Talk:Gunpowder Plot/Archive 1

message: Added part in intro about possible government involvement
APAULCH 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Government

message: In the poem for Guy Fawkes Night it says that there was 3 score, or 60, barrels of gunpowder:
"Remember, remember, the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and plot ;
I know of no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes,
'Twas his intent.
To blow up the King and the Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below..."
-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.124.99 (talk • contribs) on 21:59, 5 December 2006
:see Houses of Parliament factsheet on event. 20 were stored in a house in Lambeth, but 36 were described as being discovered. Kbthompson 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: poem

message: I think "popular legend", while better than the immediately previous phrasing, is still a bit of a whitewash; torture is strongly indicated by secondary evidence (the timeframe of the information received from Fawkes, and the almost-illegible condition of his signature on the confession). - Hephaestos 00:32, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  Feel free to remove my comment - I just stumbled over the signature comparison on Google, and I'm convinced.  The King's order did not require torture, but he had to personally order it for it to be legally allowed, and I really doubt that, given the scale of the plot, it would not have been used.  -- Pakaran 00:41, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and Guy Fawkes has a good-sized paragraph about the torture.  Might be good to include?  Or just make the torture discussion here a "see also?"  I need to get some stuff done tonight, or I'd take care of it.  -- Pakaran 01:26, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a "see also" would do it, although I'm not really sure about how to word it right at the moment (which is also the reason I didn't change the article, the only wording I could think of was way too verbose). - Hephaestos 02:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Torture

message: This article contains contradictory information, on one paragraph it states that there were 20 barrels 
of gunpowder, and in a later paragraph states that there were 36 barrels of gunpowder. They cant both be right, can 
someone check to see which is correct, and properly merge the different bits of the article together G-Man 11:53, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: For the time being I will standardise on 36 barrels unless someone finds evidence to the conrary G-Man 12:19, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: How many?

message: Why are there no references to the celebration of "Guy Fawkes Day" in Great Britan? Isn't this a major oversight? Boetron 15:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Guy Fawkes day

message: The large part of the text in the section "The plot" has obviously been taken from some source. Can anybody identify this so that it can be properly attributed? --Spudtater 16:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attributed?

message: I've just been merging some information from the Guy Fawkes article into this article, following a brief query on Talk:Guy Fawkes that didn't seem to raise any objections.  They both seemed to be duplicating a lot of information, so the plan is to place most of the information about the Gunpowder Plot over here, and then remove most of it from there (but point it here for more detail).  Hopefully I've caught everything important and haven't messed up any context, but if anyone concerned has time to check it, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt. Izogi 05:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging from the Guy Fawkes article 

message: What is this 'popular verse' that's listed?  The one I know is:
Remember, remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Which, despite being the verse that everyone in England knows (and the one on the Guy Fawkes page), doesn't even have its second half appear anywhere in the 'expanded' verse listed!
:Good spotting.  It was vandalism that appeared about 3 days ago.  Now removed.  Izogi 10:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the popular verse 

message: I think that the date "November 5, 1605" must be annotated, because that is in the Gregorian calendar, adopted on "November 15, 1605". (Sorry, I don't speak English)
(日本語のわかる方へ:記事中の「1605年11月5日」は、ユリウス暦での日付ではないかと思います。出典がすぐには思い出せませんが、講談社が刊行した本(書名は忘れてしまいました。「世界全史」のような名だったと記憶しています)に記述がありました。もしこの本に書いてある通りならば、「グレゴリオ暦では11月15日となる」という注釈が必要ではないかと思います。詳しい方がいらっしゃいましたら教えてください。)--202.224.242.66 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Izogi 05:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Old Style and New Style dates 

message: While the parliament may have represented a legitimate military target, the conspirators were not an organized and identifiable military force engaged in a declared war.  Therefore, the act was close to terrorism. Geoff NoNick 15:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If calling the conspirators "terrorists" is a "dysphemism," as the article currently suggests, the article embraces a non-neutral point of view in that it consequently implies that a "revolutionary" is a better thing to be than a "terrorist." Who's to say if that's true or not? Certainly not an encyclopedia. Sean Parmelee 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The assertion that Fawkes does not constitute a "terrorist" under the modern sense of the word is far from neutral.  I am changing this assertion in the introduction to reflect a more neutral point of view.Valkyryn 09:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: Who else apart from James I would have died, and how would the history of the would have changed?
:Try this BBC page, and hopefully the page will be able to answer your question soon.  violet/riga (t) 15:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but do read that with a pinch of salt - there are a few errors in it.  violet/riga (t) 21:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if the plot had suceeded? 

message: This isn't relevant to the article at all, and I apologize to purists who may see this as an intrusion, but I'd just like to point out that today is, in fact, the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot.  Happy Guy Fawkes Day.  Teflon Don 08:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  400 Years 

message: I am 76 years old, and have lived in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, California, and Washington. I have, or had, relatives living in South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, and Maryland. I have never heard of Guy Fawkes Night being celebrated anywhere in the USA. But I may be wrong. If no one can provide more information, I plan to correct the article.  Too Old 16:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This question has been answered: Guy Fawkes Night was celebrated in the colonial period, primarily by protestant colonists, was later an expression of anti [Irish] Catholic sentiment, and has persisted, sporatically, divorced from its original inspiration, as an excuse for a bonfire and a party.  Too Old 04:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true, but the article makes it sound like it still IS celebrated in the USA.  I'm not as old (no offense!) or well traveled as Too Old, but I've never heard of anyone celebrating this in the contemporary USA with the possible exception of British expats living here.  Rhesusman 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I deleted that reference. Until the movie V for Vendetta, I don't think the majority of Americans had even heard of the plot, let alone celebrated its anniversary. Sean Parmelee 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy Fawkes Day is, to this day, celebrated in Westerly, RI, USA.  As far as I know, the annual celebration will continue into the future.  Also, Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot are referenced in Dianna Wynne Jones' novel Witch Week.  01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which parts of the USA? 

message: [The ITV programme (quoted in the article)] stated that anyone within 100m of the explosion would be killed.
It should be remembered that the earlier gunpowder plot which killed King James's father, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, involved a proportionately violent blast which reduced the house at Kirk o'Field in Edinburgh to rubble, such that "not one stone stood upon another". Nevertheless, one of the five people in the house at the time survived. This was a servant named Nelson who had been sleeping in a gallery on the top floor. When the explosion occurred, he was thrown onto the town wall, a few feet below the gallery. However, two other servants sleeping in the same gallery died, as did two grooms sleeping adjacent to the stables on the ground floor. The conspirators had made such a noise setting the fuse that Darnley and his valet Taylor were able to flee the house before the explosion. Unfortunately, they ran into the arms of Darnley's waiting enemies, who promptly hanged or strangled them. It was noted that although their bodies were within a few feet of the smoking ruins of the house, they bore no obvious injuries. (The intervening town wall may have shielded them from the blast).
On the other hand, the ITV reconstruction was graphic enough. Of the green dummy which represented Francis Bacon, standing about eighty feet from the seat of the explosion, only a leg was found. The purple dummy representing King James had been immediately above the seat of the explosion. All that remained was the top of the head.
It is possible that some servants or other inconsequential people in remote parts of the House of Lords might have survived, through the same sort of circumstances which spared Nelson at Kirk o'Field. Outside the House, some people would certainly be killed by flying debris, but the blast would no longer be confined and would not be lethal.
The reconstruction did show that everyone in the chamber attending the opening of Parliament would almost certainly have died.
HLGallon 05:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern re-enactment; would the plot have killed the king ?

message: I was perhaps wondering if Robert Ctesby and the other conspericers had backing rom the pope or if they did this on their own.  Also what were they. Were the conspericers noble men or pesents or middle class merchants.
(69.150.209.25 19:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pope 

message: Have a look at the first paragraph and compare it to the 'modern theories' section -
"was a desperate but failed attempt by a group of provincial English Catholic extremists"
"The conspirators had then planned to abduct the royal children, not present in parliament, and incite a revolt in the Midlands"
vs
"Many modern historians think that Cecil's agents had infiltrated the plot early on"
"Another theory is that King James, searching for greater acceptance of Catholics, desired a test case with which to demonstrate Catholic loyalty to Parliament "
"A darker supposition is that Cecil helped to arrange the Gunpowder Plot himself"
I'd say that bearing this in mind the first paragraph is a bit too sure of itself. The facts of the case and motivations of the people involved are disputed but this makes it sound like there is a consensus. --Sachabrunel 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree.  Nonsensical conspiracy theories on wikipedia must be stamped out! john k 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy in tone 

message: The question of whether the word "terrorism" is or is not an appropriate desciption of the plot is a contentious one, and is not likely to go away.  However, it really is not introductory material.  Therefore I suggest that third paragraph in this article be moved further down the article to its 
own subsection.
jmd 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorists? 

message: I noticed two of the external links were broken.  The 404 page it leads to says the BBC History site has been redesigned.  I've located the new links and will change them now, but I thought I'd leave a note here. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/monarchs_leaders/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml (What if the gunpowder plot had succeeded)
has moved to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/games/gunpowder/index.shtml (The Gunpowder Plot Game) 
has moved to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/launch_gms_gunpowder_plot.shtml
 - square_pear | talk 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated URLs 

message: Many belive the gunpowder plot to have been part of the counter-reformation.
This strikes me as being a very vague statement. How do we quantify many? Is there perhaps a reference that can suport this claim? How are we defining Counter-Reformation?
Iron Ghost 01:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter Reformation 

message: Its is a widely taught view in British schools, that Cecil may very well have been behind the plot. Other posters above have confirmed they were taught at school it was Cecil, like I was. You can go to English schools history websites, and download such material readily enough. I even posted a link to an example above. To exclude such well established and widely taught views from the article, is a blatant violation of narrative neutrality. The views are externally verifiable in their claims, a key criteria of WIKI inclusion. My work on filling out doubts that exist about the official story has just been deleted. People can go over the page history and see what I added. I now invite consensus and discussion. But to have no reference to the alternative theories is simply absurd, when they are so widely taught. WHY THE CENSORSHIP? WHY ARE PEOPLE AFRAID OF THE FACTS ABOUT SOME 400 YEAR OLD STORY? The WIKI must reflect these views, even if they are not advanced as part of the main narrative of the article, otherwise the NPOV tag must stay permanently. It is not for editors to decide what is and is not 'true,' rather to report the range of externally presented opinions on the matter. OPINION = POV Timharwoodx 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there is a good case for putting some of the above back in the article, but it may need to be better referenced. Still, the present article is an improvement on what earlier versions, which simply dismissed the whole idea on the basis of an 1897 publication. Viewfinder 12:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Can somebody who has not already shown themselves to be a POV warrior on this confirm that British schools commonly teach that the definitive story of the Gunpowder Plot is that it was all made up by Cecil?  If this is true, I must say that I am rather disappointed by the British educational system. I don't think it really changes the fact that the opinions we should take most seriously are those of mainstream academic historians, who believe no such thing. john k 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the dispute over the curriculum has been reported in newspapers (or similar) it itself is probably not notable enough for inclusion in this article. If reliable sources say that Cecil was a conspirator then their views can be added and attributed to them. This really doesn't seem like a major issue, certainly not one for the entire article, and not on that has been acted on since 2006, so I am going to remove the tag. Savidan 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag added

message: 'It is now generally believed that although there is no evidence to say that Cecil initiated the plot, he may certainly have known about it before Fawkes arrest on the fourth or fifth of December and played its uncovering to his and the government's advantage.'
'May certainly' - what kind of broken English grammar is that? Well of course Cecil knew before the 5th! He was shown the warning letter sent 9 days previous, and he immediately deduced it was a plot to blow up parliament! Why 9 days elapsed between the warning, and a search, is one of the major unanswered questions. Clear evidence the persons who butchered my conspiracy section, do not know the slightest thing about the gunpowder plot. Historically accurate content, is being replaced with illogical nonsense, written in grammatically broken English! Timharwoodx 09:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not like the title of this section. It breaches WP:CIV, and despite my differences with 86.20, I do not think that he is clueless. Please let us continue this discussion with more respect for those with whom we do not agree. Viewfinder 13:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken English in new edit

message: See the Alex Jones Terrorstorm film - an introduction to US government sponsored 'false flag' terror operations, where governments make things up to achieve political aims. The American government admits in its own declassified documents it considers the mass murder of American civilians acceptable, if it advances specific long term policy goals i.e. see Operation_Northwoods - an entry in the WIKIPEDIA itself. A shocking insight into the type of people who run our governments.
* http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947
Watch Loose Change Second Edition - Recut. The most watched internet-only film of all time.
* http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en
From Freedom to Fascism - Aaron Russo.
* http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
Those videos were where I started to have my doubts about governments and 'Terror plots.' Go watch the films - they are free. The Gunpowder plot was an a inside job. Just another government backed 'false flag' operation. None of the so called 'facts' about the plot add up, and an externally verifiable published literature exists which says so. Wake up folks! Timharwoodx 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we can clearly say that this was a government plot, it shouldn't be so categorised.  If you want - create a separate category for possible false flag operations. -- Beardo 19:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other "false flag" operations by governments

message: Has a film or TV dramatisation ever been done?--Moonlight Mile 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only find two on IMDB. A TV adaptation in 2004 and an obscure silent version in 1923. Robertcornell68 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Films or TV dramatisations

message: I think the following sentence needs to be revised; I find it problematic.
"Before this period Catholicism had been associated with Spain and the Inquisition but after the plot's failure it also became thought of as treasonous to be Catholic." (Eeesh 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In fact, so bad is the sentence that I've removed it. Yes, Catholicism was associated with Spain, but also with English history, with English Catholics, with European history, with the pope, and with goodness knows what else. Some people might have thought that all Catholics were potential traitors, but King James did not, and the Oath of Allegiance required Catholics to swear loyalty to the king: if they did that, they were considered loyal. qp10qp 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision to introductory material. 

message: The bonfire picture is brokenVentusIgnis 12:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Picture 

message: Nice reference concerning the artists travels. Note there is a bug in imagemap so that links and refs are not processed properly Victuallers 13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imagemap