Talk:Guy Fawkes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crime This article is part of WikiProject British crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on crime in Great Britain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject British crime To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Inspiration?

I've read that the climax to the 1994 Tom Clancy novel Debt Of Honor (which involves an attempt to kill the President and members of both the Senate and HoR) was inspired by the Gunpowder Plot. Does this ring true, and, if so, does this warrant inclusion in the popular culture section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 23:00, March 25, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

A little etymological note. I've changed the "is" the origin of the word guy for man to "might be". There is a theory that several "jive" terms, including guy, hipcat, honky, and dig (understand), are from the West African language Wolof. I once combed the OED for these and, while I couldn't vouch for their Wolof origin, I was convinced that there were gaps in the histories of all the words. In the case of "guy", the English sense develops from "effigy" to "odd-looking figure, quiz, frump" by about 1800. The sense of "bloke, chap, ordinary joe" appears in the US in about 1840. There is no chain of shades of meaning between these two. This is a bit of a semantic jump, so I think the Wolof theory deserves being taken as a serious possibility. Gritchka 17:45 Jan 31, 2003 (

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. I was thinking of a G&S song (late 19th century) that mentions "the lady from the provinces who dresses like a guy". Deb 18:12 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
While a colorful story, I suspect Guy Fawkes being the eponym of the informal term for an individual is apocryphal. Rather than Semantic progression, I think this explanation is more likely just good old Fake etymology: someone in the past guessing at the origins and their conjecture spreading as an urban legend. Can anyone cite a scholarly reference for the assertion that Fawkes is the model? I couldn't find one, so I'm thinking the story belongs elsewhere or nowhere. Color me skeptical.--StanZegel 03:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How does the Oxford Dictionary do for you as a source?

Guy (1806). 1. An effigy of Guy Fawkes carried about in the streets on the anniversary of the Gunspowder Plot and burnt in the evening. 2. A person of grotesque looks or dress; a fright 1836. 3. A man, fellow (US slang) 1896.

The semantic progression seems pretty clear to me. What alternative etymology for "guy" can you offer? Adam 06:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact that OED may have multiple meanings for the same word does not mean that any of the meanings are derived from any of the others, and the OED entry does not say that they do. The etymology (not just the definition) would be interesting to see. Still, the connection between Guy Fawkes and American slang is extremely improbable. Americans think "Parliament" is a cigarette. Very very few of us would recognize the name of Guy Fawkes, and the uneducated classes that create slang are even more unlikely to have coined an eponym based upon a parochial event in a culture foreign to them. Even those Americans who had closer connections with English culture, back in the 1700s, did not use the term because, as the OED says, the first recorded usage of it in that way was not until 1896. One might as well say that guy wire got its name because Guy Fawkes was hanged for his crime; it would be just as far-fetched and another example of a plausible-sounding but false conjecture by a layman. I suggest the Wolof explanation by User:Gritchka, supra, or an origin in Argot, is more likely than the l-o-n-g s-t-r-e-t-c-h of belief necessary to embrace what is written about a supposed connection in this article and in Semantic progression. --StanZegel 19:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My copy of Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1985, p 544 definitively sources the etymology of "guy" to Guy Fawkes. "Guy" as in "guy wire" is sourced as a probable derivative of the French "gei" (brace). While no dictionary is perfect, I personally consider that more credible than the Wolof theory. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With the first recorded use as american slang for a person being recorded as 1896, I think the yiddish word goy (often heard on the streets of New York) that has a similar meaning is a better explanation than Guy Fawkes. StanZegel 20:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Encarta Dictionary says this about the word Guy [Early 19th century. < Guy Fawkes (see Guy Fawkes Night]. So I think it's pretty established... Then perhaps there were several things that made the word to continue in the english language. Maybe it was the Guy Fawkes incident and the yiddish word, who knows? Both theories could be mentioned in the article(if it isn't already mentioned).--84.217.14.238 01:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In the Literature section, the 'bit' about "The poet T. S. Eliot also mentions Guy Fawkes in the epigraph for his poem The Hollow Men, "A penny for the old guy"." in British & Commonwealth nations it was tradional for children to make a efiguy of poor old Mr Fawkes. The Children would ask for a 'penny for a guy' so they could buy fireworks for Guy Fawkes Night, which is still celebrated. I realise its cutting hairs but I think this quote refers to this english tradition, than Guy Fawkes the subject/body. Cheers, Mark.

[edit] Sigh, Sigh

Um, isn't that false. If you read the Horrible History book which focuses partially on the event, you would find that was in fact someone else, not Guy. I guess that you can't just rely on one source of information.

[edit] Links

Although this Article has an internal link to the Houses of Parliament, there is not mention of Guy Fawkes under that topic, House of Commons or Palace of Westminster.

What is the best way forward as I don't want to mess up the current layout? --Martin TB 13:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There probably shouldn't be a reference under House of Commons anyway, because the building he sought to blow up was the House of Lords. They were not in the same building in those days. It was only after the fire of 1834 destroyed all the collection of structures that constituted the Old Palace of Westminster, that the present building putting them under the same roof was designed and built. --StanZegel 03:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also there is an empty link to Guy Fawkes night, but a valid one to Bonfire night. I don't think we need two links, can one be redirected internally to the other? --Martin TB 13:50, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why Guy?

I have always puzzled about why we call him Guy when his name was Guido. The article doesn't mention this. Can anyone shed any light? — Trilobite (Talk) 02:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While serving in the Spanish Army in the Netherlands, he adoped the Spanish form (Guido, pronounced Gheedo) of his French/English name (Guy, pronounced "ghee"). --StanZegel 03:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This piece of information is very interesting and useful; it should be in the article, in my opinion. 200.55.119.173 05:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two very similar articles

Hello. For one reason or another, the Gunpowder Plot, Trial and Aftermath sections of this article seem to contain very similar information to the dedicated Gunpowder Plot article. (Or at the very least, it seems to me as if they'd fit there better.) Is there any particular reason why they haven't been merged? If there's a good reason then no problem, but otherwise I wonder if it's worth moving/merging most of this text into the other article, and altering this article to primarily refer readers over there for more information. It seems a little redundant to have parallel information in two places, not to mention more complicated to maintain and review. Any thoughts? Izogi 07:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. --StanZegel 13:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I've now merged most of the content that I think is relevant to the Gunpowder Plot, and hopefully I haven't missed anything important. If nobody beats me to it (or raises objections), I'll next see what I can do about reducing the information in this article, and point a Main Article link over there. Meanwhile, I've come across one apparent inconsistency -- this article claims that "Mark Tresham" probably wrote the tip-off letter, but the GP article claims that it was probably "Francis Tresham". Does anyone know if these are the same person? Izogi 05:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
All done --- hopefully there's general agreement that this is a good way to do it. It only just occurred to me that this November is the 400'th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot. Izogi 07:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I've just removed a paragraph

I've just removed most of the following from the Early life section, and merged the rest into another paragraph:

In his person he was tall and athletic, his countenance was manly, and the determined expression of his features was not a little heightened by a profusion of brown hair, and an auburn-coloured beard. He was descended from a respectable family in Yorkshire, and having soon squandered the property he inherited at the decease of his father, the restless spirit associated himself with the discontented factions of his age.

It seems to have been lifted directly from here. Although the source is out of copyright and therefore probably okay (except it should have been credited), I can't actually see much actual content in the paragraph besides artistic window dressing. I hope nobody minds. Izogi 07:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] plaguarised text

I've just been going through tidying up the text that was recently added by 208.242.127.52, and noticed that the following text (about songs that refer to the Gunpowder Plot) was just copied and pasted verbatim from the page that the user cited. I'm moving it to here for now, but maybe someone would like to re-work it so it's not as much of a rip-off. I actually think it belongs much more in the Gunpowder Plot article than this one.

They include:
Guy Fawkes Day
Paul Melancon/Slumberland/M.records/2000

Mr. Guy Fawkes
A strange little song about the warmth of love and Guy Fawkes out on the town again.
Eire Apparent\Jimi Hendrix- Recorded 1968
The Dave Miller Set - 1969 (Formerly Dave Miller and the Byrds) Single

Song for Guy Fawkes
Wat Tyler- On the album: Tummy,Piano Instrumental, 1995.

Guy Fawkes
Krewmen, THE ADVENTURES OF THE KREWMEN (1986)

Guy Fawkes Night
Peter Astor and the Holy Road, 
Paradise   (Danceteria; ex Weather Prophets)
He met her on guyfawkes night...

Remember
John Lennon, John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band,  1970.
(Remember Remember the Fifth of November is the last line)
Not! I am the creator of the text so I pasted it it with my OWN permission and it may remain so...now you may put it back with my permission....Yes perhaps more gunpowder plot but it also shows the importance of Guy himself! CB
(Note from Izogi: I've just moved the above paragraph by 208.242.126.183 from the previous section to here. I think it was actually supposed to be entered in this section, and that 208.242.126.183 accidentally put it in the previous section by placing it before the section heading during editing. Izogi 06:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] um, who fiddled with the extremists?

Somebody "clever" changed the origins of the Gunpowder Plot. I'm not intimately familiar with the incident, but something sounds a bit off here... "The plot, masterminded by Robert Caster, was a failed attempt by a group of provincial English Islamic extremists to kill King I of England, his family and Robert Caster, and most of the Protestant aristocracy in one fell swoop by blowing up the White House during its State Opening."

Could somebody please fix this? 68.190.26.221 20:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Concerned Reader

[edit] Comic book references

Why is there a need to have an image of a comic book? I would question the very need for the mention of the obscure V for Vendetta, but the image is utterly unrelated to the article's historical context. Too many Wikipedia entries work in some comic book reference and the self-serving bias of "graphic novel" fans is turning Wikipedia into a joke. Even if you can make a case for such additions do you seriously consider them worthy of placement above references to Dickens and Harry Potter?

Yes.  :)

If you think that the references to Dickens and Harry Potter are more important, why don't you just rearrange it and see how people react? That's what the Edit button is for, after all. Izogi 10:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
What's the discussion page for then, "after all"? Maybe I am considerate of others and am willing to weigh the opinions of other people. If you can't add anything to the discussion why not hold your tongue and can the sarcasm?
Sorry if it didn't come over well -- there was no sarcasm intended. I just think it's better to edit straight away if you're sure about something (which you seem to be), but be prepared to argue your point and possibly consider and accept others' points of view and work out a reasonable compromise if there turns out to be a disagreement. If you're not sure about something then go ahead and ask. Discussion pages are great, and it's good to see them used, but I've also noticed that people often suggest things, others agree, and it never actually gets done (or doesn't for ages). Especially as you're editing anonymously, there's really no indication of whether you've taken this up as your own responsibility, or if you're just passing through expecting someone else to take initiative on what you've said, which seems to happen quite a lot. Izogi 07:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Seeing as the premiere of the V for Vendetta movie is today, I thought I would see if this page mentions the reference. Most people in the US would not catch the obscure reference to UK history. I think it warrants a mention on the page.--BohicaTwentyTwo 21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that V for Vendetta the movie is out (and wildly popular where I'm from, anyway), I think most of the people looking at this entry are going to be looking at it because of V for Vendetta, and as such a reference to it is likely a good idea. Arianna 12:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not? It's probably the best reference to Fawkes since the holiday itself, Is that not what the Popular Culture section is for? As long we find it in the Popular Culture section it doesn't bother me one bit. --Yadrin 15:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

I see that the lead image has been deleted — it was probably unsourced or a copyvio. An alternative (if anyone can find a good, clean, source image) would be a detail from The Conspirators a contemporary drawing/etching by Crispin Van Der Passe. -- Solipsist 18:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature Image

The description of the "signature image" that is shown in the article does not match (even contradicts?) the image description that you get when you click on the image. I have no idea what the correct version is, so I'll refrain from editing it for now. -- Mystman666 (Talk) 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance?

How do we know what Fawkes looked like? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article.

What does it say about a people that celebrate a national holiday that recalls the hanging, drawing and quartering of a human being? I wonder did the English kiddies play with the entrails of Guy Fawkes to give to their pet doggies? The English have always been better at Propaganda than the Germans or the Arabs.

Are you intentionally inviting the comparison to Easter, i.e. the recollection of the beating, humiliation and crucifixion of a human being? Or are actually that thick? Dangerdan97 12:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

‘The fact that Guy Fawkes was hanged drawn and quartered was merely incidental. If anything it was unremarkable, as he simply died the death that all traitors died and had died for centuries. He was clearly guilty of treason as he was found in the cellars with match and lantern. His place in history belies that fact that he was really just a servant of the other plotters and responsible for the technical aspects of the explosion.

Contemporary accounts actually record that Guy cheated the hangman by jumping from the gallows with the noose around his neck, causing a so called 'hangman’s fracture' which would have killed him instantly by severing his spinal coulomb. So Guy was actually dead when they cut him open. He probably felt very little in the end and the only problem with his treatment at all was the fact that he was tortured. He was hung for the ceiling with iron pins through his wrists, which probably led to the problems he had in signing his name on the confession. We can understand this behaviour when we realise the panic that the state would have gone through over this plot, which by all accounts nearly succeeded. James I was also famous for his cowardice and had a fear of being assassinated, to the extent that he would wear armour under his shirt when attending events like state openings fo parliament. In celebrating Gunpowder treason day English protestants (especially more puritanical ones) and to a lesser extent the state, were declaring war on the papacy. Originally bonfires were simply a celebration of the saving of the English nation. Church bells might also be rung and official prayers and sermons were preached to firmly place the fifth of November in the protestant calendar. This had been so on the anniversary of the defeat of the Armada, and the succession of Elizabeth. The celebration of the providential savior of English Protestantism through such happenings became quite a culturally accepted. So bonfires were celebratory in origin not an act of vilification of an individual. Samuel Pepyes recorded with great sadness that he saw no fires burning on November 5th 1667 in the city of London; it was of course the year after the plague and the great fire of 1666. However this does show the way that even many years after the plot the memory had been firmly embedded into the national consciousness For many years, of course, it was Effigies of the Pope, not Guy Fawkes, who was burnt on the fires as the Pope had after all issued absolution to anyone who would assassinate Elizabeth I, so it was entirely reasonable that he should be hated by all good protestant Englishmen.

Ok nice paragraph there. So how do we know what Fawkes looked like?

Well of course we don't really know what he looks like, but the c.1605 engraving of the plotters probably gives us a good aproximation. Why do we want to know anyway. By all accounts he was unremarkable in appearance. Had two legs, a head, arms, full complement of digits etc... well until they cut him into four pieces. Little pointy beard and whiskers in the stye of his time, dressed like a jacobean gent. of the middling sort.

[edit] Improvements

Has anyone actually read any books on Guy Fawkes or the the legend that has grown up around him? This article appears to have been incoherently cobbled together from various websites.

Has anyone read a biography of Guy Fawkes?

H. Garnett, Portrait of Guy Fawkes: an experiment in biography (1962)

Has anyone read Bonfires and Bells - David Cressy (1989)

or his article in Roy Porters book - D. Cressy, ‘The fifth of November remembered’, Myths of the English, ed. R. Porter (1992)

R. Hutton, The stations of the sun: a history of the ritual years in Britain (1996) (chapter 39 I believe)

or on the explosive potential itself: S. Middelboe, ‘Guy certainly was not joking’, New Civil Engineer, 5 (Nov 1987)

This is a quote from the dictionary of national biography

"only son and second child of Edward Fawkes (d. 1579) of York and his wife, Edith Jackson, was born in the Stonegate district of York and baptized at the church of St Michael-le-Belfrey on 16 April 1570. Edward Fawkes was proctor, later advocate in the consistory court of York, possibly registrar of the exchequer court like his father, and, so far as can now be discerned, a staunch protestant. Guy's paternal grandparents were William Fawkes (d. 1558×63) and Ellen Haryngton (d. 1575), daughter of a prominent York merchant"

are his parents not diferent from that in the article.

There very little on his actual life. The section 'his early life' contains a mere 165 words. Nineteen of which tell us that he has he has brown hair and a beard that is 'moderately brown' whatever that means. Just brown presumably.

Much of the article is taken up by references to popular culture that are either to fill space or simply purile.

One section is called 'General Popularity'. Which gives us the inciteful comment that he appeared in the same poll as David Beckham. A figure that I would gladly burn in effigy. However is this relavent.

The Literature section contains an interesting number of Pub quiz facts. I suspect it contains everyones collected rememberances of where they have seen Guy Fawkes in 'stuff that theve read.' It contains none of the ballads or songs of the time of which the famous verse is just a part (not even the full version) of one. NOTE : Harry Potter is not literature. It contains a standard of prose that every child has a right to be disapointed with. Any adults reading it are missing out on a world that contains many better books. That is my opinion. However what is not opinion is that Harry Potter is not known for its reference to Fawkes. Modern references should be cut to two sentances, they are only there because no one can think of anything else to say.

Why is Thomas Winter constantly refered to as wintour? The spelling on the engraving c1605 is Winter. Why is the engraving not there? It is the only known contemporary depiction of the plotters.

The Gunpowder Plot section forms a large part of this article and whie important it largely covers things from the article 'The Gunpowder Plot'.

In short this is a bad article.

Can we not do better?

Yeah, I have some problems with the article, too. Maybe Fawkes is a hero to Irish Catholics, but why would the rest of the British see him that way? And the analysis of his impact on history, then and in times present, is very shallow. There's a poorly written paragraph on this talk page that provides a lot more insight. Maybe a british person with some brains and education could help us out. 38.117.131.2 15:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pop culture

I suggest fixing the part that says the rhyme is used in the V for Vendetta movie. It's not exclusive to the movie; the comic cited it on several occasions.--The Individual 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

1., Is it fact or theory that he was a (double) agent who actully truely worked for the crown to organize the faux bombing and so make the co-conspirators executable and help invoke tyrannic measures with terror hysteria? The fact he himself was hanged does not exclude that, it happened elsewhere, for example the hungarian Ignazius Martinovich is now proven to be an agent of the Habsburg-Austrian court, he organized the hungarian jacobinian resistance movement on purpose in 1792 until caught. He was beheaded alongside the other, true jacobinians to get rid of witnesses.

2., Is the phoenix bird in Harry Potter novels named in honour of Mr. Guido? 195.70.32.136 12:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


3. Who named the Isla Guy Fawkes, an island near the Isla Tortuga ??


4. the movie V for Vendetta is based on the gunpowder plot and uses the nursery rhyme.

[edit] About the dates

I think the dates written in this article must be annotated (for example, the date "November 5, 1605" needs to be written "November 15, 1605", according to the Gregorian calendar).--Lombroso 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] de Faglio

Where does the "de Faglio" bit come from? A place? A Catholic saint? Italian ancestry?

[edit] Vote for Guy Fawkes

There is a "proof" of the common phrase here: Vote for Guy Fawkes. :-) -- 151.37.90.133 01:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illustration

Fawkes is painted in front of the House of Lords, not "Parliament". At that time, the Lords and Commons were in separate buildings. The Commons sat in St. Stephen's Chapel, Westminster. The Lords sat on the entire second floor of this 1 1/2 storey building.209.217.83.31 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Its spelt Winter

why do people think that they are being extra specially authentic if they use the spelling wintour. No historians use this spelling and the engraving of the plotters from 1605 uses the spelling winter. Its just phony authentication of something. It must be right because the spelling looks old. Like those terrible pub signs with ye olde pube on them.

why has the section on his life dissapeared?

Some really "special" people have been editing this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.247.253 (talk • contribs).

I dou find it a quite hourible spelling of the wourd. Zchris87v
I laughed at the "pube" joke...--Foot Dragoon 03:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a decendent of Robert and Thomas, and I can say that the spelling can be in several ways, from Winter to Wintour and even Wynter. The reason for several versions of the spelling is depending on which source you use. The 1605 picture does say "Winter" but the creater of this never met or even saw the plotters, so used the spelling he felt appropriate. I can say that some historians do use the Wintour spelling and it isn't just "phony authentication".

[edit] Ol'Pope

does anyone know who the ol'pope is in the poem? DemonOWA 21:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link

I've written an article about places in London where they have the best Guy Fawkes celebrations, and I wondered if it might be possible to put a link to the article? The URL is: (Removed by a later editor, I was forced to delete it when trying to write my comment later, and it was blacklisted. My apologies.) 128.61.38.107 02:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is how to go about this or not. I read Wikipedia a lot but have only just registered and this is my first post to a Discussion.

[edit] Good Information

This page is a fantastic source of information. I never knew before reading it that the group were not in fact planning to blow up the Houses Of Parliament but Westminster Palace at the opening. It is excellently accurate but more research should be added. Very interesting.

[edit] Guy Fawkes - Alternative Version

GUY FAWKES

Note to editors: there should be a distinction made between ‘Official Versions’ and below which is an ‘Alternative Version’.

Alternative Version←

The Guy Fawkes Conspiracy (1605) is, perhaps, one of the most successful False Flag (see False Flag) operations in history. It ushered in the British Empire.

In 1603 Scotland and England united under James the First, a Protestant, who considered a rapprochement with Spain, the leading Catholic power at that time. He also considered easing the discrimination practiced against Catholics in England as many of the landed gentry were still loyal to Rome.

The Royal Chancellor, Lord Robert Cecil, recognised the wealth that had accumulated by the Spanish Empire and intended that the newly formed Union should embark on a strategy that would overcome the Spanish influence.

As part of his strategy, he sought out acquiescent Catholics he could use in order to change the mind of the King and mobilise the population against Spain. In this he found Lord Thomas Percy, a bigamist, who would infiltrate a group of fanatical Catholics of which Guy Fawkes was a member.

Together the group devised the plot (whether the plot was devised by Cecil via Percy is uncertain) to blow up the Houses of Parliament that would turn the Crown and people against Spain. In this he was successful.

It is debatable whether Cecil devised the Plot or, knowing of its existence, allowed it to proceed as far as it did. These prognoses are known as LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose); the second, MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose).


This page is on Guy Fawkes, not the plot. Go to that page. We ought to include more information on his life. This page is quite bad and has got worse due to the profusion of editors deleting the sections that dealt with his life and adding informatin about harry potter or how some Enid Blighton book once mentioned someone who looks like Guy Fawkes.--86.20.240.225 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Poem inconsistency I have an issue with this page and the "Gunpowder Treason" page- the famous nursery rhyme is given in multiple forms- just compare the first 4 lines of each. I'm going to replace the one on this page with the one on the "Guy Fawkes Night" page for consistency. 128.61.38.107

[edit] Trivia

This article is some three thousand words long. Roughly one third of this is non specific trivia such as 'Charles Dickens referred to Fawkes quite often, particularly in his history of England'. Which is perhaps one of the most banal observations in the entire article. The literature and popular culture blend into each other and contain lists. Lists are alright for items of the same class of a specific number. These items should have been worked into the text.I have deleted some material. I think more needs to go. If you put it back please be discerning about which references you put back and describe their relavence to attitudes to Mr Fawkes both then and since.--86.20.247.36 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Birth

Was it April 13th or April 15th? The article contradicts itself. Iamvered 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be the 13th - I've changed the erroeneous reference to the 15th StuartDouglas 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Took out painting

I took out the painting "Guy Fawkes" as I felt it added nothing to the article and was just kind of there, plopped right in the middle of the trivia section. May have very well been a plug for the artist. This is an article on a historical figure and therefore I believe that the images provided must be of some historical signifigance and relate to the material in some (important, notable and verifiable) way. To my knowledge it has never been displayed as a major work of art. If someone wishes to add this painting again, please provide a valid justification including some comment on the above qualifications. Thanks.

--IRelayer 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

Who Removed everything that actually refered to his life AGAIN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.247.36 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/y/Talk%7EGuy_Fawkes_c334.html"