a common name for Guy Fawkes Night. In other countries Bonfire Night may refer to another night, but the commendation that will take place on or around November 5 this year will be referred to by several names including Guy Fawkes Night and Bonfire Night (see for example Bonfire Night in London 2011) It is convenient to keep this article at the name as it is a common name and unique, but it is not the History of Guy Fawkes Night and like the Oktoberfest article would benefit from more on what happens during commemoration on or around 5 November in the 21st century. A contemporary photograph of a collage would help indicate that this is a current commemoration and not a defunct one like Oak Apple Day -- PBS (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You are just about the most accomplished fool I have ever encountered, and have no understanding of even basic logic; I guess that must have been an optional subject in fool school. Yes, it is true that today what was once known as Guy Fawkes Night is now more commonly known as Bonfire Night, but even here in the UK there are Bonfire Nights completely unrelated to Guy Fawkes. How hard is that to understand? Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

When you say the UK do you mean the UK or England? Notice I specifically said England not the UK. It is because of the fact that Bonfire Night can mean different commemorations or celebrations in different countries, that the most appropriate name for this article is Guy Fawkes Night. As it is not called the "History of Guy Fawkes" it should (like the like the Oktoberfest article) have more on the commemoration on or around 5 November in the 21st century. -- PBS (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Greater Manchester punching above its weight

It appears that User:Parrot of Doom, User:Nev1, User:J3Mrs and User:Malleus Fatuorum are all from Greater Manchester in England. Can someone please explain to me why such a high proportion of the edits to the article should be coming from Greater Manchester? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very easily. Guy Fawkes Night is an English custom and the editors from Greater Manchester are among the most prolific of the English editors. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It may have started as an English custom (although King James was also king of Scotland and Ireland and the principality of Wales) but today it is commemorated in other countries eg Edinburgh, Cardiff and in Jo'burg. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a point, Moonraker? Nev1 (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you (Moonraker) look at wife selling you'll see that GM editors were also prominent in the writing of that article, so whatever conspiracy theory you're hatching needs to be a little broader than your current effort. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just now glancing at the user contributions for User:Parrot of Doom and User:J3Mrs, and there appear to be great similarities in their edit summaries - for instance, they both use the words "oops", "expand", "ref", and "fix" on their own as summaries, and they both use "ce" to mean (I think) "copy edit". Do you have a club in Greater Manchester which teaches this shared style? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the innuendo, make an accusation or shut up. This thread has nothing to do with improving the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So we have a group of remarkably aggressive editors, all from the same place, all editing the same article at the same time. In editing Wikipedia, I have rarely come across anyone as pugnacious as you all are. If you read an accusation into that, then so be it. Something seems to be going on here which is rather unusual. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Why not say whatever it is that you're hinting at and then fuck off until you can substantiate any of it? But Greater Manchester most certainly isn't hippie central, no argument there. Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Note also Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Multiple-editor ownership, and two editors have recently expressed ownership concerns on this talk page. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't waste your time by trying to patronise me. I'm not easily impressed and I can't be bullied. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "oops", "expand", "ref", "fix", and "ce" are actually pretty common edit summaries. I use them all the time, but then again, I live near Manchester too. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I use some of those too. Must be the bad influence of that Manchester. Ucucha 01:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, a long time ago I did live in Didsbury, but am now an ocean away. I do use edit summaries such as "ce", "oops", "fix". Must be the water or something ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ha, is this thread for real?! Nearly woke my housemates up laughing... GiantSnowman 01:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonfire night

Starting a new section. Many places celebrate bonfire night: the Swiss National Day ends with bonfires; St. John's Eve is celebrated in many countries and has bonfires; bonfires are lit on the eve of Homecoming, an American high school and college football celebration - to name only a few example. I think the article Bonfire Night should include a bit of all these traditions leaving Guy Fawkes Night to explain the origins of the tradition. Guy Fawkes Night is specific to the UK with a specific origin.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Though nobody will write it as it appears to be more interesting to go round in circles.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For those of us who live in America and haven't a clue what Guy Fawkes night is, this article is necessary as it is written. Again, to us, bonfire night could mean many things, but I'd never even heard of Guy Fawkes night till I lived in the UK. FWIW. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Truthkeeper88. As you would suppose, "Guy Fawkes Night" is not the same as "Bonfire Night", which may or may not have something to do with Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot. Perhaps I might respectfully point out that if you are (as you say) one of "those who live in America and haven't a clue what Guy Fawkes night is", then you are hardly qualified to say "this article is necessary as it is written"! I can't help wondering, did something in particular prompt you to come here and say that? Moonraker2 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're intent on making accusations of impropriety then it would be best for you to make them openly and preferably with some evidence to support them. Obviously that goes for your tag-team member PBS just as much as it does for you. Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker has just provided the perfect reason for leaving things as they are, so that it is easily distinguishable from all those other generic Bonfire nights. Pity about the personal attack.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I've lived in England, I do have a clue. Americans who haven't lived in England don't. I think it's necessary for this encyclopedia to explain the genesis of Guy Fawkes night. PoD has been working on this series of articles for quite a long time and I put them on my watchlist because I'm interested in the history of the period and like to watch as articles are being developed. It's hard to miss the talkpage activity here, so I looked at the article, and then took the opportunity to make a comment. Didn't know, as an American, that wasn't allowed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no accusation of impropriety, and no "personal attack". I was certainly curious to know why Truthkeeper88 had said the article was "necessary as it is written" when it seemed he had also told us he had no knowledge of the subject. There was clearly a mismatch, but not necessarily for any improper reason. It appears from his further comments that he has some connection with PoD. There is nothing wrong in that, but we may as well see the reality. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My only connection to PoD is that I've read a few of his articles at FAC - I read a lot of articles as they come through FAC, and I watchlist them. He's never posted to my talk page - I think I've posted once to his. I don't even know why it's necessary to defend myself like this. Necessary as written means: it's necessary to explain to those who don't understand. What you're doing is telling me I can't post here, which is a personal attack and quite uncollegial. I made it pretty clear that I do understand the subject; the vast majority of Americans, who do read Wikipedia, don't. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you think very carefully before posting here again Moonraker2, because you and your accomplice PBS are beginning to look like one-legged entrants in an arse-kicking contest. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to reply to such comments. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You told me I'm not qualified to comment. I should reply to that? What do I need to qualify? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I said "if you are (as you say) one of "those who live in America and haven't a clue what Guy Fawkes night is", then you are hardly qualified to say "this article is necessary as it is written"!" I have no knowledge of your qualifications other than what you told us, so what I said was qualified by "if" and "hardly". Moonraker2 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of this sentence in my second post above you didn't understand: I'd never even heard of Guy Fawkes night till I lived in the UK. FWIW. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Lived" had a rather past tense sound. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, I had no idea what Guy Fawkes night was until I went to live in England. Because no one really answered my questions (stupid Yank, you know), I went to the library for a book and read about it. Now people can read about it here - if this page is left as is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the page is left as it is they can certainly read about the history of it, within some geographical limitations. I'm curious, may I ask, what was the book? Moonraker2 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It was more years ago than I care to admit, and haven't a clue quite honestly. The library was in Berkshire which is more information than is necessary. I think the reason for the bonfires is worth writing about. Do you know why the Swiss light bonfires on their bonfire night? That's also an interesting history. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88 I do not think anyone has suggested removing content from the history section. Instead what has been proposed is an expansion to describe the event in the 21st century. So yes people can read about the history here an be informed about the event in the 21st century. For example did you know that between a quarter and half the population of the capital of New Zealand turn out to watch fireworks in Wellington this last November 5th? That is just as encyclopaedic (and probably more useful to tourists) than some of the information contain in the current overseas section. -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when has it been one of wikipedia's aims to be useful to tourists? Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Since its beginnings Wikipedia has aimed at universality. It clearly doesn't and shouldn't focus on usefulness to travellers, but they are bound to be a significant user group. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So are vandals. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Two articles?

It has come up in discussions here several times, and once again today. I see much in favour of the notion of having more than one article. Parrot of Doom clearly believes that he has ownership of this article and that he should fight tooth and nail to exclude the contemporary events from what he sees as an historical article, even though there is no other article to cover them. So why on earth do we not split this into History of Guy Fawkes Night and (say) Guy Fawkes Night (or some other title if we can agree a better one), the second to deal with the more recent history? There are also some geographical issues, but to me it would be a nonsense to deal with Great Britain separately from other parts of the world which share the same traditions. We should need to agree an approximate time-boundary between the two articles, as there is really no natural one. What do people think? Moonraker2 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you really want to know? Isn't it obvious to you? Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you don't understand what I wrote at all. In the UK Bonfire night = Guy Fawkes night. In most of the rest of the world that's not the case. Leave this article as it is, stop accusing people and showing such bad faith, and consider the all the instances of Bonfire night that have nothing at all to do with Guy Fawkes that should go into a totally different page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88, looking beyond your accusation of "bad faith", which you did not explain, I do not understand whether you are agreeing or disagreeing. Some explanation would help. I broadly agree with you that "In the UK Bonfire night = Guy Fawkes night" (I say 'broadly' as I have little knowledge of Scotland and do not know whether that's true there), but the question I posed is more to do with a divide in time and in Wikipedia space than with a geographical divide. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You said I'm not qualified to comment here. Since this is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, yes, I think that's bad faith. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I said "if you are (as you say) one of "those who live in America and haven't a clue what Guy Fawkes night is", then you are hardly qualified to say "this article is necessary as it is written"!" What I said was qualified by "if" and "hardly", which does not mean "not". You have every right to comment, but others have the same right. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonfire Night already exists - go do as you will with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That has a much wider scope. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

... and that's exactly the point you drongo! Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean that 'Bonfire Night' has a much wider scope than just 5 November Bonfire Nights in the English tradition. Could we please drop the name calling? As you see, it has no impact on me, but it doesn't help the discussion at all. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker, it's rather obvious that that article has a wider scope than this one...and thus that would be a more appropriate place for the modern information on the various Bonfire Nights, as distinct from the historical Guy Fawkes event. As you say above, "it would be a nonsense to deal with Great Britain separately from other parts of the world which share the same traditions". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what "drongo" means Moonraker2? No, neither do I, as it's a made-up word. But why are you so hard of understanding? Are you doing this for a bet? Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Malleus If you think you made it up then perhaps it was a George Harrison moment, because apart from drongo meaning "The drongos are a family of small passerine birds of the Old World tropics", drongo also means in Ausi and Kiwi slang a fool or idiot. -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Parrot of Doom clearly believes that he has ownership of this article" - how ironic for someone who whinges about personal attacks to then make one themselves. Take it to RFC or ANI or wherever you like if you think there's a serious problem, otherwise - fuckoff. I fight tooth and nail not to keep the modern celebration out of this article (even though it's included with the appropriate weight), but rather to keep out badly-written and dubiously-sourced irrelevant trivia, as repeatedly inserted by PBS and someone else whose name escapes me. If you don't understand the difference by now then you clearly never will. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The question of "appropriate weight" appears to be your subjective judgement, Parrot of Doom. I certainly agree with keeping out "dubiously-sourced irrelevant trivia", but again the article seems to suffer from your subjective judgement of which sources are dubious and what information is "trivia".

I do not agree with your "personal attack" comments.

Although it's obscured by some people's attitudes, I think there is broad agreement that it would be wise to have the historical and contemporary aspects of Guy Fawkes Night dealt with on separate pages. However, the English Guy Fawkes/Bonfire Night is a very old and continuing tradition, and the separation I and Ghmyrtle have both proposed would not be achieved by some people here saying to others "you can have Bonfire Night for the contemporary side of Guy Fawkes Night". The title Bonfire Night is just as non-period-specific as Guy Fawkes Night, and it is clearly not focussed on this particular tradition. If everyone were persuaded now by the idea "it means the same thing", which it doesn't, then goodness knows where that would lead. If Parrot of Doom and his followers want an article on the subject which is purely historical, then the best way to achieve that and to avoid future uncertainty is to move this article unequivocally to "History of Guy Fawkes Night". Moonraker2 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"If Parrot of Doom and his followers" - there you go again making personal attacks. Nobody here is "following" me. There is no grand conspiracy, no secret cabal, just a bunch of experienced editors who think you're talking out of your arse. Parrot of Doom 22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Followers" plainly does not imply "grand conspiracy" or "secret cabal". Would it be possible to deal with the substance of the matter instead of the shadow of words? Moonraker2 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Its entirely possible for people who don't issue personal slights while complaining about the same. If you're unable to understand this then perhaps you are, as Malleus suggested, immature. Parrot of Doom 22:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That evades the substance again. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is arguing for a purely historical article? - no-one that I can see. This article has a number of references to modern day celebrations such as: "Despite such disagreements, in 2005 David Cannadine commented on the encroachment into British culture of modern American Hallowe'en celebrations, and their effect on Guy Fawkes Night" and "In Canada 5 November is commemorated with bonfires and firework displays, and official celebrations continue in South Africa. In parts of the Caribbean laws banning fireworks and explosives have muted the occasion, and safety concerns in New Zealand have resulted in similar sales restrictions, although public firework displays on Guy Fawkes Night remain popular there." As far as I'm concerned that's quite enough about present day practises. I would say though that the "20th century" heading isn't correct as the second paragraph is written in the present tense. Richerman (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am against two article as I do not think this one can be expanded. I am in favour of expanding it so that the balance between history and the current day is similar to that of the Oktoberfest article. For example Richerman do you know how large the 5 November celebrations are in New Zealand, South Africa and Australia? Do you know if which islands if any celebrate on November 5 in the West Indies? Do you know if there are differences in the types of celebrations in England depending on the county or between town and country? Are the celebrations as large in Scotland as England? As to the section "20th century" not being correct then lets also add a 21st century heading as well and expand that section. -- PBS (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Oktoberfest article is a mass of choppy paragraphs and bulleted lists and not a very good example to emulate, in my view. As for the questions you raise above, perhaps providing the answers here (with sources) would be useful, and then editors can decided what to add and what not to add. This talkpage conversation is a bit of a timesink, quite honestly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the style which is why I said "the balance between history and the current day". -- PBS (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's exactly the kind of article that PBS prefers (see here), and its exactly what he wants to do here. Parrot of Doom 23:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the Oktoberfest article you keep banging on about and it's a perfect illustration of what we don't want in this article - whoever gave it a 'B' rating has no idea what they're talking about. It's full of trivia and uncited crap - I mean, a list of the rise in the price of beers since 2001 and a whole uncited section on garbage and toilets? - do me a favour! I think you need to read wp:what wikipedia is not. Richerman (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The bit under WP:NOTBATTLE you mean? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be another one of these editors who bluelink some policy they've never read. Obviously Richerman was referring to this, which says explicitly "An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées". If you're going to defend PBS's model article on the Oktoberfest then I'm afraid that there's no hope for you. Or for wikipedia either if you and PBS get your way. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no. I was reading the bit that says: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." More aimed at PoD than you personally, I think. And I've no intention of "defend[ing] PBS's model article on the Oktoberfest", so there is still hope for me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you were the editor who first stooped so low as to accuse me of ownership, you plainly have no idea what being civil means. If you can't take what you dish out then its back to the playground for you. Parrot of Doom 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you seriously consider that "accusing you" of "ownership" is "stooping low", then I'm afraid you really shouldn't be here at all. Knowing what you do know about the proportion of edits on this article that have been yours, and knowing what you do know about how you have addressed the edits made by other editors - mostly, simply reverting them, with abusive edit summaries or other insulting comments, then you are the person in the best position to reflect on your activities and address your own conduct. I merely raised concerns - you are the one who has reacted in a ludicrously over-the-top and arrogant way. Get the mirror out - do you really like what you see? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps I should raise a concern. I'm concerned that you're an imbecile. Parrot of Doom 18:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No reason for concern - I assure you that I'm not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)