Talk:Guy Fawkes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crime
Criminal justice Portal
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.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

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)
Okay then, why does the article also start by saying that he adopted the LATIN version of Guy, then go onto say he adopted the SPANISH version of his name? Either is classic Romanticism, however, it's not consistent. I get that both languages are romantic, and that the Spanish language is derived from Latin directly. 74.7.17.26 00:35, 23 October 2007 (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)

I suggest removing information about the Gunpowder Plot from the Guy Fawkes article altogether, as a link to the Gunpowder Plot article would be sufficient: There is no need to repeat information on it when you can just provide a link to the event in question. Furthermore, this article is about Guy Fawkes as an individual and thus providing detailed information about the Gunpowder Plot in the article is somewhat off topic. Thoughts? --BloodDoll 16:54, 25 April 2007 (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)

Removing that was stupid.. duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.218.120 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2007 (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)

Small note: V For Vendetta was made in 2005, not 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.16.194 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2007 (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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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.

I don't think the guy on youtube is a descendant of Guy Fawkes. If he is, I don't think its in the video. 69.110.1.168 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[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).

I have removed a recent case of vandalism in regards to Guy Fawkes' early life, by 24.205.161.245, stating that he had a sexual relationship with his mother. I have also warned 24.205.161.245 on his/her talk page. --BloodDoll 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Guido from latin or spanish? There is a controversy on the page. 69.110.1.168 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "a dangerous disease required a desperate remedy"

Couldnt find a reference to the quote "a dangerous disease required a desperate remedy" attributed to Fawkes in the main article.

As in:

"When questioned by the King how he could conspire such a hideous treason, Fawkes replied that a dangerous disease required a desperate remedy, and that his intentions were to blow the Scotsmen present back into Scotland."

Just seems an important point of note.--Nasher 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern uses of the word guy

Does the modern use of the term "guy" to mean male (and the term "guys" to mean a group of people of any gender) actually have anything to do with Guy Fawkes at all? Is there any evidence to show a direct link between building a "guy" and calling a man a "guy." I think that the use of the term is nothing more than coincidence, especially as the term "guy" meaning a man originated in America.Wizlop 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penny for the Guy

I have included a brief reference to Penny For the Guy in the main article. I also removed the vauge comment that the tradition continued until " at least the late 80's " as the traditional continues still. I have also hinted at the controversy- sometimes seen as nothing more than begging, also seen as a way for children to raise money to buy nuicence fireworks (now banned outright.) Is it also worth including comments that the modern "guys" tend to be or much poor quality? A plastic halloween mask on on old jumper, for example. I remember building some fantastic guys, in the late 80's. We actually gave the money we raised to charity- and got a mention in the paper- if I can find that and source it properly I will include it.

But back on track- Penny for the Guy is an important part of the guy Fawkes tradition, and should be included.Wizlop 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in July 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): ukexpat 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sources

I have described the primairy source for the plot and trials etc...."James I The Kings Book-A True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings Against the Late Most Barbarous Traitors. Robt. Barker,Printer to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty, British Museum 1606. In the text because it iis important to note that this central source was infact written by the governent etc...that said it is the source for the history provided the article and citing the Kings Book should take care of the citation problems which have been noted. I also included a link to a good edition of the Kings book on line. Anamanam 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Without objection or further discussion here the sources lacking tag is removed....Anamanam 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth

Where was Guy born? According to the current version, he was born both in York, England (as shown in the "infobox" data for birthplace) and Stonehenge, Scotland (as written in the "Early life" section). Amazing, 86.156.194.128 02:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

York, actually very, very close to York Minster. - Yorkshirian 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His Flesh Used As Cover of Book?!

WHY is this[1] not incorporated in the article?! (Rhetorical question. Do it =] ).Yeago 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture + Ron Paul?

Anyone else think the bit about Ron Paul is not particularly relevant to the article? Guy Fawkes is not any kind of deal in the United States. I'm sure many people have done various things on the day that have much more relevance. This seems more like a Ron Paul thing than a Guy Fawkes thing. Moreover, Ron Paul is only a contender for the Republican nomination. Perhaps if this were a record setting event for the Republican nominee, it might be of some note but even then... My vote is to remove this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatttK (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would stop adding the Ron Paul crap too. I agree with you that it doesn't belong on the article at all, as its not relevent to Fawkes. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "In Film and Television" addition please

There is a particular scene in Blackadder Goes Forth I believe (Perhaps Blackadder the Third) in which Edmund Blackadder says somehting to the effect of 'It will be the quickest decision since Parliment asked, "This Guy Fawkes bloak, do we let him off or what?"' Could someone verify this euphemism for me and include it in "In Film and Television"? Aleksander

[edit] Incosistency concerning the discovery

This article says: The plot was foiled at the very last moment as Fawkes was holding a lit torch to light the fuse which would detonate the gunpowder under the Houses of Parliament.

The linked article, "Gunpowder Plot", says: At midnight on November 5 Thomas Knyvet, a Justice of the Peace, and a party of armed men, discovered Fawkes guarding a pile of faggots, not far from about twenty barrels of gunpowder, posing as "Mr. John Johnson". A watch, slow matches, and touchpaper were found in his possession.

The version in this article looks to me like a romantic rewriting of history.

It is. The latter version is true, the part about him being on the point of lighting the fuse is just a legend. I'm changing it to the second version. Katharineamy (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fawkes - Harry Potter

I see this has just been removed with the logic that "simply being called Fawkes doesn't mean it is related to Guy Fawkes", however, since Fawkes keeps exploding into flames during the course of the Harry Potter stories, I would have thought, in this case, that it is a direct reference to Guy Fawkes.

Eugenespeed (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've referenced it, on the article about Fawkes the pheonix, it has a comment from Rowling "Guy Fawkes (spot any Harry Potter connection?!)", which clearly alludes to the pheonix's name been conected to Fawkes. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I made my comment after the line regarding Fawkes (the bird) has been deleted)

Eugenespeed (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Fawkes' Name

The real reason he is called Guy Fawkes is 1) no one knew his first name or, 2) His real name was Gaitano Fauchese a paisano from sunny Italy and in order to avoid an international confrontation between Italy & England his ethnicity was covered up and his name was changed to "Guy Fawkes". Capice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who has seen the register of St Michael le Belfrey where he was baptised as a small child (which lists his name as Guy not Gaitano), and visited the actual place where he was born, then I can say, perhaps you should go easy on the glue. Maybe you're confusing Fawkes (a full blooded Yorkshireman) with Roberto di Ridolfi? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (Addition of photo from) V for Vendetta movie related incident

Subheading re-factored for accuracy and to remove what could be perceived as an insult. For precedence see this diff from earlier today by JW, and I'm sure if needed I could find others. Subheadings are primarily for coordinating discussion. In the interests of civility, please do not revert. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
An Internet protest group called Anonymous held protests outside Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 wearing the Guy Fawkes masks popularized in V for Vendetta.
An Internet protest group called Anonymous held protests outside Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 wearing the Guy Fawkes masks popularized in V for Vendetta.[1]

A user, David Shankbone‎, has uploaded a picture which demonstrates some yank athiests squabbling about scientology. What on earth could this have to do with Guy Fawkes, a Catholic from the 1570s, you may ask? Well, absoutely nothing at all is the answer.

The people with all the masks on, is a direct parody of a scene in the fictional movie, "V for Vendetta". The masks the people are wearing are merchandise from that movie. Since it is a parody of the movie and absoutely nothing to do with Fawkes' life then the WP:SPAM does not belong on this article of such a highly noted figure at all. Guy Fawkes' life isn't a bulletin update for V for Vendetta's fictional movie as thus the athiest vs. scientology SPAM only belongs on the movie page, not here. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The protesters are mimicking Guy Fawkes, using a mask from a movie about a Guy Fawkes imitator (blowing up Parliament). Yes, I know the movie is fiction and I understand the references. The movie had nothing to do with Scientology, and the "pop culture" surfacing of Guy Fawkes today merits mention. This User is edit-warring, he isn't even discussing on the Talk page. His "explanations" are edit summaries. Two different editors have put the photo on, noting their preference, and Yorkshirian has against two users. Either way, a mask of Guy Fawkes used a highly coordinated, global protest makes his reference in pop culture worth of an inclusion under that section. WP:SPAM first is not policy and it also has no bearing on this discussion. --David Shankbone 20:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I support re-adding the image to the pop culture section, and also keeping the photo of the poster that is there already. Can this be arranged? Silly rabbit (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of not violating 3RR, I can not add it back, but since you, User:Cirt and myself think the photo is merited, consensus is to include it so you are welcome to add it. --David Shankbone 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DS for an excellent addition to an interesting article. R. Baley (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As stated to you on an other area. The "protesters" are mimicking a specific scene (where numerous people are wearing those exact masks) from the fictional movie V for Vendetta (film) even wearing official merchandise from the movie itself. This is not a bulletin update article for events referencing a fictional futuristic comic book turned movie written by Alan Moore. The scientology thing has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes and also, unlike what you're claimimg he never did anything like what these interweb athiests are doing, but it is extremely similar to a scene those USA people saw in a fantasy movie. Unless you're entirely ignorant of any events surrounding this real person and you're insulting Catholics during the murderous English Reformation where thousands were butchered, by comparing that very real repression to some people on the internet "protesting" against Tom Cruise? I didn't think so.
Admin Georgewilliamherbert said on my talk and yours about me having a point about your image not belonging on this specific article and even told you to leave the article as it was for a bit (yet you went against that advise).. he also brought up the point of WP:Recentism. Also building a consensus is not a strawman, yes, no vote. Sillyrabbit nor Cirt have not explicitly explained any REASONS or RATIONALE as to why they think the image is a direct reference to Fawkes and not the fictional movie V for Vendetta (which I've proven above its movie related). Strawman voting is not how a resolution consensus is built.
You yourself have been entirely unable to explain away the fact that this whole "thing" is a reference specifically to a movie, copying a scene from that movie and even using their merchandise. Thus I have transfered your image, as a compromise resolution as per WP:CON, instead to the article on the movie V for Vendetta (film), if its relevent at all and not just SPAM (IMHO its you self-promoting a thinly veined attempt at being "edgy", but I'll keep good faith) perhaps you could make a section on that article about this whole thing? I hope this will disuade you from degrading (perhaps unintentionally) the high key historical subject of this article by adding your irrelevent image back. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
At this point four users, Cirt, R. Baley, silly rabbit and myself, have made it known they want the photo, find it relevant and many of your arguments at this point have failed to persuade. Please stop edit-warring against consensus. --David Shankbone 12:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As shown to you above with the citation of policy. Concensus is not built by a strawman vote (WP:NOT), its built by citing rationale and reason... Wikipedia is not "i like this i don't like that"... an administrator has even stated to you that you are wrong, warning you to leave it off for a while as discussion takes place and he cited rationale. So from those citing rationale, you've been proven wrong and outnumbered, accept it and stop waring against concensus.
As you were entirely unable to debunk any of the arguments above at all (nor did you attempt), you have proven to be lacking the knowledge to do so on this topic. Instead of trolling this article with what has now been proven to be simply a parody of a movie using official merch from it[2], perhaps you can go back to attempting to be edgy by posting more pics of your nude models on some articles or something? Instead of debasing a historical figure. Unless you are able to entirely debunk the points made up above, your pic will be removed as simple trolling. A compromise has been made and your image is included on the article it belongs V for Vendetta (film)[3], accept it like a man. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Also you can stop changing the title of the section that I started. You do not have permission to edit my own messages. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A section title isn't part of your message. I reported you to ANI. --David Shankbone 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Two points rather make themselves clear here: First, Yorkshirian can decry the use of merchandise from V for Vendetta all he wishes; however, the mask from the film was a representation of Guy Fawkes, and has been cited as such. Where the masks came from is therefore incidental. What should probably be noted and cited is why the protesters chose Guy Fawkes' masks and not those of Bozo the Clown, the Queen or the the ex-presidents. That they chose Guy Fawkes masks is notable in and of itself.
Second, refactoring posts is usually frowned upon. That said, an inflammatory and subjective section header is very much like a repeated uncivil remark. Section headers should be descriptive and neutral. A post rendering it thus is to be considered a Good Thing. I would suggest that if Yorkshirian is not willing to allow his edits to be scrutinized and - as the text goes - be brutally edited, then perhaps Wikipedia is the wrong venue for his particular talents. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your questions,

  1. These American students did not look at a picture of Guy Fawkes and think "hey lets look like this man". The masks are "V for Vendetta" masks, described as such on on Amazon.com where they are sold "V For Vendetta Mask". The V for Vendetta (film) is highly popular around the world. The mask is of the fictional character V (comics) invented by Alan Moore. Guy Fawkes is not "V", Guy Fawkes was a real person, who also didn't wear masks. Its in relation to a movie as I've proven, not Fawkes.
  1. Err what? This is about Shankbone placing an image of interweb studes who saw a movie, on an article is has nothing to do with, not things I've added to the article. The point of this section is to scrutinise the image Shankbone added and prove whether or not it belongs. Note how the text next to Shankbone's image has nothing to do with the event at all, because this thing isn't notable enough to warrant a place on the article? It has its place on V_for_Vendetta_(film)#Influence_on_protests- Yorkshirian (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The only one squabbling is Yorkshirian, who continues to argue because he did not get his way, despite now 5 editors expressing a desire to see the photo included. So he continually writes these long-winded responses nobody is reading, especially since he has nothing near consensus in his favor. --David Shankbone 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Shankbone if you have nothing contructive to add to the discussion and you're too lazy to reply to my stated points (as you've stated twice now), may I suggest that you sit down and be quiet instead of just showing up to attack? You have nothing to offer up in response because you know you're wrong. Your motivation is to get your corny image included, thats it. A consensus has not been built yet, I know you hate reading but I suggest you read WP:CON.
You have stated a rationale. I have stated a rationale. Georgewilliamherbert has stated a rationale. Arcayne has now entered the discussion to state a rationale.... I replied to Arcayne's points in the discussion and that is where its at at this point. 2-2 does not mean "keep Shankbones spam image". I await Arcayne's response to my reply... again if you can't be bothered to address the points Shankbone, then don't try to derail the conversation between other users. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, to begin with, you are definitely going to want to back off the aggro, Yorkshirian; it doesn't serve you well either in the article or with me. There are folk here in Wikipedia that could - via sheer editing ability alone - send you weeping in the corner, cryin' for your mama, and they would have neither the problem nor the difficulty in dismantling you. Take that advice or leave it, but you cannot say you have not been warned. Tafew is right in that this debate should have continued on each other's talk page until resolved, following DR. This wasn't the place for it (though I should point out that it is commonplace to refactor section titles that are positively going to start a fight). I would have done the same thing, though I would have kept the commentary on York's talk page. Lastly, consider that if someone takes offense at your section title, agf and assume that they are offended by it and allow the change. Biggest case of angry mastodons in a while.
Moving on, the question remains: is the mask a representation of Guy Fawkes or not? If so, it is notable, just as the use of the William Shatner rubber mask in the Halloween series of movies is notable. Did they choose this mask because it was of Guy Fawkes? If so, then it is notable. Period.
What is required for inclusion, to my reckoning, is a specific citation that notes - clearly - why the V for Vendetta mask was used. That the mask used by the mysterious figure in the comic/film is a Guy Fawkes mask is undisputed. Yorkshirian contends that "These American students did not look at a picture of Guy Fawkes and think 'hey lets look like this man'". I would ask him to cite that supposition. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, I'm going to have to side with Yorkshirian on this. The photo doesn't illustrate anything from the article, it only illustrates its own caption. If the photo wasn't involved, the caption would never cut it as a piece of information in this article, even in the popular culture section. This is because that little factoid is an irrelevant piece of trivia. It's of tangential importance to the topic V for Vendetta because the use of the masks reflects the film. We already have a picture of a mask from the film to illustrate what is said in the text; this additional photo is superfluous, off-topic, and distracting. Mangojuicetalk 19:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I can see your point, and I would likely have suggested that the image have text to go along with it, as it is an instance of pop culture referencing, and not really "Spam". Forgive me for asking, but are you siding on Yorkshirian's behavior as well? Your commentary didn't seem to distinguish between the image and the behavior. For my own part, I would hope not, you being an admin and all. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that I endorse Yorkshirian's behavior, just his view of this particular issue. I'm not here to comment on the behavior issue, but to comment on the content. In my experience, that's the best way to get a heated dispute to resolve. Mangojuicetalk 23:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed the image stack formatting as it was obscuring the text of the article. I see no reason to have two images of the same mask in this article, IMHO the one of the mask alone is more relevant to this article. Gnangarra 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)Opposition to the image - At first, second and third sight, the use of this image in this article is clear effort to get from A to B to C, missing out B (where A is Guy Fawkes, B is Vendetta, C is Anonymous) using images - I will be nice and assume no conflict of interest between the image advocates and Anonymous, and just take it as simple wiki enthusiasm. But, if you need a whole paragraph of caption text to justify an image's presence, then something is clearly wrong. Even if the caption was just picture of a dude wearing a Guy Fawkes mask popularised in Vendetta without the extra padding of B to C wording, it is clearly still superfluous and trivial, given the better mask picture already included in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactivate debate

As a few more editors have weighed in, and the original claims of support are obscured by the arguments, how about we start a clear discussion on whether the image stays or not? MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • oppose per above MickMacNee (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose - first of all I'd like to thank MickMacNee and Mangojuice for getting the discussion back to the most important thing; article content and coming to a consensus. I oppose the image for the reasons which I've explained in depth above. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose -- as I said above there isnt any additional value with two images of the same subject matter, given that the image that is just the mask gives a better representation of the subject and its association to Guy Fawkes. Gnangarra 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - it would seem that from the discussion above, there is now a clear consensus built from rationale to remove that image. I would remove it myself, however I think somebody else should (perhaps an admin such as mangojuice??), as I don't wish to restart a fight with Shankbone. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's been removed by someone. I'd say that at this point, it's reasonable for the image to not be in the article. Those who disagree should make arguments for their point if they want that to change. Mangojuicetalk 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed it solely on the basis of the discussion here - I figured it was probably best for someone uninvolved to take action, and it seemed the most reasonable course of action anyway. Orderinchaos 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait of Guy Fawkes

I have changed the portrait of Guy Fawkes to a more factually corrrect image. The previous image was not. Guy Fawkes was not a noble man, and would not have been able to afford the lace he was wearing that picure. The source of this fact comes from the V&A. Prw.wilson (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juan de Jáuregui

Anyone else seem to think that the reference to the the Spaniard in the "See Also" Section is completely irrelevant? I move that it be removed. Matt White (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)