Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Restart this?

Hey, I noticed the discussions here had become a bit fractious. I also see a real concern about the breadth of coverage. Could we possibly restart the discussion about article content, this time without telling each other to stick anything up their arse or asking if they are blind etc? With your permission I would hat the couple of threads above and restart under here. Can I stress that I am not threatening or proposing any admin action here, and will not perform any myself, but can I also point out the obvious, that it's imperative for everybody to remain calm, not to satisfy a policy but to get the job done? In this case the job seems to be to decide how much or little we include in the article on certain topics. Thanks, all. --John (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the difficulties is around the assumption that "the job seems to be to decide how much or little we include in the article on certain topics". It seems to me that editors of this article (and apparently those who make decisions about FAs as well), don't necessarily accept that as the right starting point. In Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, criterion b states that an featured article (which, rightly or wrongly, this is) "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"; and criterion c that "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate." But those criteria can be in conflict with each other, when the exclusive use of "high-quality reliable sources" does not allow the subject to be placed "in context". Some of us think that the primary concern should be to provide a balanced overview of the subject, that informs readers about all aspects of GFN, but there seems to be a stronger view prevalent here that, if (for example) modern practices cannot be referenced to the same degree of academic thoroughness as the historical material, they should not be given the weight necessary to permit a balanced article. Is that right, and if so, what can and should be done about it? That question can and should be discussed separately from any discussions (elsewhere, not here) about editor behaviour, name calling and so on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means: But those criteria can be in conflict with each other, when the exclusive use of "high-quality reliable sources" does not allow the subject to be placed "in context".

What context would exist outside what sources determine is within the scope of the topic? Can you explain it? --Moni3 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I can explain it very easily. The context is what Ghmyrtle believes to be true. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a definition of what are Reliable sources what is the definition of "high-quality reliable sources"? -- PBS (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ones that you don't understand? Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You ask a question that I can not answer because no one has yet provided a definition. -- PBS (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) If no definition is on the Featured Article Criteria page, it doesn't exist. However, I would oppose an article at FAC that used juvenile nonfiction, blatant narrow search topics on GoogleBooks, out-of-date or obviously skewed and being used for a POV purpose, other encyclopedias, or any other sources that wouldn't hold up at WP:RS. Other poor sourcing exists and people can get creative, so I can't list everything I might oppose. Also, the approach. Articles should be constructed by summarizing the best collection of sources, not editor-driven. If I knew an editor had constructed an article to support a specific theory or viewpoint, or just added information to see it in there, I would oppose. Information on Wikipedia--not even mentioning FAs--should come from a collection of the best sources about the topic. Wikipedia was developed with the idea that people would add their knowledge, which is great in theory, but in practice clearly allows some editors to distort the academic consensus of topics. This is why the WP:OR policy was developed. To avoid any kind of OR, editors constructing articles should approach topics with as blank a slate as possible--also why Wikipedia recommends people not edit topics very close to themselves. That blank slate then allows the editor to determine how much emphasis each source puts on a certain point, rather than the editor's desire to have his opinion better represented influencing what goes in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with Moni3's point above about not including "juvenile nonfiction, blatant narrow search topics on GoogleBooks, out-of-date or obviously skewed and being used for a POV purpose, other encyclopedias, or any other sources that wouldn't hold up...." The problem comes when some aspects of a topic - such as their history - are more thoroughly covered in RS than other aspects of a topic - such as current practices, which tend to be covered in sources such as newspapers rather than in academic analyses - when, to an ill-informed reader, those current practices may be precisely what they come to WP to inform themselves about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If the best canon, etc., indicate that the Guy Fawkes Night celebrations back in the day are different from what goes on today, then that is the authority on that matter. I don't actually know. I've not read the sources so I can't say. If the best canon, etc., covers modern observances, then it should be included in the article. If they are two distinct entities, like November 5, 1605 and what went on then, and stuff going on now that only marginally relates to 1605 (kind of like the Anonymous mask and Guy Fawkes himself), why not an article like Modern observances of Guy Fawkes Night or something similar? --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

...As discussed previously, such as here. But, as ever, no consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This article as it stands could be moved to the "History of Guy Fawkes Night" leaving this page open for a less detailed history and more on current celebrations. However the primary reason for such a move would not be because the page is too large (is currently 41k we could afford to add another 20k before size became an issue), but because of an editorial stalemate which is never a good reason for a fork. -- PBS (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Ghmyrtle, why do you need consensus to start a new article? Is there a problematic issue with, say, a background section that summarizes this article, then the rest of the article explains modern observances of Guy Fawkes Night using the newspaper sourcing you mentioned or other sources about current holidays or observances in the UK? This article could include a sentence that says, I guess, that there are modern derivations of the 1605 incident and links to them. I'm assuming there is source information about this.

It seems to me that the renaming issue would be much more difficult to parse, much more dependent on fine detail and not easily resolved, unless it's very clear that the best canon, etc., specifically name the 1605 incident and the years following as "true" observances of Guy Fawkes Night and what has derived from that to be different. If the sources don't make this point, that's a true conflict and not easily resolvable. I imagine that argument would take a lot longer and not go very far, particularly in providing the information about modern Guy Fawkes Night to readers. Purely as a matter of economics in how much effort it will take to expend on that, it seems like starting a new article would not compromise accuracy here and achieve your goal of informing readers about the modern observances. It wouldn't be a redundant content fork, nor would it espouse a particular point of view (I think--sources would determine this). It would just take over where the canon, etc. and this article leaves off. --Moni3 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me you are suggesting putting the cart before the horse. Normally we have a subject and then if the history is large we have a summary section for the history and then a detailed history article (do you know of any examples the other way around?). Therefore if anything it is the contents of this article that needs to be moved to "History of Guy Fawkes Night". But as I said in my previous comment the size of this article is not an issue and an editorial stalemate is never a good reason for a content fork. -- PBS (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) It's rather more complicated than simply starting a new article, because we already have the Bonfire Night page and the similarly named disambiguation page, which refers back to this article. There's no consensus over how those pages should change or relate to this page either. And bear in mind that, in the context of this article, "no consensus" is like saying the attackers of a well-defended castle in the Middle Ages had "no consensus" to take the castle over - they tended to get artillery aimed at them, and shit poured in their general direction. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm more confused. If there's a Bonfire Night article, why add information better suited there to this article? Is it better suited there? Can Malleus or Parrot of Doom briefly describe how the sources used for this article treat 20th and 21st century observations of Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night? --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a fiction being propagated here, that this article fails to cover Guy Fawkes Night in modern times, but even a cursory glance at the Guy Fawkes Day section shows that to be untrue. The modern view is well-represented by a quote from that section: "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." What PBS and others seem to want is the inclusion of triva only vaguely if at all related to the subject. It would be interesting to see the modern-day celebration article that they have so far signally failed to produce, no doubt for lack of credible sources. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni3, they treat the modern celebration as almost irrelevant when compared to the anniversary's history, and barely mention it at all. They certainly don't say anything about bonfire toffee or songs. Parrot of Doom 21:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. PBS or Ghmyrtle, do you have what you want added to this article in a sandbox? And if not, can you put that together relatively quickly? Is that possible, with the information cited? Do those sources make connections to the 1605 incident? Do they also state that what is celebrated now is removed from the 1605 incident or do they mention it at all? Is it in prose or list format? Is it well and/or strongly connected to the FA-level prose in this article? Is it simple one-sentence mentions of what a community does in one location to mark the event without any tie-in to the overall theme of why people are observing the occasion? --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I always try to make helpful comments, I'm not interested in trying to rewrite this article myself - so, no. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's asking you to rewrite anything, just to write something, to demonstrate what you're on about. Put your money where your mouth is. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to inflame anyone any further - so, no, thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Is this discussion over now? --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps PBS might care to put his money where his mouth is, as Ghmyrtle seems either unable or unwilling? Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• From a quick look, there appears to be a disagreement about the degree of coverage that Traditional rhymes and Pope burnings should get in the article, is that accurate? If it is, could those wishing to increase the coverage of this topic please post their reliable sources and policy-based arguments somewhere? If it is something that has been discussed previously without consensus being reached, what has changed that would allow consensus to be reached now? Would the involvement of a wider group of editors be of help, for example a content RfC? These are all open questions intended to help me get my head around the dispute, and not aimed at anyone in particular. --John (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not just about "Traditional rhymes and Pope burnings" it is also about widening the scope of this article to include modern commemorations in various countries, see Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 4#Bonfire night is not just an historical event. -- PBS (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than just point back to old discussions, can you please summarize or list here the reliable sources that you'd like to see included in the article? From my dealings with other contentious topics, it is usually best to have a subsection called "Sources for X" and then list them all out where they can be discussed. Having to pick through archives to find them here and there is not easy nor helpful for people new to the topic. So, to summarize, please provide a list of reliable sources for what you would like to include'. Karanacs (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How about the two in the section higher up this page in #This article needs to be expanded to cover the 21st century and current practices? -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If sources were cited in that section, I've missed them. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

See the sentence "For the New Zealand celebration I provided reliable sources on this talk page see my previous posting on 18:41, 24 March 2011 in which I sourced the comments from a New Zealand government website and the New Zealand Herald both of which are reliable sources." -- PBS (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As a minimum those wishing to improve the article need to bring their reliable sources here. If that is not possible we can close this and move on. --John (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Some are arguing it is not reliable sources that are needed but "high-quality reliable sources". Where in policy are "high-quality reliable sources" defined or can we simply agree on the use reliable sources as defined in WP:SOURCES?

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

The first sentence does not apply as the commemoration of "Guy Fawkes Night", unlike Oak Apple Day is not primarily an historical event. In countries such as England and New Zealand, it an annual event with a history. While it is appropriate to use academic and peer-reviewed publications for the history section of the article, it is neither appropriate of practical to use such publications for the non historical sections of the article. For those we need to rely on other sources as mentioned in the verifiability policy. -- PBS (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The existence of sources on something does not necessarily mean it has to be included on this article. There would also need to be a consensus that the addition improved the article. Rather than focusing on the letter of the policy (which is a minimum requirement), why not pop your suggestions up here, along with the sources you would use, and then we can see what we think of them? --John (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion is again in danger of veering off the point. By the standards applied elsewhere in the article, it's likely that sources about the current celebrations would be of lower quality. I think that's actually common ground between everyone here. The problem is (sorry to repeat myself) that, as a consequence, information about the modern celebrations is left out of the article, and the result of that in turn is that the article appears unbalanced to (at least some) readers. Either that doesn't matter - because we are primarily here to summarise sources, rather than providing a service to inform readers - or, it does matter. If it matters, then either the FA criteria are not being properly applied, or they are not up to the job. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a fundamental problem in terms of the scope of the article in including more about current celebrations? Or is it more a question of sourcing? But honestly, while I am sympathetic to the views of both sides here, I really think the best thing at this stage is throw together a proposed paragraph or two, with sources, and let folks hash it out based on that. Sometimes too much discussion on theory can hold back good practice from happening. It's time, if anyone wants to add material of this type, to put it up for discussion. I am sure there will be a compromise acceptable to all. --John (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A "fundamental problem" exists only for those people who believe they know better than the most comprehensive and authoritative sources available on the subject. These people have been asked time and again to present sources which demonstrate that their belief, that this article's weighting of the subject is inappropriately biased toward the history, away from the modern day, is valid. In response they are either unable or unwilling to provide anything other than their personal opinions. Presumably this is because they can't find anything on Google. It might help if they actually spent money (as I did) investigating the matter thoroughly - you won't find Cressy's work anywhere on Google, for instance.

Therefore a proposed paragraph would be nothing more than a cobbling together of various Google results. A synthesis of unrelated news pieces, it will contain nothing about how such traditions evolved, and will do nothing to improve the reader's understanding of the scope and history of the day. In short, it will be a list of trivia, tacked onto the article's end like a bunch of tin cans and a "just married" sign. You can be assured that I will most certainly object to any such thing being added to this article. Parrot of Doom 10:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cart before horse, in my opinion. Balance and weighting are (or should be) determined from what readers want to read and be informed about, rather than what sources and editors necessarily provide for them. There is evidence in these discussions that the article does not give readers all the information they are looking for. The article may be as good as WP is able to do, given FA processes, but in my opinion it shows a flaw in the system. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. Can you imagine? I wrote the Lesbian article, basing information in it on what the best sources have to offer. Can you just wrap your mind around an article on the same topic that used reader interest to determine what should be covered? It would be drunk bar girls and naked boobs the entire way. But on the upside, every fraternity at every college in every English-speaking country would instantly be hardcore Wikipedians. I hope you can see why articles should cover what authoritative sources cover, not what individual editors imagine readers want to see. --Moni3 (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL. However, previous discussions on this page, raised by multiple editors, have suggested that it is the balance here that needs tweaking. To be fair to POD (!), he has made efforts to do so - it's just that, perhaps, they have not gone quite far enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gone far enough. I was part of the previous discussion and at that time no sources were brought forward. What I saw in the previous discussion, and what's happening again is a case of "the article doesn't cover what I or a my friends think it should cover." Moni3 is spot on with her post above - until high quality sources are consulted, it's impossible to predict how an article will turn out. We let the sources lead us - we don't lead the sources. Until Ghyrmtle or PBS can produce good sources that show the page, as it is written, is not comprehensive, then I think it's time to disengage here. But that's just my opinion. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm with John and Truthkeeper here. At the very least, after what I imagine are pages of arguments over content proposed for this article, if PBS and Ghmyrtle can't or won't provide a sample of prose and related sources they want to place in this article, I don't know why we're having this discussion. I understand there was a NZ gov't source (link?) and a newspaper source (link or pullquote?). Are there other sources or is this info just about New Zealand? How are we to determine how appropriate this information is without being better informed? Without this available, I don't understand what PBS and Ghmyrtle are trying to accomplish. What information are you seeking to insert into this article? --Moni3 (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This. Parrot of Doom 22:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've never expressed a view either for or against that particular edit, only about the principle. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

@Moni3, have you ever been to Guy Fawkes Night? I ask that because your user page indicates that you are American. If you have not then can you tell from this article what happens on the night or where it happens?

The "Other countries" section seems to end in the 1880 and is exclusively about extinct commemorations in North America.

I have never been in America for Thanksgiving, but if I wanted to know what to expect then Thanksgiving and Thanksgiving (United States) gives a history and a description of what happens today. Also to my surprise I learn from the article that there are other places in the world that celebrate "Thanksgiving".

If I were a tourist visiting the US around Thanksgiving I would have some idea what happens from the Wikipedia article on the subject. I do not think we can say the same for this article because what little information there is on current celebrations is misleading and buried at the end of a section that starts with "William's birthday fell on 4 November, and for orthodox Whigs ..."

So don't think you can extract the same information from this article about Bond fire night as it is commonly called in England (Is it anti-Catholic to celebrate Guy Fawkes' Night? by Guy Walters in the Telegraph on 1 November 2010). I think that this article is so poor you can not even tell what the common name is from the current wording. I raise this specific point here because as you will see in the extract below Malleus Fatuorum has repeatedly raised the issue that Bond Fire Night (as Guy Fawkes Night is commonly called in England) is not the same thing, and although I have bought up the source above to explain that one is a common name for the other, AFAICT he chooses to ignore it.

There is little point beavering away finding more sources, when we have another editor (not Malleus Fatuorum) who is willing to repeatedly break the 3RR rule to prevent anything of which he does not approve being placed in the article. For example if we were to section up the history in England then we could add a 21st century section, but every time more section headings are added they get reverted, so currently one is forced to read lots of history before one can find one paragraph with a very narrow POV on current events that is based on only a few selected sources.

So I suggest rather than look at lots of sources all at once, we salami slice it and start with the New Zealand example as a test case, and then investigate others once NZ has been resolved (after all an article is meant to be a work in progress and we can add information incrementally). For ease of access here is a copy of the post from 18:03-18:41, 24 March 2011:

Extended content

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)

-- PBS (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Great. Why can't you do that in a sandbox until your experiment has been perfected? --Moni3 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Because I am not wasting more time on it until we have an agreement that the sources are reliable sources and as such they contain information that can be included on this page. Further there has to be an agreement as to where it ought to be placed, which leads to discussions over adding sections to the page, to make 21st century more accessible. You will notice that the text in the collapse box above was discussed months ago. Following it in the archives is a section called "In other countries: two subsection sections". I would strongly recommend that you read the archives and also look at the article at the start of the last Bonfire Night in Britain, (which although not a well developed article had a better balance between history and contemporary events around the world than the current version does), because without that understanding we are in danger of repeating the arguments. Now for the first slice.

Does anyone think that the NZ sources above do not meet the requirements of reliable sources or that for some other reason they should not be used to support information in the article? -- PBS (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Even though you're once again treading the path that led to your RFC, at which you were strongly recommended to recognise when your arguments were becoming repetitive, you still have not demonstrated why celebrations in other countries are worth mentioning when the best sources available on this topic deem them trivial. And I'll tell you now, any attempt to "salami slice" this article will be reverted. Parrot of Doom 09:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Which best source(s) deem "celebrations in other countries" trivial? -- PBS (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again you fail to realise that the point at question is the lack of comprehensiveness of "your article" as it stands. Any article which concerns an ongoing folk celebration, which will be celebrated once again next month, that is 99.9% concerned with its pre-1850 history is a travesty. You may have noticed that this dispute has come to the attention of those outside of your band of supporters, so knee-jerk reversions by yourself may be noted adversely.Urselius (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So show me a source, any source with a full history of this day, that demonstrates this "lack of comprehensiveness". Not random Google results, not footnotes on a page in a book about something else entirely, not sleeve notes in a CD recorded by some obscure band; a reliable source about Guy Fawkes Night that places as much emphasis on the modern day celebration as you believe should exist here. Then your views might gain traction. And please note I couldn't give a flying fuck who notes what. Parrot of Doom 10:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The nature of ongoing celebrations is that they are not usually the subject of comprehensive academic treatments, indeed the fact that they are continuing to evolve means that they cannot be fully covered in academic literature. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic history it needs to be encyclopedic, in that any article must reflect all aspects of its subject not only those parts which happen to have been covered by academic writings. Therefore your call for academic citations for everything, particlularly contemporary events and practices, is entirely invalid. There are countless wikipedia articles on TV programmes, cartoon strips and other modern subjects which will have no academic coverage at all. The fact that these articles are not academically sourced has no impact on their relevance or usefulness as part of an encyclopedia.

In regards to your final comment, did you by any chance attend classes in the Richard Nixon method of English expression? Urselius (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

James Sharpe's rather authoritative book on the subject was published in 2005 and is still in print. Antonia Fraser's history of the Gunpowder Plot was published in the same year and is still in print. Neither of these sources bothers much with the modern celebration, food, songs, other countries, whatever; instead, they place a very heavy emphasis on the history of the day as part of the religious turmoil that for about 250 years dominated much of England's politics. Cressy was published in 1992, and he says almost nothing about the modern day. Are you seriously suggesting that between 2005 and now, 5 November has changed so much that their summaries are invalid? You'd think, being experts, that if there was much to say about the matter, they'd have said it.

Now where are those sources whose structures support your assertion that this article is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject? Because that's what we work from here - sources. Not personal opinions, but sources, and on featured articles especially, high-quality sources. One more time, where are the sources that support your claims? If you don't present any then as far as I'm concerned, it's the end of the discussion. Parrot of Doom 11:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

One clue might be in your own words - "Antonia Fraser's history of the Gunpowder Plot..." Why should that book - or the other sources you cite - contain anything of substance about modern celebrations, when it's about its history? If you look at sources about the history of an event, the article you write will be about the history of the event. Yet you have resisted suggestions that this article be retitled "History of Guy Fawkes Night". Sources cannot identify whether a portmanteau article, which this is, is balanced or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think it is I who resit that idea. I can't remember PoD expressing an opinion on it one way or the other. But please pull up an edit of this talk page that proves me wrong. It would be nice to find that I have something I agree on with poD :-) -- PBS (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I think - apologies. I don't favour renaming the article, just improving it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Read the book and you'll find out. Sources please, come on. Parrot of Doom 11:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have provided sources for a new paragraph on NZ you have yet to say if you think that they are not reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why they'd be used, as opposed to a good source such as the Opies' book suggested below. Also just want to say that the Thanksgiving article is pathetic, so I don't think that should be used as an exemplar. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as "either one or the other", as sources from NZ do not exclude the use of Opies' book for the inclusion of other information. -- PBS (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You're either being deliberately obtuse or incredibly stupid. I'm not going to explain this again. Parrot of Doom 17:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh do, please! I find your version of logic so entertaining.Urselius (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not understanding why the discussions above about Traditional Rhymes and Pope Burnings were stopped and this one started instead. Judging from their titles, those sections seemed to have a focus on specific content issues while this one seems too vague and rambling. On the matter of rhymes and cob-coaling, I support inclusion of some mention of these as this would go nicely with the other penny-for-the-guy content which should be generally expanded. Sources such as the Opies' Lore and Language of Schoolchildren seem quite satisfactory to support this. Warden (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Colonel Warden. I consider the Opies an excellent source. The book is here and the relevant sections on pages 280 to 282. I think this could be added to the "Guy Fawkes Day" section. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• I cannot preview those pages of that book (some are available on Amazon) but so long as the information can be placed in context (and not tacked on as trivia) I have no objection to a minor expansion of these traditions. Parrot of Doom 17:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Right, with help from Moni3 (who has actually done what nobody else wanted to, and provided me with a range of high-quality sources), I've found enough information to enable me to place GFN songs into the article, and to also add a little more on "guying". Parrot of Doom 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• • If you had not so vehemently denied that you owned this article, a naive person could misinterpret "provided me" and "I've found enough information to enable me to place GFN songs into the article" as an indication of ownership. A Wikipeida policy defines "WP:SOURCES what do you mean by "high-quality source"? -- PBS (talk)
    • Since I assume you are not this naive person of which you speak, you have in all likelihood already reached the more correct conclusion that PoD has in cooperation with Moni3 been able to add this information in a manner appropriate to a featured article, which is to say in keeping with the featured article criteria - which, incidentally, are what governs the use of higher-quality sources in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of various sources

The lore and language of schoolchildren By Iona Archibald Opie, Peter Opie

Starting on p. 276: "Mischief Night" is observed throughout England, esp. Yorkshire, Lancashire, Chesire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Lincolnshire. Many children believe lawnessness is permissable "in happy warfare with the adult world". Minor vandalism is perpetrated throughout England in form of knocking on doors and running away, prank calls, stealing garbage can lids and hoisting them on lampposts, painting windows, smothering doorknobs with treacle or tying doorknobs to other doorknobs, placing milk bottles so people will knock them over, house addresses moved to other houses, backyards turned upside down (what?) and rifled through for bonfire kindling, and drainpipes stuffed with paper and lit on fire.

Possibly pertinent footnote: November 4 became Mischief Night in the late 19th century (1880-1900), in other places more recently.

Pp. 277 - 280 is an extensive discussion of the many pranks children have played on Mischief Night.

P. 280 Guy Fawkes Day - children go around for days or weeks before collecting wood ("chumping" in Yorkshire, "wooding", or "cob-coaling"). Words to a song included where kids would knock on doors, sing stuff about begging for wood in prep for Bonfire Night. Preparations underway by 3rd week in October.

P. 281 not available because GoogleBooks sucks.

P. 282 Lyrics or poems--unclear which, describing the tradition behind the treason/gunpowder plot and Guy Fawkes Night. Extensive footnote on this page about how far back these lyrics appear in print.

P. 283 not available because GoogleBooks sucks.

This is close paraphrased. --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

See also

• Encyclopedia of Observances, Holidays and Celebrations from MobileReference - discusses observations of Guy Fawkes Night in Australia, UK, and Caribbean. Encyclopedia reference. Better one could be found.
  • Sourced from Wikipedia, and therefore unusable.
• Halloween and other festivals of death and life By Jack Santino - discusses modern observances and its influence in/from Halloween, discusses Bonfire Night in Canada, and extended discussion of rituals performed in 1980. Looks like a good FA source from what I can see.
  • I have found errors in Santino's books and I'd hesitate to use his work again. -- User:Parrot of Doom
    • I have no opinion on this. I've not read Santino's books so I can't speak intelligently about them. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• The Morning Side of the Hill By Houldsworth, Marion - account of life in wartime Australia, includes detailed description of Guy Fawkes Night observations (start p. 90). Looks like a good FA source from what I can see.
  • This contains personal anecdotes only, it makes no attempt to study the subject at hand, and I see no reason why it is relevant enough to warrant mention here. -- User:Parrot of Doom
    • Only to mention that the day is observed in Australia. Consider this a primary source and a secondary one would be better to describe the overall scope of how it is celebrated there. May still be good for quotes or primary source info. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• The History of Junkanoo: My Way All the Way By Anthony B. Carroll - discusses life in the Bahamas and includes description of Guy Fawkes Night (p. 2.) Looks like a good FA source from what I can see.
  • We already know GFN was exported by English settlers to colonies around the world, I'm not sure what the narrow perspective on history these anecdotes present would add here. -- User:Parrot of Doom
    • Similar to above about Australia. Primary source. Could be used for quotes, etc. if a better secondary source is available about the observance in the Bahamas. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night By Nicholas Rogers - extensive discussion about Guy Fawkes Night and its relation to Halloween, its quintessential English nature, and its spread to Australia, New Zealand, and how it is received in Scotland and Ireland. (start p. 37) Looks like a good FA source from what I can see.
  • This is more useful as it contains more information about Ireland. Parrot of Doom 19:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Btw, when I say "Looks like a good FA source from what I can see" means it wouldn't be tossed out with screaming laughter at FAC. It doesn't mean it's a perfect source that should be used without critical thought. Someone give me a barnstar for skipping over England for Dummies during my cursory search for sources. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see these titles, but none of their text:

• The sociology of recurrent ceremonial drama : Lewes Guy Fawkes Night, 1800-1913. by J E Etherington; University of Open.
• GUY FAWKES NIGHT Author: John Press Edition/Format: Article Article : English Publication: Critical Quarterly, v1 n3 (195909): 227-228 (I might could get access to this.)
• Penny for the guy ... Guy Fawkes Night. by Ron Wild Publication: History Magazine, 3 (2) (Dec 2001): 54
• Bonfire Night!: Remember, remember Guy Fawkes Night and its fireworks by S Ellis Publication: British heritage. 31, no. 5, (2010): 24-27

I have access to these articles (but have not checked to see they have already been used in this article):

• Pope Night in Portsmouth, N. H. John Albee The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 5, No. 19 (Oct. - Dec., 1892), pp. 335-336
• English Folk Belief and Customs Christina Hole Journal of the Folklore Institute, Vol. 7, No. 2/3, [Special Issue: The Anglo-American Folklore Conference] (Aug. - Dec., 1970), pp. 126-135
• The Evolution of Juvenile Delinquency in England 1890-1914 John R. Gillis Past & Present, No. 67 (May, 1975), pp. 96-126
• Repeated articles in the British Medical Journal warning about mishandling of fireworks.
• Two English Fire Festivals in Relation to Their Contemporary Social Setting Venetia J. Newall Western Folklore, Vol. 31, No. 4, Festival Issue (Oct., 1972), pp. 244-274
• Guy Fawkes' Day Charlotte S. Burne Folklore, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Dec., 1912), pp. 409-426
• Guy Fawkes Day at Fresh Creek, Andros Island, Bahamas 158. Daniel J. Crowley Man, Vol. 58, (Jul., 1958), pp. 114-115
• The Fifth of November and Guy Fawkes M. Peacock Folklore, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec., 1907), pp. 449-450
• Fifth of November Customs Mabel Peacock, C. S. Burne Folklore, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Mar., 1903), pp. 89-91
• All Hallows Eve and Other Festivals in Connaught (Ireland) Hugh James Byrne Folklore, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec., 1907), pp. 437-439
• Trickster on the Threshold: An Interpretation of Children's Autumn Traditions Ervin Beck Folklore, Vol. 96, No. 1 (1985), pp. 24-28
• Children's Guy Fawkes Customs in Sheffield Ervin Beck Folklore, Vol. 95, No. 2 (1984), pp. 191-203
• Boston's Political Street Theatre: The Eighteenth-Century Pope Day Pageants Sherwood Collins Educational Theatre Journal, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Dec., 1973), pp. 401-409

I'm not suggesting all these be used, but they seem to be better sources than ones mentioned above. --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to use any of the older sources (1892, 1903, 1907 et al) as they'll present a very dated outlook on 5 November commemorations, but "Children's Guy Fawkes Customs in Sheffield" sounds interesting. Parrot of Doom 21:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the 1892 article about Portsmouth, NH is already cited in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I made some suggestions at the time of the FAC, and some of the sources I pointed out related to Australia ended up at Talk:Bonfire Night#Sources relating to various traditions in Australia. The Cressy essay from 1994 that I pointed out below has this quote: "And even today this anniversary is kept in England with bonfires and fireworks, as part of an evolving if degenerated tradition. Every English child knows the rhyme..." and then quotes the first four lines of "Remember, remember, the fifth of November", which is covered at both Gunpowder Plot in popular culture#In verse and Gunpowder Plot#Bonfire Night, which may be confusing for the readers because Remember remember the fifth of november redirects to Guy Fawkes Night, which has no mention of the rhyme at all. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Update: Since I wrote the above, mention of the rhyme has been added (noting here to avoid confusion if anyone looks at the article text after reading my comment). Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Do we all holy rites: Let there be sung Non nobis and Te Deum." Urselius (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

We'll save the celebrations for the day you contribute something useful to the article rather than making sarcastic comments from the sidelines. Richerman (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add a single sentence, with citations, referencing traditional rhymes and songs, but was very effectively stymied. I tried, and perhaps it is just as well that others have taken over given the levels of vituperation my attempt provoked. Incidentally, I contributed material to this article long ago which was removed with no consultation or discussion - the phrase "sauce for the goose" - or parrot - springs to mind.Urselius (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than squabble, maybe you could both comment on the section I started below? I'm considering adding something to the article to cover the wider historical context as written about by Cressy, but I am reluctant to do that until there is some response below. If there is no response at all below, I may go ahead anyway, but the matter of the rhymes looks to be dealt with now (though FWIW, I see Urselius made these edits on Gunpowder Plot in popular culture, so for Richerman to say that Urselius is only making comments from the sidelines is not entirely accurate since the encyclopedia as a whole is being improved by these citations), so can we please move on from that? Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

For anyone with access to JSTOR the following account of the modern conflation of Guy Fawke's Night and Hallowe'en in popular British culture could be very applicable for the "modern section." I have access to JSTOR but I do not now care to edit this page in person, as I have a justified apprehension that any edit I make, whatever its relevance or the quality of its citation, will be challenged and/or reverted.

Folklore vol. 96:i, 1985, 24 Trickster on the Threshold:An Interpretation of Children's Autumn Traditions, ERVIN BECK. "An observer of the autumn scene on the streets of Sheffield in 1973 reported: I was walking home from work about 5.30. Outside the shops opposite the Drama Studio in Glossop Road a boy was sitting with a guy. A girl was running round with a turnip lantern saying, 'Spare a penny for the Guy, mister?' Is Hallowe'en now merging with Bonfire Night?'"Urselius (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the Gunpowder plot in popular culture article, surely every lyric, poem, or song derived from 5th November cannot be placed in article space, even a start class article. This looks more like stuff for Wikiquotes. There are two versions of songs in the Guy Fawkes Night article now with sourced explanation about how the 5th November 1605 incident led to them being popularized. Can I just clarify that the editors in this discussion aren't attempting to include every song they've heard or read about the event? Because that's not what Wikipedia is for. --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni is absolutely correct here. Eventually, the text of the rhymes should end up on Wikiquote, but the folkloric sources cited by Urselius will hopefully contain more than just the text of the rhymes and will allow later editors to say something sensible about the rhymes in whatever article is most relevant. But the point here is more that Gunpowder Plot (a featured article) had and has a quote of the most famous rhyme, while this article didn't until added very recently, and the presence of 'Remember, remember the 5th of November' in one featured article but not this one (which is the 'main subject' link for one of the sections of Gunpowder Plot) was a glaring inconsistency. Readers reading the Gunpowder Plot article would have reached the 'Bonfire Night' section, seen the rhyme quoted there, and then maybe followed the 'main' link to this article and found nothing about the rhyme. That just doesn't make sense to me, as the section in 'Gunpowder Plot' should be a summary of this article, but it contained something not present in this article. It would be nice if it was acknowledged that this was an inconsistency that has now been fixed. Or to put this another way, some editors are very conservative about suggestions made for additions to articles, and other editors are less conservative. For those genuinely trying to help, it can be very frustrating to be rebuffed by a default attitude of "well, maybe, but no, it's not really needed here". I accept that part of the job of stewardship of a featured article is to prevent degradation, but equally there is a responsibility to not be overly conservative and stand in the way of legitimate additions. As always, it is a balancing act. Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a balancing act, but any experienced editor knows that most additions to an FA are not improvements. I'm speaking generally of course, not about any one specific addition suggested here. Part of the problem, I think, is that there is a core of three separate articles: Guy Fawkes, Gunpowder Plot and Guy Fawkes Night, with their rather poor relative Gunpowder Plot in popular culture. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that is part of the problem. (By the way, a good part of the text at Gunpowder Plot in popular culture is actually about Guy Fawkes in popular culture, notably the V for Vendetta references which relate to a character specifically inspired by Fawkes.) There are also, of course, the articles Bonfire Night and Bonfire Night (disambiguation), about which discussions have also been somewhat fraught. It may be too much to ask, but establishing, through consensus, the best dividing lines between the various articles would be another step in the right direction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There was some discussion when I spun off the popular culture article as to how it ought to be named: Guy Fawkes in popular culture or Gunpowder Plot in popular culture but to be honest I don't feel strongly about either. Arguably the present title is more accurate, as not all of the popular culture references are to Fawkes, who was after all a minor bit player really. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There has not been a consensus for the current format of this article in months if not a year. This article is currently about the "history of Bonfire Night" it is not about "Bonfire Night" as the title implies. -- PBS (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

But this article isn't about Bonfire Night, it's about Guy Fawkes Night. Malleus Fatuorum 04:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We have had this conversation before see the first sentence of the article "Guy Fawkes Night, also known as Guy Fawkes Day and Bonfire Night," and see this quote: "However, I'm certain that most people who attend Guy Fawkes' Nights – which are, after all, more commonly just called Bonfire or Firework Nights" (Is it anti-Catholic to celebrate Guy Fawkes' Night? by Guy Walters in the Telegraph on 1 November 2010) -- PBS (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We have indeed had this conversation before, so let's not bother having it again. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is not clear. Do you agree that Bonfire Night it is a common name for Guy Fawkes Night or not? If not why not? -- PBS (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, my comment is perfectly clear: I agree with your statement that we have had this conversation before, and suggest that unless you have a strong reason to believe consensus has now changed, rehashing the same conversation over and over again is tendentious. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Asyou interjected into this thread I am supprised that you are taking my words out of context. I was referring specifically to Malleus Fatuorum comment of "But this article isn't about Bonfire Night, it's about Guy Fawkes Night" and in doing so MF is ignoring evidence in sources already presented to him that they are two different names for the same celebration. It is a shame that Malleus Fatuorum does this because it does not help move the conversation along to a resolution of our differences. More generally I do not think that there has been a consensus on the breadth of content in this article, if you think a consensus was reached one was reached then please show me where in the archives it was achieved. -- PBS (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of what you were referring to. What I am unaware of is why you are continuing to pursue that point when it is clear that it is not being engaged. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many tens of millions of people, British and other nationalities, know that Guy Fawkes Night is entirely identical to Bonfire Night, so the consensus has indeed not changed at all.Urselius (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you have yet to produce a source that says that Bonfire Night is not another name for Guy Fawkes Night. If so why make comments like you last one, instead of engaging in a constrictive conversation? After all it is you who is asserting "this article isn't about Bonfire Night, it's about Guy Fawkes Night" while ignoring the first sentence of the article and reliable sources that say that they are name used for the same event. -- PBS (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Opies source, take 2

This is a close paraphrase of The Language and Lore of Schoolchildren by Iona and Peter Opie, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, copyright 1959, 3rd printing 1961 No ISBN.

Previously, I summarized information about Mischief Night, a predecessor to Guy Fawkes Night on 4 November. I don't know if that is relevant here so I won't repeat it but it's there above in case anyone wants to read it.

P. 280: Children's cartoons commonly depict the excitement of Fireworks Day. Children all over England go searching for firewood (usually in the form of yard debris) in anticipation of the event, calling it "chumping" in Yorkshire, or "wooding", or "cob-coaling" around Lancashire. They sing a song in Lancashire that goes:

We come cob o' coaling for Bonfire time,
Your coal and your money we hope you'll enjoy,
Fol-di-day, fol-di-day, fol-di-diddlei-do-day,
Down in yon cellar, there's an old um-ber-ella,
And in yonder corner there's an old pepper pot (or "box"),
Pepper pot, pepper pot, morning till neet,
If you give us nowt, we'll steal nowt,
But wish you good neet.

(Moni's comment: sic for neet?? Is that some crazy English thing I never caught in reading All Creatures Great and Small?)

"Neet" is a spelling reflecting the Lancashire dialect pronunciation of "night." "Nowt" is "nought," with the meaning 'nothing.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 09:53, 30 October 2011

By third week in October, "preparations are well in hand". Reporters comment on large piles of wood gained from clearing gardens, old chairs, or lorry tyres. A girl from Monmountshire states by October 14 their bonfire pile is well underway. They have competitions to see who can build the biggest fire. Rival gangs

P. 281: steal wood from each other's wood piles or set other piles of wood on fire just so other gangs won't have a bonfire on the right night. In 1954 the Yorkshire Post reported fires started as early as September 28 and the city had to remove wood piles in the interest of public safety.

The guys (Moni: this is an effigy of Guy Fawkes?) can be as tall as 15 ft and filled with rockets, Roman candles, and whooshers, which is common in Edenbridge in Kent. There the festivities are organized by adults and "almost a cult". Or a small child ("with his face as black as a piccaninny" -- Moni3 says wat?) can go begging for a penny for the guy, who may be asked "Where's the guy" and the child will respond "I am." Effigies are made carefully to be as realistic as possible. According to William Hone in 1825, "It is not to be expected that poor boys should be well informed as to the Guy's history, or be particular about his costume". Kids will name their guy effigies. During WWII, it was common for kids to name their effigies Hitler. When Remembrance Day was established, coming so close to 5 November, many boys placed Flanders poppies on their effigies "for luck". At St. Peter's School in York, where Fawkes attended, they have a bonfire but burn no effigy--bad form to "burn the effigy of an old boy".

"Piccaninny" an obsolete and now considered derogatory term describing a black child, ie. a child of Sub-Saharan African origins or descent. The term was used in Britain and also amongst the Afro-Caribbean communities in the British West Indies - in the Jamaican song 'Linstead Market,' recorded in the 1950s, is the line "All the picc'nies come run, come run, to see what Mammie did bring."

Re disembodied post, Moni3 knows what a pickaninny is, in American vernacular, and besides posting about herself in 3rd person, she's got way, wayyyy too much familiarity with racial epithets...I was just surprised to see such a term used in such a good source. This word would be used in the U.S. by someone like Theodore Bilbo. And I wonder why, in 1959, the word "Negro" wasn't used. That is all. --Moni3 (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni3, in Urselius' view, should consider that in the 1950's people of African descent were almost non-existant in Britain, there were very small, but long-established, populations in some port-cities - Tiger Bay in Cardiff and Liverpool come to mind - and the black people who were in the country had almost no impact on the conciousness of the country as a whole. The writer of the above piece would have had no sensibility that they might cause offence, as black people may as well have been on the moon. The early 60's saw the first mass immigration of black people to Britain from the West Indies, these were people brought up and educated to consider Britain as "the Mother country," they were dismayed at the prejudice and hostility they often received from the natives.Urselius (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

While out begging with the guy or burning it, common chants or "nominies" are:

Guy Fawkes, Guy,
Stick him up on high,
Hang him on a lamp post
And there let him die.

Or

Guy, Guy, Guy,
Poke him in the eye,
Put him on the fire
And there let him die.

There are variations on these depending on the location. In Folkestone, they add "Burn his body from this head, Guy Fawkes is dead, Hip, Hip, Hooray!"

P. 282: This page has lyrics to several chants with footnotes:

Please to remember
The Fifth of November,
Gunpowder treason, and plot,
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

(Sometimes with this refrain:
Hurrah boys! Hurrah!
Make the bells ring.
Hurrah boys! Hurrah!
God Save the Queen.)

Please to remember
The Fifth of November,
The poor old guy
With a hole in his stocking
A hole in his shoe
A hole in his hat where his hair comes through.
If you haven't got a penny a halfpenny will do,
If you haven't got a halfpenny God bless you.

Guy Fawkes, Guy,
Hit him in the eye,
Hang him on a lamp-post
And leave him there to die.
Umbrella down the cellar
There I saw a naked fella
Burn his body, save his soul,
Please give me a lump of coal;
If a lump of coal won't do,
Please give me a ha'penny,
Then up and down the Drapery,
Round and round the Market Square,
Till I get to Marefair,
Where I'll spend my ha'penny,
Guy Fawkes, Guy.

A penny for the guy,
A penny for the guy,
A big umbrella
And a flashy tie.
The guy, the guy,
Pin him in the eye;
Stick him up a lamp post,
Don't let him die.

Rhymes are based on tradition. First appeared in print in 1742 in a book called An Agreeable Companion:

Don't you Remember,
The fifth of November,
'Twas Gun-Powder Treason Day,
I let of my Gun, (sic)
And made 'em all run.
And stole all their Bonfire away.

The rhyme beginning "Remember, remember the fifth of November" first appeared in print in The Children's Friend in 1825. Other variations exist.

Adults complain the wood collecting and shenanigans starting too early every year. Children say "dosh" must be found before 5 November

P. 283: before they're all sold out. In cities, children will take their guys to movie theaters and collect 15 schillings or more from moviegoers. In rural areas, kids (girls too) have to save their money all year.

To light the bonfire, the kids will stuff a sock on the end of a stick and dip it in oil, then light the fire about 6.30 pm. Adults come around to watch. Everyone forms a ring around the fire and dances. They cook potatoes on the fire on sticks. "And in parts of Wales, and away in the hills and on the moors in Yorkshire, and Lancashire, and Devonshire, places where they call this night 'Bonfire Night' rather than Guy Fawkes Night, children put on masks and join hands round the fire and dance and sing:"

Bonfire night, the stars are bright,
Every little angel dressed in white.
Can you eat a biscuit?
Can you smoke a pipe?
Can you go a-courting
At ten o'clock at night?

--Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Moni, let me see how I can work some of that into the prose. Parrot of Doom 18:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. I don't think there's much point in putting any other songs in there, I think they're probably better in Wikiquotes or similar. I don't suppose Opie has anything to say about the evolution of foods eaten on 5 November? Parrot of Doom 21:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just the potatoes on sticks. --Moni3 (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Food "They were also the norm two generations ago for the Nether Edge area in Sheffield. The bonfire at the Cock Inn in Oughtibridge was of the same nature, although on a larger scale, since the whole village was invited. About 200 people came. Food was provided free of charge, with the pub supplying jacket potatoes and with other people bringing in such things as parkin and sausage rolls.'"Children's Guy Fawkes Customs in Sheffield Author(s): Ervin BeckReviewed work(s):Source: Folklore, Vol. 95, No. 2 (1984), pp. 191-203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 09:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cressy essay from 1994

I've just added a Cressy essay from 1994 to the further reading section. The details are Cressy, David (1994), "National Memory in Early Modern England", in John R. Gillis (ed.), Commemorations - The Politics of National Identity, Princeton: Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-02925-3. The editor of that book is the historian John R. Gillis, and the book details are here. I have a copy of this book, and have just read the essay. From the title, it covers similar ground to Cressy's 'Bonfires and Bells' work from 1989 (in the 1994 essay he cites both this 1989 work and his 1992 work "The Fifth of November Remembered"). I was going to add something to the article based on what the essay says, but it is quite difficult to accurately condense and summarise what is said there. Essentially, Cressy places Guy Fawkes Night in its historical context as one of several English Protestant deliverances that were celebrated and commemorated; this included attempts to celebrate the break with Rome by Henry VIII with bonfires. To quote from the essay: "The Accession of Queen Elizabeth, the victory over the Spanish Armada, deliverance from the Gunpowder Plot, and the fortune of the Stuart kings became landmarks in the development of an English identity, and cumulative elements of the national memory". Possibly something on this could be worked into the existing article? In any case, I hope it will be a useful addition to the further reading section. Carcharoth (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That might be more suited to something like English folklore, yet another article in a disgraceful condition. Perhaps some of the editors above might care to dazzle us with their expertise, and actually improve it. Parrot of Doom 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read the essay in question (as I said above), and have the book in front of me at the moment, and I disagree. The material is relevant to this article, and it is an eminently reliable source. I can explain further, but before I do that can I ask if you have access to a full copy of this essay? If not, I can quote from the bits not available on preview on Google Books to explain why I think a short sentence or two cited to this essay will be a good addition to this article. Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as having much relevance to GFN, but it does seem germane to Gunpowder Plot, that the deliverance from it was an element in the establishment of an English identity. That's a big idea. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I was hoping that you or PoD would have access to a full copy of the essay. I can quote from it and try and explain, but some of it repeats what is already in this article, so it is hard to tease out the bits that are new. One thing I did notice was a bit about how the Monument to the Great Fire of London became a focus for "anti-Catholic demonstrations, especially on 5 November". Again, it is all (according to Cressy at least) a linked strand of traditions about Catholic threats or conspiracies, from the Armada, to the Gunpowder Plot, to the Great Fire of London. Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a complicated story. I've not been much involved with writing the GFN article, as I called it a day after Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot. I was just offering my uninformed opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth then creating a new section titled "Longevity" or similar, as GFN is rather unique in being just about the only purely English commemoration still widely celebrated. I'm sure Sharpe will also have views. Parrot of Doom 00:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we seem to have reached an impasse. Maybe you should consult Sharpe and I can summarise Cressy's essay? FWIW, I've searched the preview of Sharpe's book available on Google Books (linked in the article), and he does bring in the context of the Armada (not currently mentioned in this article) and Queen Elizabeth's Accession (already mentioned in this article) and pages 8 and 9 of Sharpe do seem to cover the point about how the English Protestant identity was in part built against a background of the history of Catholic threats. There is also something on page 83 about national identity. This comes back to the point Malleus made about this being an element in the establishment of an English identity being "a big idea". Now, I agree that there are better pages on Wikipedia to add text about all this (such as Anti-Catholicism in the United Kingdom and English national identity), but the point here is that a mention is also needed here, even if only a very brief one, including links to the previous two articles (currently the links are only to Papist and Anti-Catholicism). To illustrate with another quote, Cressy says (of this Protestant English national identity of the 17th century):

"This was not nationhood or nationalism in the nineteeth-century sense, but it did instill a precocious sense of purpose and heritage that was unmatched in continental Europe. Only the seventeenth-century Dutch came close."

And Cressy then cites this to his earlier essay from 1990: 'Bonfires and Bells' (mentioned in the further reading in this article). Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's worth writing about the day's longevity, and its importance. How about you add what you think is relevant, once done I'll consult the sources I have and see if I can bolster it? I sometimes think though that when one takes a step back and discusses the wider context of something like this article's subject, a "parent" article is often more suitable. If this means fixing whatever parent article that may be (and I'll guarantee that it'll need fixing) then I'm game. I quite like the idea of sorting out the other commemoration articles. Parrot of Doom 08:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit busy this weekend, but I'll try and do this when I get the time. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)