Talk:Guy Fawkes Night

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Linking to presbytery

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.

---

Articles generally ought not to link directly to disambiguation pages - so the ambiguity in "barricade himself in the presbytery" needs to be resolved. Clearly, Presbytery (residence) is meant. There is no place in a Presbytery (architecture) in which to barricade oneself. If the priest happened to be there, it would say he was barricading himself in the church. A brief perusal of the diagram ont he latter page will indicate that this is merely a matter of common sense. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That may be so, but accusing an established editor of vandalism - particularly the one who got this article to FA - is an insult. And you should certainly not have put a vandalism template on his talk page in the middle of what is clearly a minor content dispute. Richerman (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding 116 extraneous spaces with no reason given sounds like vandalism to me. In any case, I have added the disambiguating link back in, since no-one can seem to offer a a reason against having it. StAnselm (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like vandalism to me. Many people find double-spaced text easier to read, and were taught to type that way. That HTML has a limitation in being unable to display the double-spacing to WP readers doesn't alter the fact that those editing the text may find it easier to read. Eric Corbett 01:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to keep this article as a double-spaced article if there is consensus to do so - but that should be clearly marked for potential editors. Certainly single space is the wikipedia standard, and that is enforced in the article's appearance. I thought I was improving the article by removing extraneous bytes, and I was reverted without a reason given. StAnselm (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor but important point - the MediaWiki software ignores extra spaces like this. View in edit mode to see my point.--ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

An experienced editor might presume that another experienced editor, when writing this article, was unable to resolve this problem and so left the text intentionally vague. The source does not say whether he barricaded himself in the church or a separate building and it is therefore incorrect for you to make this change. And the double spacing is most certainly there for a reason, which is to help me edit. I have difficulty making sense of text without these spaces. Parrot of Doom 08:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above, it appears that there is consensus to keep the double spacing, and I am content to drop the issue. The presbytery disambiguation is quite another matter, however. You can't barricade yourself into a chancel unless you move a whole lot of pews. It's clearly the house that is meant. StAnselm (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The reference in footnote 42 of the article says (in the paragraph above the one that uses the word "presbytery"), But within two years anti-Catholic riots in Ipswich led to the clergy being imprisoned in their homes for two days and a night. StAnselm (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"You can't barricade yourself into a chancel unless you move a whole lot of pews" - and how do you know that isn't what happened? The source is ambiguous, therefore, we must be. If you want to confirm what really happened, find another source that elaborates. Parrot of Doom 09:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

How is that ambiguous? There is a summary statement about the clergy being barricaded in their homes, and then there is a paragraph that elaborates, and talks about the curate barricaded in the presbytery. It's clearly his home that is meant. I can't believe you can't see it, and I'm very sorry that I got you offside on this, because it really appears to me that you don't want to see it. StAnselm (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

But the BBC article is specifically about the church - and it says in the subheader "A church in Ipswich has survived riots,...". The BBC article does not appear to about the whole church complex - just the church itself. A person from the church specifically says "A mob went through the town smashing Catholic-owned businesses and headed for the church which led to the curate Father Patrick Rogers barricading himself in the presbytery for two days." ... if I had just that information - I'd say it was in the church. It's the very bit you cite that makes it unclear. The BBC article conflicts with the other article - thus the reason for the DAB link instead of a more specific one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Catholic presbyteries were generally attached to (or very close to) churches, because of the requirement for regularly saying mass. Per this source, the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. -- 101.119.14.145 (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

While the riot took place shortly after 5 November, no sources make it explicitly clear that it was exclusively to do with Guy Fawkes (although the timing is probably no coincidence). In fact, The Manchester Guardian of 9 November 1863 seems to be more concerned with freedom of speech and Mayoral corruption than any anti-Catholic sentiment. And it makes no mention of any barricading, rather, it talks about attacks on the Mayor's house, the "Tower Parsonage" and an attempted assault on the Temperance Hall. So this section's removal is quite warranted. Parrot of Doom 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

One of sources has the riot beginning on 5 November, 1863. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This source from Suffolk County Council says "the ‘Anti Popery' disturbances in Ipswich in November 1863 [...] followed the Gunpowder Plot commemorations and coincided with the salacious anti-catholic lectures given by Andre Massena." -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Disambiguating presbytery link

Should the presbytery link in the article be disambiguated to Presbytery (residence) (which redirects to rectory) or should it be left ambiguous? 20:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Posted notifications at the Christianity and Disambiguation WikiProjects. StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Disambiguate: This source says "But within two years anti-Catholic riots in Ipswich led to the clergy being imprisoned in their homes for two days and a night" and the elaborates on that in the next paragraph, which says in part, "The then curate, Father Patrick Rogers, barricaded himself in the presbytery for two days and nights until the mayor was able to enrol 200 special constables and restore order." Clearly, the priest's home is meant by the word "presbytery". StAnselm (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• See my above point about the other source from the BBC - which mentions nothing about residences and is solely about the church. The sources disagree - so we shouldn't choose one over the other without further sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they disagree at all - the BBC article has as a tagline "A church in Ipswich has survived riots" and then says "A mob went through the town smashing Catholic-owned businesses and headed for the church which led to the curate Father Patrick Rogers barricading himself in the presbytery for two days." There is nothing here that is inconsistent with the priest barricading himself in his own home, which presumably is next to the church. The mob marched towards the church, and he locked himself in his home. I agree that it might not be totally clear from the BBC article, but the other source makes it clear, and they don't contradict each other. StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• The sources appear to have no better idea of what exactly is meant by presbytery in this context that we do, so perhaps a short note might be in order rather than a link? The note could include links to both possibilities. Eric Corbett 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Disambiguate to the residence. It is quite obviously improbable that the sanctuary of the church is meant. older ≠ wiser 21:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure which page it should be disambiguated to, but as a general rule we shouldn't be linking to disambiguation pages from articles (unless it's in the hatnotes and we're letting them know it's a disambiguation page). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• The simple thing to do would be to remove the link altogether. But that doesn't generate lots of drama, does it? Parrot of Doom 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, people would be left wondering, "What's a presbytery?" StAnselm (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What is a presbytery anyway? Is there a 2-3 word description we could use in its place and avoid using the word altogether? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of the issue here. We could quite easily say "barricade himself in his house" but that is what is in dispute. The reliable sources say "presbytery", and I think it means the priest's house. StAnselm (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I still stand by not linking to disambig pages, so if forced to choose a link, I'd have to choose the residence (or as Nikimaria suggested, Wiktionary). ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Disambiguate to Presbytery (residence), which is obviously what is meant here, and which (outside of specialised discussions of Architecture or of the Presbyterian Church) is in fact the most common meaning of the word [1]. -- 101.119.15.143 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Use a transwiki link to Wiktionary instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Per this source, the "presbytery" at St. Pancras Church is clearly the priest's house, and Presbytery (residence) is therefore the appropriate thing to link to. I'm not sure why some editors are trying to create an air of mystery about what "presbytery" means. It's a perfectly cromulent word. -- 101.119.15.35 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Um.. no. All it proves is that there was a residence at the church. Does not mean that there wasn't also a presbytery in the church - it's perfectly possible for there to be both in a group of church buildings. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, that source proves that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. In any case, the other usage of "presbytery" is (1) very rare ("chancel" or "sanctuary" are usually used) and (2) ruled out by the fact that you can't "barricade yourself" in that part of a church. Take a look at the diagram: -- 101.119.15.35 (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Don't you know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source ;-)? The source used at Presbytery (architecture), and other sources on that topic, make it clear that the area can in fact be enclosed, and so theoretically someone could barricade themselves within. Now, I agree that the other meaning is more likely, but as it's not certain (and I'm not an RS on the topic), to link only the other would be original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? The source cited above proves that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. And the other use of "presbytery" to refer to the chancel of a church has been obsolete for at least a century. -- 101.119.15.35 (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If anyone has access to the Times Digital Archive (subscriber only) use this link. There's also articles in the (subscriber only) Gale 19th Century British newspapers database about it from Nov 1863. Basically, the well known anti-Catholic speaker Baron de Camin was due to give a lecture on Guy Fawkes night and the Police refused to let him for fear of trouble (Irish Catholic soldiers from the 18th Hussars, stationed in town, weren't happy about his talk). A mob went and smashed the windows of Mayor's house. The following night they let de Camin speak, and afterwards the mob reformed and broke the windows of the Catholic priest's home (Father Kemp) and then of the Church, the school, scared the nuns (Police were protecting most places) then back to Kemp's to throw more stones. (There's no mention of a 'curate Father Patrick Rogers') While it was clearly anti-catholic, and took place (partly) on that day, none of the newspaper accounts I've read mention the significance of Guy Fawkes. (Obviously, it would have had some but the 1/2 dozen sources I've read don't seem to think its worth mentioning in 1863). AnonNep (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Go and do something useful

All this fuss over a disambiguation link, a "problem" resolved by removing the link entirely. And now, the editor who most wants to solve this by inferring something the sources don't appear to suport, is battling to keep the argument going by reverting edits that have removed the "offending" section completely. Who the shuddering fuck cares about a stupid link, other than people with too much time on their hands but not (apparently) enough to write anything meaningful?

Some may have noticed that I haven't written anything for some time now. This is exactly the kind of wooden-headed ignorant stupidity that keeps me away. I added the original material, I added the disambiguation link (because I researched the subject and was unable to clarify the matter) and I entirely support Ealdgyth's removal of it. Parrot of Doom 11:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a breach of WP:CIVIL here. And a rather childish "if I can't get my way on a minor point, I want to have a whole section deleted" that seems rather like WP:POINT. -- 101.119.14.242 (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just seen on your talk page that you explicitly disown WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. I don't think Wikipedia benefits from people who can't play nicely with others, because Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. -- 101.119.14.242 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are a hypocrite and a prime example of the stupidity I so despise. Parrot of Doom 12:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are free to despise me, but might I suggest that if you choose not to follow WP:CIVIL, which is one of the five pillars, then the project is better off without you. -- 101.119.14.13 (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So what's your excuse for staying? After all, you also ignore your precious civility policy. Parrot of Doom 12:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're the only person here swearing. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You think civility is limited to bad words? You truly are stupid. Parrot of Doom 12:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. An anonymous hypocrite with only 11 edits to his name citing the five pillars is rather revealing I think. Eric Corbett 15:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what dynamic IP addresses are. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You presume too much grasshopper. Eric Corbett 20:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal: to revert on the basis of a "wrong" citation style is just plain silly when there are many other footnotes with that style already in the article. To remove content as a way of solving the dispute under discussion is also silly. StAnselm (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There are not any other citations with that style AFAICS, and since the material is not central to the article removing it seems a valid option. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not central, but I think it is useful. I'm not totally use what "that style" is. Looking at all the footnotes, most of them have the [Last name, date, page number] format. Footnote 4 has [first name, last name, title, etc.] while footnote 13 has [last name, first name, title, etc.] It's the latter I was thinking of (along with 65, 67, 68, etc.) when I talked about other footnotes in the article. In any case, the article does not have a consistent style. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There's one hand-coded that needs to be fixed; other than that, all full citations except yours are {{citation}}, while yours is {{cite}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just using the "cite book" template on the drop-down menu. Should I be doing it some other way? StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are various drop-down menus, but the ones I've tried only supported the "cite" family templates (cite book, cite web, cite journal, etc.). {{Citation}} is different in that it figures out from the various parameters that are included and omitted whether to cite it like a book, journal, etc. Most of the parameters are the same, and there is a good chance it will work if you just change "cite book" to "Citation" (but be sure to look at the result carefully before finalizing the edit). Jc3s5h (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To be precise, that odd one (in ^[43]) uses {{cite book}}, not {{cite}}. {{Cite}} would have been acceptable, because it's a redirect to {{citation}}. This means that if you have selected {{cite book}} from a menu and filled in the parameters, you can easily switch it to the preferred style for this article by removing the word book before saving - it works without further amendment because {{citation}} recognises virtually all of the parameters recognised by {{cite book}} - the few exceptions are not offered by reference menus anyway.

I notice that nobody has mentioned that {{cite book}} is used 10 other times, all of these being under Further reading. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I had noticed, yes, and I agree that these bone-headed discussions can be very wearing. Why don't these people go write something themselves instead of trying to make life a misery for everyone else? Eric Corbett 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, that is simply not a civil comment. I suggest that you withdraw it. Obviously, it's going to be difficult to find out what the dynamic IP 101.119.xx.xxx has written; my content contributions can easily be assessed with a glance at my user page. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Like PoD, I really don't give a fuck what you think. Eric Corbett 20:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Still awaiting answer...

To the question of why removing the specific incident in Ipswich isn't a valid option? It's not really needed in the context of the paragraph - it's just an illustrative example that isn't required here. Removing it would solve the problem and resolve the issue. But no one seems willing to say why they insist on the link to presbytery (residence) MUST stay in this article along with the incident in Ipswich? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it has to stay in. I have objections to removing content just to resolve a dispute, and would prefer to let the presbytery discussion play out first. But it is clearly one example of many in a fairly long paragraph. If it's remove - what happens to the next sentence - "Gradually, however, such scenes became less popular." That sounds like it's referring to the Ipswich incident, although it could make sense following straight after the Exeter effigies incident. StAnselm (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly strongly support the Ipswich section staying in. It's a well-documented example of the sometimes violent anti-Catholic protests that were once a part of Guy Fawkes Night. I don't think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to try to "sanitize" history. -- 101.119.15.242 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The Ipswich incident was about anti-Catholic fervour caused by a radical preacher. It just so happened to coincide with 5 November. It's synthesis to say the two were related and therefore, as it doesn't really add all that much anyway, I say remove it. And I say that as the person who put it there to begin with. Parrot of Doom 23:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It "just so happened to coincide with 5 November." Really? Guy Fawkes night often included anti-Catholic protests that could turn violent, and this is one example. That side of the event should not be airbrushed out. -- 101.119.14.109 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does look like User:JASpencer added it first. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's that long since I wrote this article I forgot what I did and did not add. This news actually makes me feel much better about the whole thing. I should have investigated the addition properly, when it first came into being, but truth be told I've had little to no interest in this place lately (a result of being accused of plagiarism at an FAC). Thank you for clarifying this. Parrot of Doom 00:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"I guess it's that long since I wrote this article" PoD you did not write the article it existed before you modified it. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not again.... Returning to the actual topic at hand, I agree that the passage should be removed, as it doesn't really contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what the link you provided meant to show other than the article should not have become a Featured Article in its current state. -- PBS (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this one will be more illuminating. Richerman (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you think that has to do with me pointing out to PoD that his statement "I guess it's that long since I wrote this article" is inaccurate? -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As your pointy statement was off-topic to begin with and this digression even more so, let's leave it at that. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the passage in question should be included in the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I count three for removal and one for retaining the Ipswich section. Given the information gleaned from further investigation of the sources (discussed elsewhere in this page), I have removed it. Parrot of Doom 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I had no view on the issue when I protected the article, but having read through the discussion since lifting the protection I agree with removing the sentence - it added little if anything because this incident (it seems) was not discussed by secondary sources in the context of 5th November activities generally but it was mentioned primarily, if not only, in the context of the Ipswich church. It may be best off mentioned in the article about the church, but this article cannot possibly mention every 5th November episode or protest over the centuries. Bencherlite^Talk 13:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation style

Since this edit in 2008 the article has used the {{Citation}} template to give full information about sources. By 2010 the harvnb template was used to make short footnotes, which in turn refer to the full citation in the bibliography (this saves space by not writing out the full citation each time the same source is used to support multiple statements). The article has evolved to the point that nearly all the citations are short footnote, and the article would be easier to read and maintain if the exceptions were migrated to the dominant style. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think reverting an edit on the basis on the "wrong" style is a good idea. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So... someone else has to fix your citation that you agree isn't in the right style? As an aside, I'm not sure why it's so vitally important that this bit of information stay in the article - several folks have offered a couple of different compromises - but those have been rejected. Granted, another source was added - but why is this information so important that it MUST retain the link to the actual wikipedia article on the residence form of presbytery - rather than removing the detailed information or linking to the wiktionary definition? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I was agreeing that harvnb is the best style to decide on - I will be happy to change the reference I added (once protection is lifted) and I think we can all chip in and fix the others. But when someone else comes along and adds content with the "wrong" reference format, changing it ourselves, or making a polite suggestion on the talk page are both preferable to reversion. In response to the aside, I am all for removing the the word "presbytery" and replacing it with "his house". StAnselm (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

But the sources are NOT clear (no matter what you may think). You said above "Well, that's kind of the issue here. We could quite easily say "barricade himself in his house" but that is what is in dispute. The reliable sources say "presbytery", and I think it means the priest's house." Any time you say "I think it means" - you're verging into OR territory. You're not sure it's the house, the sources aren't clear, and in all honesty - the incident is not needed in the article at all. It's the only post-1850 incident mentioned in the article - it's not clear from the sources that it's tied to the restoration of Catholic bishops specifically, and the simple solution is to remove the specific incident in Ipswich. I'm not sure WHY it's so important to retain this incident here. The article would not be hurt by losing it - and it would solve the problem as a compromise. Why do you insist on keeping the information in the article? I THINK the sources are not clear that the house is meant - it's likely, but it's not totally clear and when we aren't totally sure, we can't engage in OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Fix the others" - nothing needs fixing. The format is simple - harvnb for a book, citation for anything else. That's it. But if you want to change it then bear in mind you'll also have to change every article in this page too. And you can be certain I'll object at every stage. Parrot of Doom 22:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Using the wrong citation style is not grounds for removal of content. We should encourage consistent style, but removing sourced content because you don't like the style is not within policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The original removal of content was because the sources given didn't mention any connection with Guy Fawkes Night for the incident. It was returned to the article with another source given (a primary source from a diary for that date) that still didn't really tie the information to GFN. PoD's edit summary in full was "snippet view doesn't give enough context to demonstrate it was the same event, and the formatting is incorrect for an FA". As it stands right now, the information is almost a classic example of SYNTH - the second and third source given state that the priest took refuge in a presbytery (with one source being totally about the church and the other implying that the presbytery meant is the residence) and the fourth source is the only source that ties the event to GFN (although the only visible part in the snippet view is that the riots took place on 5 November. Nothing in the snippet view ties the event to GFN at all.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree (based on cursory reading) that the linkage could be stronger, and skirts (and possibly violates) WP:SYNTH. Although I don't think its that much of a stretch to say anti-catholic riots mentioned in juxtaposition to gunpoweder plot events are related. (A very analogous situation in my mind is the Kristallnacht riots being mentioned in juxtaposition to the von-rath assassination, though obviously that is a topic which later RS have made the linkage much more strongly). However, I do not hold a strong opinion on the correctness or not of the particular content as I have not read the content nor the sources claimed closely enough. I was merely commenting on the thrust of this talk section. If the content is objectionable for other reasons and there is consensus towards that end, then that is its own issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On that last issue, this source clarifies that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. This source from Suffolk County Council says "the ‘Anti Popery' disturbances in Ipswich in November 1863 [...] followed the Gunpowder Plot commemorations and coincided with the salacious anti-catholic lectures given by Andre Massena." -- 101.119.14.238 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"On that last issue, this source clarifies that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest." - it does no such thing. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Most people are aware that in a modern Catholic context, "presbytery" always refers to the residence of the priest(s). In this case, the cited source says "The [note the definite article] presbytery of St. Pancras Church, a two hundred year old house." This means that this is the actual building (now demolished) in which Father Patrick Rogers barricaded himself in 1863. -- 101.119.14.160 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The writers of that newspaper article have no idea what the 1863 writers thought, just as we don't. Parrot of Doom 08:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The sources talking about the priest barricading himself in the presbytery are modern sources (from 2011). And the writers of that 1938 newspaper article were quite clear what "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" meant. -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The 1938 writers were not referring to the 1863 event. I'm completely unsurprised by your failure to understand this. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The 1938 writers were referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place. And I continue to be surprised at your failure to understand how Catholics use the term "presbytery." -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"The 1938 writers were referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place" - in your opinion. Last response on this matter from me, you're plainly an idiot. Parrot of Doom 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the 1938 writers were indeed referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place. There is only one St Pancras Church, Ipswich, and only one meaning for "presbytery" in a modern Catholic context. And I note your continued substitution of mindless abuse for rational argument. -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

PoD : WP:NPA. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called a cunt Gaijin42 then don't act like one. Eric Corbett 14:57, 29 October 2013 (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.

Calendars

I request the following note be placed after the first mention of 5 November:

<ref group=nb>England and the British colonies in America changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1752; Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday 14 September 1752. Guy Fawkes Night has been observed on 5 November whichever calendar was in effect. Dates in the article are stated in the calendar that was in effect at the time of the event, but for purposes of the article the year is always considered to begin 1 January even though the year was considered to begin 1 March in England and the colonies before 1752.</ref>

Which dates in the article are affected by the adoption of the Gregorian calendar? None? Eric Corbett 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking quickly, I see 4 November 1802. Also, there are numerous years after 1752 mentioned where it is implied the date being discussed is 5 November. In addition, many readers might not recall when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England and might not know whether 5 November 1605 was a Gregorian or Julian date. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

But why does it matter whether it's a Gregorian or Julian date? Eric Corbett 17:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes events are commemorated an exact number of calendar years after the event (for example, Washington's Birthday until 1971). Other events are commemorated on the date with the same name, and thus are not an exact number of calendar years after the event. Anyone wishing to research 17th or 18th century publications will want to know which is the case. Also, the date the new year begins is important if searching 17th or 18th century publications.

But the date the new year begins is irrelevant in this case. Eric Corbett 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The article states the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 was passed in January 1606, but the persons present when the act was passed would have considered it to be January 1605. I think it is reasonable to warn readers that dates have been altered from what persons present at the events would have considered the dates to be. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The calendar used is irrelevant since it is the event and date that is commemorated, not the number of days between commemorations. Parrot of Doom 17:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The calendar is never irrelevant. If you don't know which calendar a date is stated in, you don't know when the event happened. The event cannot be compared to events that occurred in other countries that observed a different calendar.

Also, if a future editor wants to add information involving a date to the article, the editor will need to know whether to convert the date to the calendar used in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So should the date also be converted to the Islamic calendar? Eric Corbett 20:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. 5 November 1605 was on....5 November 1605. 5 November 1805 was on...surprise surprise....5 November 1805. Your argument is ridiculous. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless you were living in a Catholic country, in which case it was 15 November. Oh, weren't the plotters trying to put a new monarch on the throne and establish a regency that would be more sympathetic to Catholics? Gee, no one could ever be confused about which calender to use in this situation, could they. There is no chance that this article will ever contain any mention of any event in a Catholic country, is there? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your point is ridiculous. The date is 5 November. What other countries think the date was is irrelevant to this article. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Although this entire thread seems pedantic, all the OP is asking for is a note, which I am confused as to how this could be objectionable. Particularly the issue about the passing of the observance of the 5th of November act, where the date is part of the act name (or at least our article), and there is an obvious discrepancy. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

He's asking for a note about an irrelevance. What the date was in other countries has no bearing on anything in this article. Perhaps we should also add notes to the effect that people in other countries spoke different languages and that they also ate different foods. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that some kind of note is necessary. The article currently says that "the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 was passed in January 1606," and that certainly requires clarification (it's even more important that the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 article contain a note, of course). -- 101.119.14.238 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It wasn't 1606 until March, as far as those who passed the law thought. I can see of zero policy based argument why this uncontested, and relevant fact should be excluded, especially with something as minor as a note. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If the note is not included, then I request that the article be dowgraded from FA to GA. Sloppiness with dates is inexcusable in an historical article. -- 101.119.14.160 (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded that section of the article to remove the need to explain that January 1605 followed November 1605. Hopefully this addresses the point. Bencherlite^Talk 13:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible thing to do. Parrot of Doom 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is 'other countries' only allowed to include the US?

I added some information about Guy Fawkes being celebrated (albeit less so these days) in Australia and New Zealand as the topic is called 'other countries' and yet is limited to only the USA. However, it was deleted as 'trivia'. Surely it's worth mentioning those countries that do celebrate it, even if in just a sentence? [EDIT: I notice that it's briefly mentioned in the lede, but 'some Commonwealth countries' is still vague given it can include India!] Vickytnz (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please search the talk page archives for more information. Parrot of Doom 18:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

On that basis, should the mention in the lead that "celebrations continue in some Commonwealth nations" be removed? It's not supported by any text or citations in the main article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with that, although I don't think a similar sentence in the article body would need a citation, it's not particularly controversial. Parrot of Doom 19:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

But if it's mentioned, it surely needs some evidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Only material either challenged or likely to be challenged. Parrot of Doom 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm challenging it, so I'm removing it until sources are provided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The article should have a comprehensive section on 21st century practices. At the moment its is too narrowly focused the history of the event in England. -- PBS (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A focus on the history of the event in England is appropriate per WP:DUEWEIGHT, as that is what the most reliable and comprehensive sources focus on. Furthermore, more details on 21st-century practices are available at Bonfire Night. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can there at least be a link to Bonfire Night here? There isn't a single one on the page. In NZ and Australia it's not known as Bonfire Night but Guy Fawkes (as per the news articles), and it's unlikely they'd make the link without a proper connection. If Bonfire Night is meant to capture modern/global practices, perhaps a redirect 'for modern celebrations of the event, see Bonfire Night' at the top of the page? Vickytnz (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"A focus on the history of the event in England is appropriate per WP:DUEWEIGHT," how do you proportion duweight? -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bonfire night was a dab page and to all intense and purposes remains one (see the edit by Nikkimaria). The reason for using the name "Guy Fawkes Night" for this article was precisely because bonfire night commemorates/celebrates different events under different traditions. So although "bonfire night" and "fireworks night" are more common names than "Guy Fawkes Night", "Guy Fawkes Night" was chosen for the name of this article because it fits the WP:AT criteria "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". -- PBS (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As I just mentioned, you proportion due weight based on "what the most reliable and comprehensive sources focus on". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding. I did not ask how does "one proportion duweight?" (perhaps it is a dialect thing). I personally disagree with the position put forward that only histories are the most reliable and comprehensive sources, as they are not comprehensive either in depth of or breadth. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We certainly do have a misunderstanding - you say at 18:48, 4 November 2013 that "[you] did not ask how does "one proportion duweight?"", but at 08:48, 4 November 2013 you say "how do you proportion duweight?". I'm not sure under what dialect these statements might be compatible. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is the difference between you (singular) and you (plural as in "yous" or "ye" in some dialects). If I am asking in general I use one, if I am asking a specific person I write you. -- PBS (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As "Guy Fawkes", certainly Britan gets the most WP:DUE since it is a British historical event. However, as the customary traditions are a subset of other more general "bonfire nights" etc, some minor links over there should be allowed. "In other countries" should only have content here as specifically related to Guy Fawkes, other similar celebrations unrelated to Guy Fawkes should be in the bonfire nights article or somewhere else. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What I find strange about that edit on the dab page is that all the foreign country links explicitly have the word "Guy Fawkes'" in the titles. They're not talking about a bonfire night, they're talking about Guy Fawkes, as in commemorating the gunpowder plot and its failure. There is no other custom that is being used in those countries, it is definitely this one. To be honest, I think the split sections just cause confusion, particularly as there's no See Also: for Bonfire Night in the Guy Fawkes header. Vickytnz (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps those who believe that consensus has been consistently achieved on various issues, such as what goes in 'other countries', could work on a [FAQ] for the Talk page as a guide to editors on this article? AnonNep (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did 'Parrot of Doom' edit my addition of a simple fact stating that Guy Fawkes Night is also celebrated in New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland? It seems this user has done this in the past, and must have some underlying reasons for not wanting any other country mentioned in this section except for the USA. How can we report this unnecessary removal of legitimate additions to Wikipedia so this user can be prevented from destroying the work of others? Chuckeee (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs more about how it is currently celebrated in the UK

"The present-day Guy Fawkes Night is usually celebrated at large organised events, centred on a bonfire and extravagant firework displays.". Not true at least in the UK, it is mostly celebrated by families with children letting off fireworks in their back gardens after dark. If they are lucky they also have a bonfire and outdoor food such as roast potatoes etc. Having lived in the suburbs most of my life, it has always been like WW3 on Bonfire Night as all the families around let off fireworks. Organised displays do occur, but I still think that more people take part in their own family letting off of fireworks. Perhaps some statistics on firework sales could be found. The past religious significance has been forgotten by everyone except historians. 2.97.212.235 (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Statisctics on firework sales would tell you very little, as I'd bet that most fireworks are used on occasions other that Guy Fawkes Night. New Year and Diwali to mention but two. Eric Corbett 15:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair point that probably has some truth about it, but the trouble is that there aren't any high quality sources that attempt to compare the modern day celebration with its history. So anything we did include would be based not on the experts' view, but on our own. Parrot of Doom 16:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

'V for Vendetta'

Perhaps one of the more popular modern reasons for Guy Fawkes' Day celebrations is because of its significance in the movie V for Vendetta. I'm amazed that this isn't mentioned on this page? Can somebody add that? Sir Ian (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page archives. Parrot of Doom 16:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's best mentioned in Guy Fawkes (briefly) and Gunpowder Plot in popular culture; the film's not particularly relevant to GFN itself. Bencherlite^Talk 16:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in both those articles, and I see no merit at all in the suggestion that the film has had any effect on modern-day observation. Eric Corbett 16:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point, sorry if I didn't make myself clear. It is already mentioned in two more relevant articles, and so there's even less need to have it here where it is not relevant. Bencherlite^Talk 17:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)