Talk:Gunpowder Plot

message: Readers who do not know about the Church of England may be confused. The only line explaining what motivated the revolt is "" Should we change the first sentence to something like:
*The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot or the Jesuit Treason, was a failed assassination attempt against King James I by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Robert Catesby who sought to end persecution of Catholics under the Church of England.
Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of England is not mentioned in the lead 

message: , you changed "persecution of Catholics" to "Anglican rule" citing NPOV. The article says "persecution of Catholics" in the body in wikivoice, so it should be fine in wikivoice in the lead as well.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Persecution of Catholics" 

message: Here, the source infers that this addition is in reference to the gunpowder itself, but it may as well be in reference to the plot, suggesting regret that, alas, there "was none left" to light the fuse. Why would someone in 1952 question the provenance of said gunpowder without providing further proof? Why should none of it have been left? No other source states what was done with it.84.164.194.186 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On topic of the gunpowder, I recall in 1990s Magnus Magnusson presented a documentary about the Plot, arguing possibility of government collusion, mentioning that gunpowder at the time was a government monopoly, thus raising a question as to where the gunpowder intended to be used came from. So the person questioning the gunpowder left behind was perhaps justified in their disbelief if they were aware of the monopoly factor.Cloptonson (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "but there was none left" 

message: As that talk page is now archived (Archive 4) I offer my comment here to answer the question raised over allegations Robert Cecil was behind it. Was not Robert Cecil, as Secretary of State who went to the House of Lords on ennoblement, bound to be attending parliament himself? I certainly agree with the doubt attached to what may have been written by 'Horrible Histories' as these books do not give sources to everything they mention in the ways many histories written for a more adult readership would. I recall (see last talk point) that in the 90s there was a TV documentary that may be archived online that mentioned Cecil's secret agents acted as agent provocateurs to interest Catholics in potential acts of treason so they could subsequently arrest them at opportune times. There is the question there may have been government collusion as Magnus Magnusson pointed out gunpowder was a government monopoly.Cloptonson (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment re Doubt (Was the king behind the gunpowder plot?)

message: Why was the overly detailed tag removed without discussion? The stated justification that it was based on other articles is not convicing. I'm not working on that article. For this article, I don't see the value of including a list of attendees using opaque colloquial titles, some of whom don't appear to be notable enough to have their own articles. I'm not edit warring with you over this (editor who removed the tag), but this manner of removing justified good faith tags added by another editor is not appropriate. Ben Azura (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of tags without discussion