Talk:Guy Fawkes mask/Archive 1

Archive 1

Subtle Smile

The last sentence of the lede begins "The mask portrays a white face with a subtle smile and red cheeks [...]" There's no "subtle" about the smile on the mask, as the smile is depicted as strongly raising the cheeks drawing smile vertical-pull-creases along each side of the mouth, and creases to the outer corners of the eyes. This would be closer to an over-exaggerated closed-mouth grin. — al-Shimoni (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It's not subtle at all. Nobody changed it. I will

Mask of the foreigner?

Whence the very stylish goatee? The main historical (but probably also mainly fictional) image shows a full beard, while Henry Perronet Briggs' Victorian presentation gives a heavy moustache but no beard at all. Was the pencil goatee a popular look for the up-and-coming Jacobean Papist? Or when did Guido start to look more French than Spanish than Tyke? And why? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary images of Fawkes, like this one, show him with a full beard (as you say), as do some pre-V for Vendetta masks like this. But, there are some good images of other masks, circa 1970, here (and pyrotechnics.no-ip.org/files/scan%20%28small%29.jpg here), which show a goatee. Presumably (no sources!) David Lloyd, when he designed the "V" image, based it on the sort of cardboard masks, like those, that were popular in Britain when he was a child in the 1950s and 60s. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That A. E. Bangham advert has Fawkes a litte more like the pantomime genie from the lamp - certainly more arabic? I guess we'd need an expert source in the history of facial hair in Britain to answer this one, but the thin vertical beard obviously pre-dates David Lloyd. To my 21st century eyes, the goatee and (possibly waxed) fancy moustache makes him look distinctly French. But then van Dyke's Charles I isn't a million miles away, is it? Alas, Lloyd's own cited essay gives no clues. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of Batman, Zorro, Darkman, and Noh.  Just say "noh".   :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you forgotten somebody? Hmm, well apart from that token effort from Zorro, with his Mr Teasy-Weasy top lip, the message seems to be “Just Say no to facial hair"! p.s. does this guy count? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sentence

I removed that sentence about the Occupy movement, because firstly its unsourced, and secondly, the people who wore Guy Fawkes masks during the Occupy movement were Anonymous protesters. Pass a Method talk 10:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced in the article text. Clearly, many of those who have worn the mask as part of the Occupy movement have nothing to do with Anonymous - unless you start from the premise that anyone wearing such a mask is by definition a member or supporter of "Anonymous". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The previous sentence said the mask is "widspread" "internationally" among groups who protest against politicians, which is obviously false. Anyway, the lede shoud give due weight. Pass a Method talk 13:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is it "obviously false", and why does "due weight" in your opinion give the emphasis to one particular group of protesters? See [1], [2], [3], [4], etc etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is obviously false because widesrpead and international are too strong words. The only famous group who i know of who has used such masks internationally is Anonymous. Pass a Method talk 20:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But "what you know" is entirely irrelevant. What is important is what sources state, and they demonstrate the widespread international use of the mask. Equally, it's not possible to determine who are "members" of "Anonymous" and who are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that states "widespread internatonal" ? If not, that would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Pass a Method talk 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• CNN - "an unprecedented wave of disgust and anger with establishment figures has swept the world. While the mask has been spotted in Occupy protests from Oakland to Hong Kong ...."
• BBC: "From New York, to London, to Sydney, to Cologne, to Bucharest, there has been a wave of protests against politicians, banks and financial institutions. Anybody watching coverage of the demonstrations may have been struck by a repeated motif - a strangely stylised mask of Guy Fawkes with a moustache and pointy beard."
• PI: "The following photos taken in October 2011 demonstrate the global distribution of support for the ideas of the hacktivist group known as Anonymous. Protesters wearing Anonymous’ trademark Guy Fawkes mask are pictured in Rome, Vienna, Lisbon, Toronto, Ljubljana, Berlin, Los Angeles, Paris, Amman, New York, Washington D.C., Florida, Miami, Mexico City, Bucharest, Stockholm, Brasilia, Seoul and Hong Kong."

etc. Sources clearly demonstrate (without any "synthesis") widespread international use of the mask. What is the problem with stating that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

change of usage during the 1980s

This BBC article explains how the mask was phased out in favor of Frankenstein masks after the anti-Thatcher riots. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

recentism

Guy Fawkes masks have been sold for Guy Fawkes night, decades before V for Vendetta was drawn. For decades (maybe centuries?) people have placed masks on the face of the doll that was going to be burned at the bonfire, with the face of Guy Fawkes (or rather, their interpretation of what Guy Fawkes looked like). And some people wore the mask on the street. This article is centered only in the recent usage of the mask, and leaves out all the historical roots and usage. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. The problem is that it's very difficult to find reliable sources that give any information about the older style of masks. Blogs and forum posts are not reliable sources. Like all articles, this article is based on what sources say, not on what "we know". The older style of masks are mentioned briefly in the article, and if you can provide reliably sourced information about them it should also be included. I've added one reference, the one you pointed out yesterday. There's no reason why you couldn't have done that yourself, rather than adding a rather pointless tag to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1864 engraving in the Chambers Book of Days, a "Guy" in a Guy Fawkes Day procession.

(edit conflict) Let me dump some sources:

• 1969 ads in a comic book, and comics about placing the mask in said dolls.
• 1983 cutout of a mask in a comic book
• Chambers Books of Days, 1864, pp. 549-550. "The universal mode of observance through all part of England, is the dressing up of a scarecrow figure, in such cast-habiliments as can be procured (the head-piece, generally a paper-cap, painted and knotted with paper strips in imitation of ribbons), parading it in a chair through the streets, and at nightfall burning it with great solemnity in a huge bonfire. The image is supposed to represent Guy Fawkes, in accordance with which idea, it always carries a dark lantarn in one hand, and a bunch of matches in the other. The procession visists the different houses in the meighbourhood, repeating the time-honoured rhyme--- 'Remember, remember ! (etc.) Numerous variations and additions are made in different parts of the country. (...) One invariable custom is always maintained on these occasions-that of soliciting money from the passers-by, in the formula, 'Pray remember Guy!' 'Please to remember Guy!' or 'Please to remember the bonfire!'" The main custom was always to burn the Guy Fawkes, except in punctual occasions, which are detailed in the book.
• in Guy_Fawkes#Legacy there are more sources.

Sorry, these days I'm feeling a bit ill and not in the mood to actually add the sources to the articles and write all the accompanying texts. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks, I've now added those. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your edits. I think I can see a few rough points, but i can't edit them right now. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

On the basis of this discussion, there seems to be no reason to retain the tag, so I'll remove it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Editors trying to add references to Ron Paul's fundraising efforts to the article need to find sources that specifically link the activities of his supporters to the wearing of Guy Fawkes masks. General claims that Paul associated himself with Fawkes just don't do it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: FWIW, the YouTube clip is not available where I live. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

paying time warner

"The mask became a well-known symbol for the online hacktivist group Anonymous. Time Warner owns the rights to the image and is paid a licensing fee for the sale of each mask.[1]" Except that the link goes to a NYTs article and I can't read it. And, I just downloaded an image from [5]. I don't reckon time warner got shit from that. What exactly is the point of the second sentence in the quote? Esp. as I can't verify it. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Forget it. I removed that sentence and moved the reference. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The full text of the New York Times article is below. Whether Time Warner take any action against such copyright violations is another matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

[removed copy/paste of an entire NYT article]

This thread is old, but I just noticed a New York Times article was reproduced in its entirety here, which poses copyright problems (and takes up a lot of space when it can be linked to instead). I just confirmed it's available online at nytimes.com here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Thank you! I must have decided to copy-paste the entire article here because the other person claimed not to be able to read it - obviously I was getting exasperated with a difficult customer. But, you can consider me trouted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

David Lloyd quote misattribution

The article currently includes a very long quote attributed to David Lloyd, i.e.:

"The Guy Fawkes mask has now become a common brand and a convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny – and I'm happy with people using it, it seems quite unique, an icon of popular culture being used this way. The book is about one man bringing down the state but the film includes a scene of a huge crowd – making a statement against a faceless corporation. The masks were useful for the Scientology protests because it prevented individuals from being recognised ... We knew that V was going to be an escapee from a concentration camp where he had been subjected to medical experiments but then I had the idea that in his craziness he would decide to adopt the persona and mission of Guy Fawkes – our great historical revolutionary."

Reference to the original BBC report, however, shows that it this is an amalgamation of three quotes, the first from Lloyd:

"The Guy Fawkes mask has now become a common brand and a convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny - and I'm happy with people using it, it seems quite unique, an icon of popular culture being used this way... [My feeling is the Anonymous group needed an all-purpose image to hide their identity and also symbolise that they stand for individualism - V for Vendetta is a story about one person against the system.]"

Then by comics commentator Rich Johnston (highlighted in itallics above):

"The book is about one man bringing down the state but the film includes a scene of a huge crowd - making a statement against a faceless corporation... The masks were useful for the Scientology protests because it prevented individuals from being recognised..."

And finally back to Lloyd:

"We knew that V was going to be an escapee from a concentration camp where he had been subjected to medical experiments but then I had the idea that in his craziness he would decide to adopt the persona and mission of Guy Fawkes - our great historical revolutionary."

Clearly we shouldn't be attribting Johnston's comments to Lloyd, so I will remove and replace them with the unusued part of what Lloyd did actually say, since it covers the same ground, anyway." Nick Cooper (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right - thanks for spotting it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The way the quotes are formatted in the article, as a one-paragraph block quote, implies that Lloyd made the comments as one long speech. While that may be how it happened, the BBC article presents it in bites. Interviews sometimes occur over hours and even days; therefore, the material bites may have been said over time. In my opinion, to accurately portray that time aspect, the block needs to be split into the various bites of the original BBC article within the block, each set apart with quotation marks, like so:

"1st bite."

"2nd bite."

"3rd bite."

Thank you and have a Merry New Year, Wordreader (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Images

On the page, there are currently 5 images: One of a mural depicting the mask, one of an a 1960's ad for a mask, and three of people wearing near identical "V for Vendetta" style ones. Having three separate images of people wearing near identical masks illustrates nothing more than one image would. Unless there's a compelling reason to include them, I'll remove two of them as they only serve to clutter the page. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

They are three perfectly distinct images, depicting different events. Images generally aren't used in articles for "compelling reasons", but to break up the text and illustrate the content, providing interest for the reader. Furthermore, it may be instructive in itself to show how similar these masks are, even though used in different locations around the world. And please don't assume that the reverts of the multiple deletions you have already made, without any discussion, were made because it's just "what I want", as you suggested in this edit summary. If you can find alternative images that show different masks being worn, by all means use them instead. But if these are not available, I don't see why any of these three existing images should be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that they're "three perfectly distinct images, depicting different events." They don't add anything to the article that one image wouldn't. It's not "instructive in itself to show how similar these masks are, even though used in different locations around the world." The masks are so similar because that particular design became popular after it was used in the film V for Vendetta. But this article isn't about that particular design. It's about Guy Fawkes masks in general. Having the article lean so heavily towards a design that's less than ten years old when the article's about a subject that's hundreds of years old is completely unbalanced. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 79.97.226.247. The way the article is weighted, you would think it is specifically about the V for Vendetta mask instead of the history of Guy Fawkes masks. It was just this history which prompted Moore and Lloyd to have their protagonist wear such a mask. Helpsome (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm sure photographs of 19th- and 20th-century masks would be very welcome. Your argument that the article is about Guy Fawkes masks in general, and not just V for Vendetta masks in particular, is perfectly valid. It's a shame it wasn't used as the justification in this original deletion two days ago. But I'd still argue that the ubiquity of the V for Vendetta mask is itself notable, and that the images illustrate that. Until the film, and the mask use by Anonymous, I really don't think Guy Fawkes masks were well-known across the world, were they? I still don't personally see any problem with the images used, but I'm open to the views of other editors. I think this discussion could usefully have been started before any of the anon ip deletions. I wonder which kind of masks are most popular in Ireland? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC) p.s. I'm also very surprised that the OP is suggesting removal of the current lead image which seems to me a very clear and strong one.

I never suggested removal of the current lead image. I only said that having three of the current five images displaying the V for Vendetta design was excessive. I had originally removed two of them, leaving the lead image in place. And what is the point in referring to my edits as "anon ip deletions?" Using an IP or an account, all editors are anonymous. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Had the V for Vendetta mask not been adopted so widely, it's highly unlikely that this article would exist at all. Indeed, I'd argue that the article is itself about the V for Vendetta mask, even though the logical name for the article is "Guy Fawkes mask". Images of earlier masks, with explanatory text, are essentially included in this article as necessary historical background to the discussion of the V for Vendetta mask. And, as Martin (not, I believe, a pseudonym) says, the images are included to demonstrate the ubiquity of the mask in recent global protests. One image alone would not convey that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

IP, you say at the top of this thread: "Having three separate images of people ... I'll remove them as they only serve to clutter the page." You're IP pins down your contributions to Dublin, but you personally are still anonymous. I'm not anonymous, I use my real name. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC) p.s. yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but you might find your deletions less contested if you created a named account.

Anonymity doesn't make an argument less valid. Using a "real" name in your username doesn't make your argument more valid. IPs are human too. Helpsome (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree. I never said that it did. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "Having three separate images of people ... I'll remove them as they only serve to clutter the page." I said ""On the page, there are currently 5 images: One of a mural depicting the mask, one of an a 1960's ad for a mask, and three of people wearing near identical "V for Vendetta" style ones. Having three separate images of people wearing near identical masks illustrates nothing more than one image would. Unless there's a compelling reason to include them, I'll remove them as they only serve to clutter the page." Please do not try to misrepresent my statements. How am I (or anybody else) supposed to know that your name is actually Martinevans123? p.s. if I need to create an account so that my edits will be "less contested," that would make the whole "anyone can edit" thing pretty much meaningless. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You wrote what I copied above. You've since changed it to match what you intended it to mean. Anyone can edit, but experience suggests that anonymous ip edits tend to be trusted less. "How am I (or anybody else) supposed to know that your ip adress is 79.97.226.247"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"You've since changed it to match what you intended it to mean." Yes, it's called clarification. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:REDACT, and act accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting. Please don't try to misrepresent what you wrote and then blame me for misunderstanding you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Images RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The issue is whether or not the article should have more than half of its images illustrating V for Vendetta (film)-style Guy Fawkes masks. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment There is no reason why more than half the images shoud feature V for Vendetta (film)-style Guy Fawkes masks. Please feel free to add other types of mask. Op47 (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I'd have to agree that 3 images are not needed of the V for Vendetta style mask. Yes, they are the most well-known, and I think should be used for the lead image, but the Guy Fawkes mask has a much larger history than that. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed with the above: One or at most two images of that styles are sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. There is every reason why several illustrations should show the V for Vendetta-style masks - because the use of those specific masks is the only justification for the existence of this article. The notability of that specific design of mask is, in my view, undoubted - it has become a global symbol of protest. And, some explanation of the origins of the masks is required in this article - so, it should explain the origins in V for Vendetta and, as background, also explain that generic Guy Fawkes masks were used in earlier centuries in bonfire night celebrations. So, the illustrations in this article need to be balanced between those showing the modern use of the (specifically notable) V for Vendetta "Guy Fawkes" masks, and the earlier (not specifically notable) types and uses of GF masks. As it currently stands this article does that in a way, though not very well - the images are not tied well to the text... but what is most important is to show the masks both clearly and in context. A picture of a single person wearing the mask is much less relevant than a picture of a group of protestors wearing identical masks. So, I would take out the Buenos Aires picture, but retain the London one. I also think that, rather than using the current lead image of the mask, it would be more informative and preferable to use the cover of the original V for Vendetta book - included in the original version of this article but later removed as "no rationale". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, wholly agree with the suggestions and reasoning presented by Ghmyrtle above. Furthermore, as with many other articles which have an historical element, there is a large imbalance between what is available in terms of a photographic record. The article says: "Towards the end of the 18th century, reports appeared of children begging for money with grotesquely masked effigies of Guy Fawkes". I'd welcome the addition of any contemporary pictorial representations of masks from these earlier times, but they seem to be very scarse indeed. However, even this basic imbalace is swallowed up wholesale by the much larger imbalance in use of the mask worldwide before and after V for Vendetta and the Occupy movement. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• COMMENT When you Google Images "Guy Fawkes mask" check out what you get: Dozens of V for Vendetta masks, nothing different ... except this article http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/how-did-guy-fawkes-become-a-symbol-of-occupy-wall-street/ has an image of the original Guy Fawkes and is old (maybe a wood cutting) so maybe it can be used for the article without copyright violation. (Editor randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment) --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the addition of an image of Fawkes himself has been discussed already. It sounds a bit like WP:OR to compare the real man with his later masks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned here by bot. I agree with the arguments proposed by Ghmyrtle and Martinevans123 in the above comments. The use of several illustrations of the mask is important to this article, however it is important to show them in context so they make sense. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 17:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• As basically everyone else has said, portraying too many V for Vendetta style masks is recentism. Shii (tock) 22:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure of your definition of "everyone else". You seem to be supporting the idea there are too many V for Vendetta style masks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fail guy?

The 4chan character is not V and is not Guy Fawkes. It's FAIL guy, or GET guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.214.103 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

On the basis that this site is reasonably reliable, I'll do some editing of the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's consistent with other accounts (Original Research) I've seen. --Robert Keiden (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: This raises the question of whether the use of the mask is better expressed as a protest against tyranny - which is what the article now says - or a protest against failed systems - which is what the use of the "Epic Fail Guy" character would suggest. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The original use of the mask by Anonymous was not a protest, but self-mockery. "Epic Fail Guy" was a caution against idealism, not a promotion of it. When some time later, Anonymous began organizing protests, "Epic Fail Guy" was already an icon they identified with. Current use (and interpretation) of the mask varies widely, with people who wear them and outside observers. --Robert Keiden (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I hear of CBC radio, it's sort of like the fighting the hopless cause such as blowing up Parliament.Civic Cat (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fren Pencuribebas (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"This anti-vaccine pseudoscientific bullshit needs to be debunked in this article"

One of the paragraphs in the "Wider use in popular protest" section currently reads like so:

Outside Comic-Con 2019 in San Diego some anti-vaccine protesters wore the Guy Fawkes mask with black hat and cape. Arguments against vaccination are contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

I find the second sentence superfluous at best.

Now, as far as I can tell from the article history, the paragraph was originally added by an anti-vaxxer, and in its original form made various claims to which the descriptor of "pseudoscientific bullshit" aptly applies. An early reaction to those claims was the addition of that second sentences. A somewhat later and more appropriate reaction was to simply remove said claims, as they were unsourced and, being bullshit, unsourcable. All that's left now is barebones reporting of what occurred - no debunking needed. The (in)validity of the protesters' cause is besides the point, and outside the scope of this article; plus, none of the other dozen examples in this section include such comments, which makes this one stick out like a sore thumb. (Insert soreness-related-to-vaccination joke here.)

- 2A02:560:42E2:6D00:EC0C:CAB7:A371:F024 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

PS: IP 86.190.108.110 removed the sentence in question a couple of minutes after I added this section - whether that's connected or coincidental, I cannot tell.

- 2A02:560:42E2:6D00:EC0C:CAB7:A371:F024 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine bullshit needs to always be debunked. If you supported that pseudoscience, take it elsewhere. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. Has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes mask. What if the masks had been used by the Flat Earth society? We'd have to add a sourced explanation that the earth is actually spherical? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Undo the original version and then say "take it to talk?" Nice way to edit war. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of "edit warring". I must be missing the WP policy statement that says "Anti-vaccine bullshit needs to always be debunked." Let's see what consensus develops here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

SkepticalRaptor, just for clarification, did you mean to revert my edit of the first sentence ([6]), or was that collateral damage? The previous/current version bases the claim of there having been "over 90" protesters on a single comment responding to the cited blog post, as far as I could tell. And an article from a major news outlet is preferrable to said blog post, surely, as far as Wikipedia sourcing is concerned. Plus, the piece is titled Anti-vaccine groups take dangerous online harassment into the real world, so what's not to like?

- 2A02:560:4235:6700:E590:3D43:25F0:D2E9 (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I previously attempted to remove the sentence or reduce it to a note. As the OP said, it stands out like a sore thumb, not for being incorrect at all, but for being off-topic. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it again. As others have commented, it is unrelated to the subject of the article. (Of course, "Anti-vaccine bullshit needs to... be debunked." But not by coatracking the argument into other articles.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify... this edit back in July was made with the edit summary "Fixed NPOV". But, it didn't do that - it removed (irrelevant) detail, and added (true, but also irrelevant) commentary. The original statement in the article was "Outside Comic-Con 2019 in San Diego several protesters wore the Guy Fawkes mask with black hat and cape while holding signs with messages such as "Vaccines can Cause Injury and Death" and "Vaccines Contain Aborted Fetal Tissue".". So far as I know, that is a factual statement of what happened on that day. What SkepticalRaptor added and now seeks to retain is the (sourced) additional statement that "Arguments against vaccination are contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus about the safety and efficacy of vaccines." Now, that is patently true... but it is not related to the article subject and there is no need to include it. I agree with removing the details of the protestors' messages, as equally irrelevant. I would also suggest that the entire paragraph should be deleted - I'm confident that there have been many, many protests where people have worn similar masks and they do not all need to be mentioned here - only the most significant and widely reported ones. So, I think I'll now try plan B - removing the whole paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the paragraph, mainly because I find it inherently interesting: The anti-vaccination cause is qualitatively different from the causes of the other protests the section describes, and using costumes inspired by a comic book to stage a protest at a comic book convention venue lends it a certain resonance. I want to call it quirky, except that my thinking of antivaxxers as more or less deranged makes that word seem out of place. I'm guessing those are also basically the reasons the NBC article uses it as its opener, even though it's never mentioned again after that.

That said, I do agree that the section is better off without the paragraph than with the superfluous sentence included, so if it comes down to that pair of choices...

- 89.183.220.41 (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Scaramouche

Does anyone know if these have been 9nfluenced by the Commedia dell'arte character Scaramouche? Based on wikimedia's pictures they seem to resemble scaramouche (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Recueil_des_modes_de_la_cour_de_France,_%27Scaramouche_Entrant_au_Theatre%27_LACMA_M.2002.57.153.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SAND_Maurice_Masques_et_bouffons_07.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scaramouche,_BK-16393.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tibere_Fiorilli_dit_Scaramouche_by_Habert_1700_-_Gallica_Q10.jpg) at least as closely as they resemble Guy Fawkes (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guy_Fawkes_(cropped).jpg ) Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B014:1649:20B8:1173:9C66:445D (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a problem, not a topic

can you help?? 85.115.243.38 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)