[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 4

< Talk:Guy Fawkes Night
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Malleus Fatuorum in topic Bonfire night is not just an historical event
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9


James I and VI

Latest comment: 13 years ago40 comments7 people in discussion

I noticed in the intro, that the King of England, Scotland and Ireland is called "King James I". That's not entirely accurate, as it should read "King James I and VI". The guy was James VI as King of Scotland. The Kingdom of Scotland's James I having reigned 1406-37. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The events took place in England and he was King James I of England. That he was also King James VI of Scotland is immaterial. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Still though, had the King of England been assassinated, so then would've the King of Scotland & King of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Duh! Do you know, that never occurred to me! Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think if the article mentioned Scotland at all (for instance, further detail on Gunpowder Treason Day in Scotland) then it might be relevant to mention that he was king of that country also. Gunpowder Plot does this, but as things stand it isn't really that important here. Parrot of Doom 22:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
James also claimed to be King of France. Equally irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Well it is France, after all. Parrot of Doom 22:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
James was King of Scotland & Ireland (it wasn't just a claim). I'll wait for further imput on this 'name' proposal of mine. If there's not gonna be a consensus for the correction, then I wont push it further. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
"Correction"? It's hardly a correction, unless you're claiming that James wasn't James I of England. But I can see no harm in the article explicitly saying "King James I of England" if that would satisfy you. Of course this discussion is rather pointless though, as the article is now indefinitely protected. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, "James I and VI", is a partial correction. PS: The article won't remain protected forever (we hope). GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any sources which detail the commemoration in Scotland, or Ireland? I tried to find some but was unsuccessful, but surely 5 November in Ireland might be interesting. If anything is missing from the article, its that. Parrot of Doom 22:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Theres' sources that James was also King of Scotland & King of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Nobody disputes that, which is why I asked a completely different question. Never mind. Parrot of Doom 23:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there consensus to change the article to read King James I and VI? It seems one editor believes so. However, I see the opposite in this discussion. Just for the record, in my view it is completely irrelevant and should be reverted. Welcome to the irritating world of GoodDay folks. Daicaregos (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly not, just one editor with a bee in his bonnet. I too think it's irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't wear bonnets & there's no bees around me. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
But you are rather irritating, as surely even you must admit. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't be blamed for others hyper-sensitivities. My edit was a small one, which didn't involve adding/deleting paragraphs or moving the page. It was reverted & I haven't changed it back. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It certaintly doesn't take much to irritate certain editors. Dai, you must learn to control your emotions. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem relevant to the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a more accurate discriptive, though. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
When you say "discriptive" I assume you mean "description"? Whatever, he wasn't King James I and VI of England, and this is an article about English history. Comprenez? Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
So change it to King James I of England and Ireland, VI of Scotland. Had Jimmy Rex been killed that day, it wouldn't have effected only England. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that it's perfectly fine as it is, King James I, so I'll be changing nothing. BTW, I really do think you ought to consider investing in a dictionary; it's "affected", not "effected". Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It would have effected an affect not only on England, so I think that effected is fine in that sentence. -- PBS (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I implimented my 'better' version, anyway. If it's reverted? I won't change it back, unless there's a consensus to do so. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I assume you mean "implemented". I reverted it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
On this topic, we are obviously not "one". -- GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay I think your change is useful for those who do not know that James was also king of Scotland, indeed he wanted to be known as King of Great Britain, but you will not get a consensus for this change as there is not even agreement for a change of "explosives" to "barrels of gunpowder" in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Because "barrels of gunpowder" gives the reader the wrong impression. He was caught guarding no such thing, something that would be obvious to anyone who had the slightest idea what they were on about. And James's throne in Scotland would be relevant only if Scotland was discussed in detail, which it currently is not. Parrot of Doom 19:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

James' Scottish throne is relevant, since it would've had a new occupant, had Fawkes been able to carry out his plot. More importantly, I haven't a consensus to add my accurate changes. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, James' Scottish throne is relevant, but not to this article. Your changes, as usual, are neither accurate nor relevant. Daicaregos (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
One may question its relevency to this article. olk]]) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Nobody has questioned that fact. Now can we please just drop this pointless discussion? Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
"You're not Herbert. We reach". GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not Herbert. That would be your mate PBS. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
If you're hoping to persuade anyone to your point of view, admitting that your philosophy of life is based on old episodes of Star Trek doesn't really paint a picture of a mature person. Richerman (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
According to your 'indent', you're responding to MF. I assume you meant to respond to me? GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought the content would make that obvious. Richerman (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonfire night is not just an historical event

Latest comment: 13 years ago106 comments10 people in discussion

Over the last few month a lot of the editing of this article has in my opinion moved the article, which had a focus on the event today throughout the world with an historical section, into an historical article.

Now the night does have an important historical aspect, but it is also a current event. One of the edits I saw in the edit history sates "samhain has nothing to do with guy fawkes night. Nothing whatsoever, ok?" now that may or may not be true but in Britain, New Zealand and South Africa there is a connection between Bonfire Night and Diwali [1]. This connection exists because the celebration is roughly at the same time of year and from the commercial point of view it means more sales of fireworks and other things are available to the minority community (which ever that happens to be in a specific community). This is just a important to the current understanding of what Bonfire Night is to many people, as is the no longer practised traditions of Pope Day in the USA. -- PBS (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on adding an "in popular culture" section to the article, along with a bunch of dubious sources, irrelevant factoids, and your preferred style of formatting. Tell me why I shouldn't revert all of it? What does "In the aftermath of the Boer War Anna Maria Outerbridge—a leader of a "Boer Relief Committee" well known for trying to assist Boer POWs in escaping—was so unpopular with the British that in Bermuda, rather than Guy Fawkes an effigy of her was burned" tell us about Guy Fawkes Night, since we already know that it became customary to burn effigies of hate-figures? Parrot of Doom 16:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing for any particular sentence, but I think that the the article be more than a history on the night. Your argument for removing the factoid in Burma could be just as easily extended to a lot of the article. The fact was not originally added by me but it is a useful indicator that 100 yeas ago Bonfire Night was celebrated in Bermuda, rather than remove that fact it would be more interesting to find out if the tradition of Bonfire Night had continued or died out in Bermuda. -- PBS (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this unrliable source no Bonfire Night, but according to this unreliable? site at least some celebrate in Burmuda. It needs more investigations. The point about the debates on banning and bans tends to be the hard news on fireworks. For example in the celebrations in Auckland are similar to those in a similar sized UK town, but the news about such events both in NZ and the UK tends to be ephemeral. What gets captured in the better secondary sources tends to be accident reports and debates on bans. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. What does telling us that Bonfire Night is/was celebrated in Bermuda tell us about Bonfire Night that "celebrated in a number of overseas colonies" doesn't? Can you place it into some kind of historical context, because I can't. Bans on fireworks are more relevant to articles that discuss in detail cultural activities in those countries. Placing them here makes absolutely no sense, I might as well start adding articles on how toffee apples were banned from some bonfire night festival somewhere because childrens' teeth were rotting.
The article as it was was concise, accurate, and relevant. Now you've added a load of factoids and basically made a right pig's ear of it. A case in point - "There is no longer a tradition of commemorating the 5 November in the United States although in parts of North America it was commemorated in the past when it commonly known as Pope Day". No, I'm reverting your changes for now. Your point about Diwali is well made and I don't have any problems integrating that into the general decline of the celebrations in the UK, but the rest is just awful, including the image changes. Parrot of Doom 18:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


Tantalisingly there is an article in the www.royalgazette.com "4 Nov 2010 ... While many older Bermudians happily remember celebrating Guy Fawkes Night, and all the fun they had, many of today's children are not even ..." but their archive is off line. That this type of information is of interest to people is indicated by this article in the Liverpool Echo (which does not credit this page as a source).
While you may want to edit some of my edits you have not shown any justification for revert all of them. For example we have not yet discussed picture rearrangement or any any other changes I have made and which you have not discussed. -- PBS (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe my justification is perfectly sound. You've made a mess of it. I'm undoing that mess. Perhaps you can find people who agree with you that "There is no longer a tradition of commemorating the 5 November in the United States although in parts of North America it was commemorated in the past when it commonly known as Pope Day" is well written. I doubt they'll speak English as their first language though. Parrot of Doom 18:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As for images, as things stood they were neatly arranged and justified to suit each image's "looking space". It actually looked quite attractive. Since nobody really burns a Guy any more then I see no reason why an image of a Guy should take centre-stage at the top of the article. Best to use a historical image that demonstrates the night's longevity, and which also provides a good overview of celebrations and bonfire. Parrot of Doom 18:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)#

If you do not like the wording why not edit that wording in the USA section then why not edit that wording? If the section is to make sense in a multi country section then it needs an introduction. As you do not like the guy picture (although I am not sure why as clearly someone is burning one) I suggest that we use one of the others. -- PBS (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PBS' original point, which is that the article details the historical development of the celebrations, but does not clearly set out what is meant by the day as it is celebrated now. Current celebrations are certainly mentioned, but the reader has to read through the events of the 17th century, and later, before getting to a (relatively brief) explanation of what they are now. Can I suggest that one improvement to the article would be to rewrite the second paragraph of the introduction, so that, instead of mirroring in abbreviated form the chronological sequence of the main article, it firstly summarises how the event is celebrated now, and then goes on to summarise (briefly) how that has evolved over the centuries? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the day now has little meaning, and the article clearly says that. The relative weighting of the article's description of the day's history reflects the sources used, the most comprehensive of which is David Cressy's work. Few sources talk about modern-day celebrations beyond family bonfires, Guys, and bonfire toffee. I'm happy to somehow integrate the article on Diwalhi as its certainly of interest but there's no point in mentioning silly things like firework bans in far-away countries, bans that tell us nothing about this celebration.
Perhaps its just me but I don't particularly like chopping up an article into neat little Daily Mail paragraphs, and I especially loathe the continual push of some people to add useless factoids without first considering whether or not they're relevant. Parrot of Doom 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article simply doesn't "clearly" say that "the day now has little meaning" - it only says that briefly, after a lengthy explanation of its significance in earlier centuries. Furthermore, the interpretation that it has "little meaning" is only true if, by the word "meaning", you imply its historical connotations. Its meaning now may be "only" as a time to look at firework displays and eat toffee apples - but that fact needs to be clearly spelled out, for an international audience who may simply want to know what goes on at a "bonfire night", rather than needing to understand in detail its historical significance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You mustn't be reading the same article as I am. If the two quotes "Many modern 5 November celebrations are run by local charities and other organisations, with paid admission and controlled access. As David Cressy writes, "the rockets go higher and burn with more colour, but they have less and less to do with memories of the Fifth of November ...it might be observed that Guy Fawkes' Day is finally declining, having lost its connection with politics and religion. But we have heard that many times before." and "Nowadays, family bonfire gatherings are much less popular, and many once-large civic celebrations have been given up because of increasingly intrusive health and safety regulations. But 5 November has also been overtaken by a popular festival that barely existed when I was growing up, and that is Halloween ... Britain is not the Protestant nation it was when I was young: it is now a multi-faith society. And the Americanised Halloween is sweeping all before it—a vivid reminder of just how powerfully American culture and American consumerism can be transported across the Atlantic." don't spell out clearly enough what has happened to Guy Fawkes Night of late then I'm not quite sure how to proceed. If international readers want to know what happens on bonfire night then they'll have to read the entire article, because it isn't possible to condense the varying intensity of celebrations and commemorations in one soundbite-friendly sentence beyond what's already stated in the lead - "by the 20th century Guy Fawkes Day, or Fireworks Day as it was occasionally known, had become an enjoyable social commemoration—although missing some of its original meaning." Parrot of Doom 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"If international readers want to know what happens on bonfire night then they'll have to read the entire article..." I find that attitude quite disturbing. As I suggested, a simple rewriting of the second paragraph of the introduction, to give priority to a brief summary of the celebrations as they currently exist, would overcome much of the difficulty. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
...which would remove mention of the modern celebration from its historical context; that might suit some but not me. I don't believe there's any difficulty here, just a willingness perhaps to cater only for the lowest common denominator. We're talking about more than 400 years of general observance here, the modern celebration is a fairly insignificant part of its history. Parrot of Doom 21:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If this article was titled "History of Guy Fawkes Night", then you would have a case. But it isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ghmyrtle -- PBS (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If we're talking about cases then perhaps you should start by making a case for an expanded section on the largely-irrelevant modern day celebrations. You could begin that task by researching, as I have, some of the authoritative sources on the topic and condensing what they have to say - as I have. Try the John Rylands Library on Oxford Road in Manchester, they have some useful source material.
Once you've done that then perhaps you'll be prepared to admit that for once, someone here might actually have a good general knowledge of the subject material, and an idea as to what is and is not relevant. Reading thoroughly all the sources available tends to help there. Parrot of Doom 21:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I think someone needs to read WP:OWNERSHIP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You know what? Fuck you. Parrot of Doom 22:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
...and WP:CIVIL. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you read section 1c of that page, or perhaps in your mind civility only works in one direction. Not that it would surprise me, its always the people who start throwing the insults around who are the first to resort to linking to that page. Parrot of Doom 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No-one is questioning that you are the main contributor to what is an excellent article here. But what I see is someone who is unwilling to accept that any other editors, who may see the article from a slightly different viewpoint, may have valid points to make. My only point is that the article would benefit from giving more prominence to what the celebrations currently represent or "mean", as well as to their evolution over time. That's really not a very big issue, but it seems that you are unwilling to accept that the point has any validity at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I note you completely ignore my last point, which is again telling of the sort of person who believes that making spurious accusations against editors who work here in good faith is fine, but being told to go fuck yourself isn't. And I really don't appreciate being told that I'm unwilling to accept that other editors may have valid points to make, because that's utter bollocks. There have been few valid points made here. If you doubt me then go and read the sources used in this article, in full. Go on, put your money where your mouth is. Or maybe its easier for you to start throwing insults around. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I certainly don't doubt that you act in good faith, and I can't see how I'm supposed to have insulted you. But anyway... I have no intention of reading your sources. Why should I? As I've said, your contributions seem to be excellent, and I haven't suggested changing the main article at all. But, it represents one view - a historical analysis - of the subject of the article, and that alone does not give the clearest picture to readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You can't see how suggesting that someone needs to read WP:OWN might be considered insulting? Conversation over tbh, I can't be bothered wasting my time with such nonsense, especially as you're unprepared to read sources that actually know what they're on about. Parrot of Doom 23:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Point proven, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not consider being told I have ownership issues over an article to be an issue and certainly not insulting. Usually a simple edit count is sufficient to prove or disprove such statements. If I do not think it is true, I will politely disagree, I would never use language of the type that you (Parrot of Doom) used and if I thought there was some merit in what they have said I would without admitting it, start to edit the article less and in the short to medium term take it off my watch list. As you know, but I doubt if Ghmyrtle does, I recently expressed my concerns over ownership of HDQ.
You have not addressed my central issue that "Bonfire night is not just an historical event" and that readers may well be interested in where and how it is commemorated today (I also provided a commercial link to show that this is not just a figment of my imagination). The article is not so large that we need to sacrifice information about the history to add information about current practices. -- PBS (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't care less what you consider PBS, I know what I find insulting and I'll be damned if I'm going to be told by the likes of you how I should feel about these things, and I'm even less likely to follow any advice you have because in my opinion you don't know your arse from your elbow. Parrot of Doom 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I was not aware that I had told you to do anything. If I did please quote the sentence(s). -- PBS (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I think what you (Ghmyrtle) and PBS are missing is that "Guy Fawkes Night" is by no manner of means the same thing as "Bonfire Night". Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
So which Bonfire Night, celebrated on 5th November, would that be then? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Once again, you confuse "Bonfire Night" with "Guy Fawkes Night". When was the last time you heard or saw anyone talking about Guy Fawkes Night? Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I must have been confused by the disambiguation page, which says: "Bonfire Night may refer to... Guy Fawkes Night, celebrated on 5 November in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries". Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In real life I have never heard any name but "Bonfire Night" for the subject of this article. As shown clearly by the article, Guy Fawkes used to be central to the commemoration, and in my own experience (mostly in the West of England) it is not so long ago that a Guy was burnt in effigy every year, but the present-day Bonfire Night has largely dispensed with him, so his name is not attached to it, if it ever was. I am struggling with the implications of this for the title of the article. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The implication of some of the comments here is that we need to write Bonfire Night (UK). Seems a bizarre idea to me, but.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Malleus how about this article Is it anti-Catholic to celebrate Guy Fawkes' Night? by Guy Walters in the Telegraph on 1 November 2010 in which he writes "However, I’m certain that most people who attend Guy Fawkes’ Nights – which are, after all, more commonly just called Bonfire or Firework Nights – do not do so out of intolerance towards Roman Catholics". I am not at all sure what point you are trying to make. If it were not for the fact that we need Bonfire Night as a dab page this page would be there because as the Telegraph article says the night is more commonly called Bonfire Night.-- PBS (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In certain parts of the U.K. "Bonfire Night" may also refer to the Eleventh night bonfires of July 11th. Personally, I always referred to November 5th as "Guy Fawkes" night. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are "Bonfire Nights" in parts of the world to celebrate independence for instance. This article is specifically about the old English custom of "Guy Fawkes Night". I really can't see why this is so hard to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
So, do you think there needs to be a separate, new, article on the current cultural event that is Bonfire Night (UK)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No I don't. What would it say that this article doesn't already say? Perhaps there needs to be a general "Bonfire Night" article though, covering the custom in other parts of the world where it's got nothing to do with Guy Fawkes. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't necessarily suggesting there should be such an article, just trying to make some sense of this discussion. If this article is about the history of GFN, without dealing in any detail with current Bonfire Night celebrations, there needs to be a separate article on Bonfire Night, either in the UK or more generally. Personally I think it would make much more sense for this article to cover the current celebrations more fully - if a new article is created there will be a strong temptation to merge it with this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
So remind me. When was the last time you heard anyone refer to the evening of November 5th as "Guy Fawkes Night"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
How about the Telegraph article above? -- PBS (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No idea, but we seem to be going round in circles. If this article doesn't give sufficient weight to current celebrations, there should be a new article on Bonfire Night. Yes? Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No new article. Modify this one. -- PBS (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Malleus 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 (21:10 05/11/2010) "The Wellington fireworks were expected to draw crowds of 100,000 to 200,000. The event cost $190,000 to stage, of which $120,000 came from the council." Now when you consider that the Wikipedia article says that the population of Wellington is about 400,000 that is a large turn out. -- PBS (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated some material to do with the parallel bonfire nights in Canada, the Caribbean, New Zealand and South Africa, which clearly adds a good deal to the article. I should like to propose that any further deletions of whole paragraphs should really be discussed here first. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What it adds is a good deal of dubiously-sourced and generally irrelevant material which I shall be cutting down and integrating into the prose or removing completely. If you're going to do things like this the least you could do is copyedit it properly instead of leaving it to others, and you could also check the sources you've added to ensure that they're not dead, which some are. Some also link to books that do not exist in the bibliography. Then you might ask yourself why its so important to mention specific fireworks bans and comments by government ministers when compared to civil wars, religious upheavals, etc.
Only on Wikipedia can someone work their bollocks off to lift a large group of related articles to some level of quality, only to have others wade in and make a royal mess of it. Parrot of Doom 09:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Please cool it and work with other editors, frustration and aggressive language doesn't help and you are coming across as both arrogant and patronising--Snowded TALK 09:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Please take your patronising nonsense elsewhere, perhaps to the talk pages of PBS and Ghmyrtle who have both insinuated that I have "ownership problems". Where is the good faith there? Parrot of Doom 09:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You might want to strike that comment and maybe listen - if several experienced editors are telling you similar things ...--Snowded TALK 10:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
So when are you going to comment on PBS's and Ghmyrtle's assumptions of bad faith in their offensive accusations of WP:OWN? Or are you, like they, unable to distinguish between an unwillingness to allow this article to become a list of irrelevant and badly-written trivia (as PBS would like to happen on other articles I've edited, namely Hanged, drawn and quartered), and said policy? Parrot of Doom 11:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom to substantiate your allegations, please provide diffs on the talk page of HDQ (or my talk page). But leaving that aside can we please get back to the issue of why you consider this should emphasise history over the contemporary celebrations/commemorations.-- PBS (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You know perfectly well what I'm talking about and that discussion demonstrates quite clearly that your grasp on how to construct a good article is limited at best. You seem to delight in finding fault with anything I do and you're doing exactly that here, restoring badly-written and badly-sourced trivia, moving images around nonsensically, restoring dead links and dubious sources, changing the formatting of citations so they're different than the other Gunpowder Plot articles in their featured topic. In short, you don't appear to know much about the subject matter, just as you don't appear to know much about hanging, drawing and quartering. For almost a year I've buried myself in books on both subjects and I'm confident I have a pretty good understanding of what's needed here. Good points (like Diwali) I'll take and add to the article, but nonsense about politicians banning fireworks in foreign countries, no.
As to why this article should favour history over modern celebrations, I see no reason why it should be anything but a condensed version of the best sources available. Those expert sources are generally heavily weighted toward the history of the day and that is therefore exactly the position this article should take. WP:RECENTISM might be of interest. Parrot of Doom 18:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
PoD, in response to your question above, reviewing the material here I do think it is a pretty clear case of WP:OWN or at least a case of you saying: It is clear I know best go away. You are not engaging with other editors on the talk page in respect of content; you are just telling them they are wrong and editing directly rather than seeking agreement. We all know it can be frustrating to have deep knowledge of a subject and having to deal with people who have less, but that is wikipedia and no one editor is allowed to make the sort of claims you make in the above comment, or if they do they should expect the WP:OWN response. How about an experiment, raise content issues here when there is a dispute with other editors, and only address the content issues. Less hassle all round --Snowded TALK 08:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Look at the first changes PBS made. Perhaps there should be a page here called WP:WONTALLOWPEOPLETOMAKEAPIGSEAROFGOODARTICLES, because I'd be the first to sign up to it. People really should learn the difference between that, and WP:OWN. Parrot of Doom 08:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Still no reason to over react in the way you have. WIkipedia is mediated by behaviour not by content, its the way it works and probably the only way it can work. That means even if you are right on the content issue, you have to engage on the talk page and involve the community. It does not help to claim that you know best and that sort of things eventually ends up an ANI. Best to draw a line under all the above and start again with proposals for change here, and get agreement here before changing content when other editors disagree. Patience isn't just a virtue on wikipedia, its the only way in the long term to get things right. --Snowded TALK 08:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
"WIkipedia is mediated by behaviour not by content" - I completely agree. Too many people interested in behaviour, not enough in content-building. That attitude is rife on Wikipedia and its the reason why so many good editors leave. Parrot of Doom 08:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. My views on that point are at Snowded's talk page, but I'm sure that, in turn, you'll disagree with me. That's still no reason not to deal with people on a civil basis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Its a shame then that you don't apply that standard to your own behaviour, isn't it? There are many editors on here with whom I've worked collaboratively, producing some very nice articles. What they have in common is that they know something about the subject matter and don't sling insults in my direction when they make mistakes. People who do, like you, will see the sharp end of my tongue. If you don't like it then open an RFC or go to ANI or wherever you please, just don't expect me accept one-way civility edicts. I'm no hypocrite. Parrot of Doom 10:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

PoD AFAICT I have never been uncivil to you. But without trawling through discussions on other pages as this is not the place to do so I would appreciate it if you would give an example on this page where I have been uncivil to you.

AFAICT it was you who made the first personal comment in this section: "The article as it was was concise, accurate, and relevant. Now you've added a load of factoids and basically made a right pig's ear of it." Surly if you had not meant it to be a personal comment then "The article as it was was concise, accurate, and relevant, the recent changes are not an improvement..." or something similar would have said the same thing without the snide aside. You complain when an editor says you have an ownership problem -- Although it was phrased in such a way that it was ambiguous and might not have been referring to you (you chose to read it that way) -- yet you seem to think that nothing you write on the talk page that is gratuitously rude (and if said to a stranger in a pub in Piccadilly would probably end in a brawl) is uncivil. Others seem to disagree with you. It is not the type of language that is usually used in scholarly exchanges, and it set a bad example for minors who edit articles and may be attracted to editing an article such as this.

PoD, over the last 500 edits you made just over 300 of them (60%). Removing the edits since my first one on 22 March (45) you made 276 out of 455 (60%). Since you first edit to this page on 2010-10-26 you have made just over half the edits (345 to 649), so it seems that the ratio of your edits to others has been increasing. Now in itself this is not proof of ownership but when coupled with wholesale reverts and comments on the talk page such as "Good points (like Diwali) I'll take and add to the article," I can fully understand why two editors, on this page, have expressed ownership concerns.

At the start of this section you asked a question "Tell me why I shouldn't revert all of it?" and then before waiting for a thread to develop going through it point by point you reverted all of the edits I had made (we had not even finished discussing Bermuda). Your general revert were not at all selective, for example why did you revert the edits I had mad to the WP:APPENDIX section which altered them to that recommended in the guidelines? -- PBS (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in once again wasting my time pointing out the blindingly obvious for your entertainment. Anyone who thinks that editors who almost single-handedly take an article from this to this are problematic needs their head examining. Do yourself a favour PBS, find a crap article on a popular but quiet topic (there are many thousands) and take it to FAC. You know, an article that for years has laboured under the weight of an "in popular culture" section, dubious sourcing, poor grammar, bad images, etc. Then perhaps you might understand someone else's point of view other than your own. I have absolutely no problem with people making suggestions and discussing content, what I do have a problem with is people doing things like this and expecting others (me) to tidy up the mess. Parrot of Doom 11:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not a unique case PoD, I remember a similar attitude on other articles with you in the past. You have to learn to work with other editors and also to stop posting inventive which says that you are right and everyone else is making a mess of things. I think you have gone over the edge on WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and if I had the time (I don't as I am in a transit lounge about to board a 14 hour flight) I would make an ANI report. You have an issue, please address it --Snowded TALK 12:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
So wait until you get back and then make an ANI report. I really couldn't care less. You're right in that I do have an issue though, I have an issue with people ruining articles I've worked hard to improve. I'm addressing that here, tough luck if you don't like the way I do it. I don't like the way people insert reams of garbage into an article without even trying to make it relevant. Parrot of Doom 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
PoD you wrote "and expecting others (me) to tidy up the mess" I do not expect you to tidy up my edits, but if you would like to cooperate in tidying them up without reverting them wholesale then we can both work on improving the article. Do you have any objections to the two edits I have made today (24 March 2011)? -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes I have an issue with you changing the formatting at the end of the article. This article is part of a featured topic, all Gunpowder Plot articles in that topic share a common style. You've changed that style based on your personal preference. You did the same at HD&Q and found no consensus to do so. Now you're doing it here. Parrot of Doom 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article is always changing, it's impossible to keep it a certain way, even if you've done a big chunk of the editing to get it the way it is. Once your edits enter the public domain, they're fair game. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't seem to be listening; this article is part of a featured topic. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Even so, it's difficult to prevent any changes to it - if a number of editors are recommending changes, additions, subtractions. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Nobody's trying to prevent all changes to it, just the unreasonable ones. Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully, things will work out for the best. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the reference section to be consistent with other articles in the Featured topic, if it was good enough for rge FA reviewers, it's good enough for this article. Please do not impose personal preference. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware WP:APPENDIX the reference section was not laid out as a personal preference but followed the accepted consensus WP:LAYOUT for articles. -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
"There is no consensus establishing a particular structure when footnotes and the works cited in those footnotes are placed in separate sections." Parrot of Doom 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you are not aware that you are citing guidelines rather than immutable laws and that you are actively encouraged to use common sense when applying them. Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There is advice in both WP:CITE and WP:APPENDIX such that to use notes and references are the most common. As such although a minority of formats are used they are a minority, so we may as follow the most common format here. If not why not? Particularly as there are notes in the notes section that are not references. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You still don't seem to have taken on board the idea that this article is part of a featured topic. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we should alter some other article to use the common format? As many of those listed in the featured topic are biographies, and as layout points out, bibliography can be misunderstood as being a bibliography of the person subject to the biography it is probably a good idea to alter them as well -- PBS (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You mean a reader might misunderstand works listed in a bibliography section of a biography to have been written by the subject of the article? Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. See WP:FNNR: "('Sources', 'Citations', 'Bibliography') may also be used, although each is problematic: ... 'Bibliography' may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography." -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have anything more to say about WP:APPENDIX or can we now put in place the standard headings? -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Only that it is fine as it is. If it isn't broken I can't see any reason to change it. --J3Mrs (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I can, so presumably you will not have a reason to change it back. -- PBS (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Haven't you got anything better to do than to keep arguing the toss in a vain hope that you'll succeed in getting your own way by your intransigence? Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Nev1 you wrote fine as it was before. It is not a matter if the previous names are adequate, it is a matter of which are better. Please explain why it is not better to go with the common headings for these sections? Malleus your question is phrased in a similar way to "do you still beat your wife?". I hope to improve this article and one way to do this is to use common section headings for those sections in the WP:APPENDIX and as they appear in WP:CITE. -- PBS (talk)
How about we flip the question round. Philip Baird Shearer, can you explain why this was empirically "better" without using an argument that boils do to "it's what other articles do"? Yours expectantly, Nev1 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The suggested formation is in at least two guidelines and as WP:PG informs us "Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." It was pointed out above that the reason this format was used was because it is used in some other articles, yet as some of those are biographies it is not wise to use bibliography in such articles for a general references section (because it can be confusing (see WP:FNNR). Further using the layout as it is at the moment notes, that are not citations, are included in the references section. What are pros of using the current format Nev1? -- PBS (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to see "best-known practices" take a look at WP:FA where you will see that there is a whole range of presenting references: Rambles in Germany and Italy, bobcat, Muhammad al-Durrah incident, Nancy Reagan, Bruce Castle, etc. Claims that "best practice" refers to a single way of doing things are beyond moronic. Speaking of moronic, I assumed you were being sarcastic about people misunderstanding the meaning of bibliography, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. To take an example from the Guy Fawkes article, if a reader can't work out that a book published in 2008 with the name Younghusband, George next to the title wasn't written by Guy Fawkes himself I think there are bigger things to worry about such as how on earth did a pet dog access Wikipedia in the first place and why are they able to understand English. If you really think our audience can't understand something so obvious, I'm not sure you should be trying to write an encyclopedia. The only situation in which that could conceivably cause confusion is if "bibliography" was listed in the table of contents of a biography; then it might not be unreasonable for a reader to think the subject might have written something but that's not the case in this group of articles as the title doesn't appear in the table of contents. It seems you're just pushing this article to bend to your will because you don't like the current format. Nev1 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, -- which seems to be chiefly a criticism of WP:PG and WP:FNNR -- but I asked: "what are pros of using the current format Nev1?" and you do not seem to have addressed that issue. -- PBS (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You are of course welcome -- but I asked: "can you explain why this was empirically 'better'" and you do not seem to have addressed that issue. Nev1 (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It is better because, in the version before I changed it, there are notes in the ==References== section that are not references, and the the headings ==Notes== and ==References== reflects the usage recommended in the guidelines (WP:CONLIMITED). I can repeat the reasons why the in more detail if you wish me to, but I have already done so above. I am interested to know why, other than other articles use this format (which if a problem can be addressed by changing them as well), why you think that the version you reverted to is preferable to that recommended in the guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be pretty clear by now that I think you follow the guidelines without subtlety, understanding, or logic. If the format bothers you so much you should be holding a centralised discussion on all articles that do not adhere slavishly to your precious guideline, but you have targeted this article which suggests an intent to disrupt rather than improve. Nev1 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
My intent is to improve the article. I think that there are many areas in which it can be improved, however as a macro improvement seems to be difficult it is simpler to reduce improvements to specific areas. Rather than question my motives, please could you explain to me why you think that the version you reverted to is preferable to that recommended in the guidelines? -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Why refer to the guideline as "your precious guideline", and why accuse PBS of "an intent to disrupt"? It clearly isn't so. Moonraker2 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read this Moonraker. It might help you understand exactly what kind of editor PBS is. Parrot of Doom 12:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Cet animal est très méchant; quand on l'attaque il se défend. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you post that to give the impression that you're intelligent, or as is more likely, pretentious? Parrot of Doom 19:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You need to develop a sense of humour, Parrot of Doom. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Nev1 please could you explain to me why you think that the version you reverted to is preferable to that recommended in the guidelines? -- PBS (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
From the history of the article: "16:26, 19 April 2011 Nev1 (Undid edit by Philip Baird Shearer (talk), the explanation is there if you care to read it, however I feel that reitterating it is feeding deliberate trolling)" There is no deliberate tolling by me and I do not think it helps to accuse a fellow editor of such behaviour. I think it would be far more constructive if you could indicate with a link or a time stamp, which answer to which you are referring. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I can see another RfC in your future PBS, and a likely desysopping if you don't start to get your arse in gear. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look further up this section you will see that I asked you a question. "Please explain why it is not better to go with the common headings for these sections?" you have not yet answered that question, but you have still reverted my edit. Please could you answer. -- PBS (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Find something useful to do, PBS. Rome will not fall if you don't get your way here. In fact there are about 3 million articles begging for someone to spend as much time adding references and providing more information as you have demanding that this edit be taken seriously. Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the edits I have made to this page are useful and improve it. You made a revert, of one of those edit, I have asked you to explain that revert in terms of policies and guidelines, a courtesy I extended to you when you asked me to justify my edit, and I would appreciated if you would extend to me the same courtesy. -- PBS (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
That may be your opinion but it certainly isn't mine. You've been, and are continuing to be, a complete PITA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"explosives not limited to gunpowder"

Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion

Parrot of Doom says in an edit summary "he was caught "skulking around" in there, not leaving, and the pile of explosives was not limited to gunpowder." I confess I am not aware of other forms of explosives, could someone please give details of them and a source? Also, may I ask whether "skulking around" is drawn from a contemporary source? Moonraker2 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you simply read Gunpowder Plot? Everything you need to know is there. Parrot of Doom 10:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And when you've done that, will you please stop introducing factual inaccuracies into the lead of this article? There was one undercroft beneath the first floor house of lords, no more, and gunpowder isn't an explosive in the common sense of the word which is why the plotters stored it in barrels. Fawkes was guarding a large pile of explosives and other bits and pieces, not just barrels of gunpowder, and he was caught in the undercroft, not necessarily leaving it. Parrot of Doom 10:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
PoD you write "gunpowder isn't an explosive the common sense of the word". The OED's primary entry for gunpowder is "An explosive mixture of saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal, chiefly used in discharging projectiles from guns and for blasting." -- PBS (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Light a stick of dynamite and it'll destroy anything in its immediate area. Light an equivalent pile of gunpowder and it'll flash and cause a fire, but not a lot more. This is why the conspirators were injured, but not killed, when they placed gunpowder in front of a fire to dry out. Gunpowder needs to be contained to create a proper explosion. Parrot of Doom 11:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That is not the point you wrote "gunpowder isn't an explosive the common sense of the word" yet it is in the common sense of the word it is (as shown by the OED entry). Also the section "Reconstructing the explosion" in the article Gunpowder Plot contradicts your assertion by stating "A portion of deliberately deteriorated gunpowder, of such low quality as to make it unusable in firearms, when placed in a heap and ignited, still managed to create a large explosion". Besides As far as I am aware the wording altered in the article said "barrels of gunpowder" and they are explosive. What other types of explosive in significant quantities do you think were present in the undercroft (defined by the OED as "The crypt of a church; an underground vault or chamber".)? -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If you spent as much time writing articles as you do whinging about things like this you perhaps wouldn't make silly changes like this. Gunpowder needs to be placed in a container to create an explosion, on its own it burns. It is the buildup of gasses contained in the barrel that creates the explosion. The pile of barrels was disguised with faggots and coal so it isn't strictly correct to say that Fawkes was caught "with 36 barrels of gunpowder". Oh and the undercroft was a ground-floor room underneath the first-floor house of lords. But then again if you'd bothered to actually read the sources used in these articles you'd know all this. Parrot of Doom 13:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that if the pile of gunpowder is large enough it will act as its own container, but we are drifting from the point.
The point is you made a reversal with the comment "Jesus Christ, there was only ONE undercroft beneath the house of lords, and it contained MORE than just gunpowder. If you're going to make changes then make them legible and factually accurate!" (I was not aware that a editor called Jesus Christ had been editing this article. The words you reverted from were
The words you reverted to were:
  • "was caught guarding a hoard of explosives placed beneath the House of Lords and arrested."
Did you read the wording you reverted? as there is no mention of more than one undercroft, (I can see that "an undercroft" could be misconstrued so replacing "an" with "the" would fix that, but equally that could be misconstrued to mean there was only one undercroft in the whole world). The comment on "and it contained MORE than just gunpowder" is equally true for "guarding a hoard of explosives" as he was also guarding other things at the same time. The other things are incidental to the point, as are the rest of the things in the undercroft. -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
In reply to the two questions at the top of this thread, Parrot of Doom replied "Why don't you simply read Gunpowder Plot? Everything you need to know is there." But I have looked and can't find an answer to either question, so here they are again:
"he was caught skulking around" — Where is this drawn from, please?
The non-gunpowder explosives in the "hoard" — What exactly were they, and what is the source, please?
Moonraker2 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This has developed into the most boring discussion I've seen since the bra-burners turned up on Wife selling. Get the sources, read them, and you'll find your questions answered. I'm here to write articles, not to answer the questions of people too lazy to find the answers themselves. Parrot of Doom 16:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Moonraker2, where does the article use the word "skulking? Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"The pile of explosives was not limited to gunpowder" comment is easily explained I think by pointing out once again that the barrels of gunpowder were hidden beneath faggots and coal, so the pile was indeed not limited to gunpowder. It certainly doesn't imply that there were other explosives in addition to gunpowder, although potentially there were. It is surely general knowledge that wood can explode if the sap contained within it is heated rapidly, such as in a lightning strike for instance. Coal dust is of course also explosive. Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Here Parrot of Doom said "he was caught "skulking around" in there, not leaving, and the pile of explosives was not limited to gunpowder" As you will see, Parrot of Doom was expaining his dogged insistence on using the word "explosives" instead of "gunpowder". That does imply that there were other explosives in addition to gunpowder. You say "potentially there were", but if there had been other explosives then it is incredible if they escaped detection. I think we can see why Parrot of Doom has repeatedly evaded this question: there is no evidence of any other explosives, and he was simply making this claim up "on the hoof", believing that it is more important for him to get his own way than for the truth to emerge. Alas, this is par for the course. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel like I'm talking to a child, and I suspect that I am. PoD used the word "skulking" in an edit summary, not in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It is helpful that you do not disagree on the main issue, which is about the invented explosives. I do not know what age has to do with anything we are discussing. Are you implying that edit summaries are "off the record"? When they are used to justify edits, which is the correct use of them, they are part of the record. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'll do you a favour. Why not ask the responsible adults in charge of your care what they think of your ignorant antics here? Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, I am not at all tempted to match you with all this personal abuse, which hits the instigator far more than the target. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
In your opinion perhaps, but not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"the pile of explosives was not limited to gunpowder" is what I said in the quote Moonraker. When Fawkes was captured he was guarding a huge pile of faggots and coal, underneath which were the barrels of gunpowder. If you want to create a huge drama over your misunderstanding then go right ahead, just don't expect me to read it. Parrot of Doom 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That's the quotation. If we agree there were no other explosives, then it seems to mean "the pile of explosives (that is, gunpowder) was not limited to gunpowder, as faggots and coal were also in the pile". How did that work as an explanation for several times changing "gunpowder" into "explosives"? Moonraker2 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

PoD you made a reversal with the comment "Jesus Christ, there was only ONE undercroft beneath the house of lords, and it contained MORE than just gunpowder. If you're going to make changes then make them legible and factually accurate!" (I was not aware that a editor called Jesus Christ had been editing this article. The words you reverted from were

The words you reverted to were:

  • "was caught guarding a hoard of explosives placed beneath the House of Lords and arrested."

How are your preferred words preferable to the ones you reverted? You have mentioned several times that gunpowder does not explode, yet as far as I am aware all the version where you have made reverts used "barrels of gunpowder" and AFAICT there is no dispute that "barrels of gunpowder" explode so I am not sure what point you are making about gunpowder not exploding. -- PBS (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

But we have surely agreed that no explosives other than gunpowder were found, so "explosives" is not "more accurate" than "gunpowder", it is less accurate. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

PoD how is "explosives" more accurate than "barrels of gunpowder"? -- PBS (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guy_Fawkes_Night/Archive_4&oldid=1136780977"