Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:07, 20 June 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guy Fawkes Night article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	Guy Fawkes Night is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 26, 2010 Good article nominee Listed January 28, 2011 Featured topic candidate Promoted June 9, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. November 5, 2004, November 5, 2005, November 5, 2006, November 5, 2007, November 5, 2008, November 5, 2009, November 5, 2010, November 5, 2011, November 5, 2012, and November 5, 2013

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

There never was a Pope's Day

For the last few weeks, I've been researching the various names by which this holiday has been known. It never had an official name, at least not de jure, as the Thanksgiving Act and the Book of Common Prayer only describe it in terms of what sort of holiday it was, when it was to be observed, for what purpose, etc. However, it had something approaching a de facto official name: Gunpowder Treason Day. It is first attested in 1611-12 as "daie of the Gunpowder treasonn." This name stuck, not only in England, but throughout the world, wherever English was spoken, up to the time the holiday became defunct in 1859, except in the United States, where the name went out of fashion with the outbreak of the American Revolution, when the holiday ceased to be observed here. "The fifth of November" was used with considerable frequency as well.

The after-dark festivities, on the other hand, had names of their own, possibly because they were never actually part of the holiday. The relationship between the two was something like the relationship between Ash Wednesday and Mardi Gras: Gunpowder Treason Day was when people went to church in the morning and prayed, then spent the rest of the day in quiet contemplation, staying home with family. Once the sun set below the horizon, the holiday was over and all hell broke loose. At that point it became Bonfire Night.

"Guy Faux day" is first attested in 1819, "Guy Vaux day" in 1820, Guy Fawkes Day in 1825, and Guy Fawkes Night in 1835.

Then there's "Pope's Day" and its variants, Pope Day and Pope Night.

Pope Day began in the port towns of Massachusetts in the 1730s, when visiting sailors, for the first time in the history of New England, were permitted to celebrate the after-dark festivities. Local children soon joined in on the fun and took to calling it Pope Day. In the mid-1760s, youth gangs in Boston recruited by wealthy political organizations (anti-Stamp Act Patriots) began holding impressive Pope Night or Pope Day festivities. There is no indication that any of these "pope" names were ever widely adopted outside of the small circles of children and youths in the port districts.

In England Pope Day turns up in the late 18th- and early 19th century, first in the context of children's speech, later in reference to juvenile delinquents. For example, "Pope Day" might occur in a political speech where the speaker is suggesting that his opponent is the sort of person who would called it Pope Day.

In 1835, Nathaniel Hawthorne published a story called "Old News" in The New-England Magazine - Volume 8:

Here is a volume of what were once newspapers each on a small half sheet yellow and time stained of a coarse fabric and imprinted with a rude old type Their aspect conveys a....

Governor Belcher makes proclamation against certain 'loose and dissolute people,' who have been wont to stop passengers in the streets, on the Fifth of November, 'otherwise called Pope's Day,' and levy contributions for the building of bonfires. In this instance, the populace are more puritanic than the magistrate.

This is the first occurrence of Pope's Day with an "apostrophe ess." Belcher was governor of Massachusetts from 1730 to 1741, but never issued any such proclamation, as Hawthorne's is a work of fiction.

Although published anonymously, it is later reprinting in various collections of short stories such as "The Snow-Image, and Other Twice-Told Tales." The following year, 1836, the diary of a prominent colonial-era New Englander is published, edited by his son. Although the author's text nowhere mentions "Pope's Day," the editor liberally sprinkles the book with "Pope's Day" in the footnotes, commentary, and chapter titles.

During the 19th century, "Pope Day" (without the s) turns up a few times, in the 1820s, and again in the 1850s. Then in the 1880s several books on the history of Catholics in US repeatedly use the term Pope Day.

The in 1894, Alice Morse Earle, in her book, "Customs and Fashions in Old New England" revives "Pope's Day" with an S, quoting Nathaniel Hawthorne without attribution and treating his short story as history. This sets off an avalanche of other books on the history of New England, the history of Holidays, and the history of holidays in New England, all using the term Pope's Day as if that had been what New Englanders called it.

Unfortunately, I learned all this by examining hundreds of primary sources, but can't find much in the way of reliable secondary sources that we can use a references. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy with work and other things of late so I didn't get time to reply properly to this. I think your research may be quite valuable but as you said, it being based on primary sources makes it unsuitable for inclusion here. Have you given any thought perhaps to writing an article and submitting it to a peer-reviewed history journal? Parrot of Doom 23:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. When I get interested in a topic, I usually spend months researching it (in my spare time) before making any substantive edits. I am especially interested in everyday topics that have been neglected by contemporary academics, and where most of the available literature is tertiary and unreliable. Since I do a lot of fact-checking, I inevitably end up with lots of primary sources. Eventually that helps me discover better secondary sources, so in the long run everything works out. (I am here to improve the article, not to write research papers.)

Incidentally, there is no rule against using primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). Novice editors are inclined to use them in ways that violate OR and many other rules. In my discussion above regarding "Pope Day" vs. "Pope's Day," I was using primary sources in the service of original research, so I plead guilty, but only to violating an article rule on the talk page. I'm still looking for secondary sources on that.Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC:Ambiguous birth date for William?

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.

Result: An explanatory footnote should be added.

The discussion was evenly split in terms of numbers, with three editors supporting the addition of a footnote and three indicating opposition. One oppose was on the grounds that "It's commonplace for historians to align dates with the modern calendar without comment." I don't believe this is correct. In any case, it appears to misunderstand the situation, which doesn't involve aligning a date with the modern calendar, but instead leaving it in the Old Style (a point which was made to the editor). Another user objected that, since the article doesn't mention anything about William being involved in religious disputes, the existence of the religious disputes was not a reason for a footnote. This only addresses part of the support argument. The third oppose was on the opposite basis to the first - that Julian dates are not normally converted, and so no clarification is needed. However, this is clearly not true in the case of William, because his dob is commonly given in sources as 14 November. So, each of the reasons for opposing has a flaw.

On the other hand, there are two support votes with which I am unable to find fault, plus one "per suchabody" vote.

It seems fairly obvious that stating William's birth date as 4 November, a date which is different from the date contained in many sources, has potential for causing confusion and misunderstanding. So some clarification would be a good idea. The only opinion in the RfC as to the form that should take was in favour of a footnote.

The article gives the birth date of William III of England thus: "William's birthday fell on 4 November..." Considering that William was born in the Netherlands where the Gregorian calendar was in force, but later became King of England (among other places), where the Julian calendar was in force, is it ambiguous to state the birthdate without providing an explanatory note about which calendar the date is stated in? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Support info in footnote: WP:JG says Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582, the British Empire from 14 September 1752, and Russia from 14 February 1918 (see Gregorian calendar).
In this case there are two countries involved:

1. The country in which he was born (the Netherlands)
2. The country in which the birthday celebrations described by the article took place (England etc)

So IMO an explanatory footnote would not be out of place. I would not support an in-text explanation, because in my view it would break up the flow of the article.
WP:JG also says If there is a need to mention Old or New Style dates in an article (as in the Glorious Revolution), a footnote should be provided on the first usage, stating whether the New Style refers to a start of year adjustment or to the Gregorian calendar (it can mean either) and the footnote to Glorious Revolution says In this article "New Style" means the start of year is adjusted to 1 January. Events on the European mainland are usually given using the Gregorian calendar, while events in Great Britain and Ireland are usually given using the Julian calendar with the year adjusted to 1 January. Dates with no explicit Julian or Gregorian postscript will be using the same calendar as the last date with an explicit postscript. so in my view that supports the use of a similar footnote here.
HTH.
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous birth date for William?: discussion

I consider it ambiguous to fail to state which calendar a person's birthdate is given in, when the person was born in a jurisdiction that observed one calendar but was most famous for his activities in a different jurisdiction. This is particularly troublesome when the person was involved in a religious dispute, where the persons on one side of the dispute observed a different calendar than the persons on the other side of the dispute. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to see the date given in the Islamic calendar as well? It's commonplace for historians to align dates with the modern calendar without comment. Eric Corbett 19:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the editors did not align William's birth date with the modern calendar, they gave it in the Julian calendar. The comment about the Islamic calendar is irrelevant because William was not born in an Islamic country. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous - As per User:Jc3s5h's comment. --JustBerry (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

But the article might well be read in an Islamic country. Eric Corbett 19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your argument would hold water if the article actually mentioned anything about the religious disputes you suggest William was involved in. It doesn't, and the calendar is therefore irrelevant. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

From the article: "Guy Fawkes Night originates from the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, a failed conspiracy by a group of provincial English Catholics to assassinate the Protestant King James I of England and replace him with a Catholic head of state." And later "In the 1690s re-established Protestant rule in Ireland, and the Fifth, occasionally marked by the ringing of church bells and civic dinners, was consequently eclipsed by his birthday commemorations." Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in that quote contradicts what I've written. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The calendar in use should be ignored unless there are either: 1. dates for simultaneous or overlapping events using conflicting calendars that therefore require clarification or 2. astrological or astronomical events where the calendar used changes the observation; neither are the case here, The birth date remains the date observed using the calendar in use at that time and place and was not adjusted by the introduction of the Gregorian calendar. There is no need to define the calendar used. Ex nihil 10:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:JG states "Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582, the British Empire from 14 September 1752, and Russia from 14 February 1918 (see Gregorian calendar)." A person familiar with Misplaced Pages guidelines will interpret that to mean that since the event in question is William's birth, and the calendar in use at the time and place of William's birth was the Gregorian calendar, his birthdate is stated in the Gregorian calendar. But it is not; it violates WP:JG by being stated in the Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it is stated in the Julian, I am probably being thick here but I don't see the problem, or I don't see the reference. Ex nihil 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the date is in Julian because I read footnote 1 in William III of England. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, happy I was not quite so thick, that was a little obscure. in which case the date given is correct. The date is the date in that place at that time using the calendar in effect. Julian dates are not retrospectively converted in Wiki or anywhere else. Let it stand as it is. I suspect the calendar issue is a red herring. Ex nihil 09:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's wrong. William was born in the Netherlands. In the calendar in effect at the time and place of his birth, the Gregorian calendar, he was born on 14 November 1650, not 4 November 1650 as falsely stated in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What was the date of birth registered in the births records in his parish at the time? Past dates were never revised when the calendar was changed, they were inviolable. If his birth was recorded as 4 November in either the Gregorian or the Julian on the day, it remains the same in either even if somebody in another country simultaneously recorded his birth under a different date the 4 Nov would stand. However, the calendar in use would be of interest to anybody studying his horoscope because the stars would be in a different alignment, and the ages of everybody who lived through the calendar change was ten days short because it is calculated off the dates; this upset some people at the time who thought that they were to die on a pre-destined calendar date and they were being short-changed ten or eleven days, so by all means note which it was as a footnote. Ex nihil 14:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixes to citation templates

My recent improvements to the citation templates in this article were reverted in this edit claiming that they were "arbitrary citation changes based on personal preference". Please allow me to explain each edit further:

• Edit #1 changed |date=October to December 1892 to |date=October–December 1892 to remove the article from Category:CS1 errors: dates per WP:DATERANGE.
• Edit #2 was to change the broken link http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vN7u-ZWC7VkC to the valid http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xakunwEACAAJ
• Edit #3 was to fix the name of the magazine. If you visit http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ukgEAAAAMBAJ you'll see it's Life magazine, not Time Magazine.
• Edit #4 was to ensure the article title is in quotation marks and that The Times is displayed with italics, per WP:QUOTEMARKS, WP:ITALICS, and Template:Citation#Periodical.
• Edit #5, Edit #6, Edit #7 and had the same rationale as Edit #4.
• Edit #8 was to display the editor's name with last name first, which appears to be the predominant format in this article.

I hope these explanations are better than what I provided in the edit summaries, and that you'll consider restoring some or all of these changes. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit 1 enforced a date format restriction that had never been agreed to for the Citation style.

Edit 3 messed with the volume parameter without fixing it; it should have been split into volume and issue parameters.

Edit 4 might be an improvement. However, my experience with Infotrac suggests the link contains parameters specific to the subscriber, so is useless. So the citation is still problematic after the fix.

Edit 6 changes Citation to cite news.

Edit 7 changed a wrong template, cite book, to another wrong template, cite news. This article uses the Citation template.

Edit 8 changed Citation to Cite web.

So of eight edits, four were wrong, one failed to make an easy fix, and one failed to make a more difficult fix. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

My main objection is the changing of publisher = guardian.co.uk to work = The Guardian and similar. I don't particularly have any problem with the rest. Parrot of Doom 06:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This article currently uses a mixture of citation templates. I'll be happy to change them all to {{citation}} and implement the changes above. However, if I get some partially right, it would be better if you could help fix it than revert it back to something that is wrong. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't think your changes are correct GoingBatty, as now the URLs such as "bbc.co.uk" are now italicised, which looks rather strange. Eric Corbett 23:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting PoD. My view has always been that "guardian.co.uk", for instance, is simply a URL, and that the publisher (or work) is actually the owner of that domain name. Eric Corbett 23:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect there are difference between print and online versions that may introduce a distinction that, over time, may be lost. That's why I use the url rather than the publishing company. Parrot of Doom 08:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• FA-Class Featured topics articles
• Misplaced Pages featured topics Gunpowder Plot featured content
• High-importance Featured topics articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class England-related articles
• Top-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Selected anniversaries (November 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2012)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2013)
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English