Talk:Gunpowder Plot/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calendar

I don't know why the calendar differences were added. The date of 15 November in either calendar is of no consequence in relation to Bonfire night. I've removed this to avoid confusion. Jooler 00:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In England in 1752 i think, we changed from Julian calendar to Gregorian, so i think this is the reason Cooltiger989 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Weird formulation in text

In last paragraph of Historical impact:

England could very well have become a more Puritan absolute monarchy, as existed in Sweden, Denmark, Saxony, and Prussia in the seventeenth century, rather than the path of parliamentary and civil reform that occurred.

No! No such Puritan absolute monarchy existed in Sweden, Denmark, Saxony, or Prussia, those countries were Lutheran, which is very far from Puritan, two thirds toward Roman Catholicism, from the Puritan position. The sentence must:

  1. have an attached citation, otherwise it is OR which is not allowed in Wikipedia,
  2. and be reformulated to entail what the sentence intends to say, in an "unambiguous" (as much as possible) way,

Queruled: Said: Rursus ☻ 12:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image problem

How do I get a larger view of the lead image of this article? Everywhere I click just leads me to other articles. --Carnildo (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. All images with captions have a button to the right which if you press gives an enlarged view
  2. If you move your cursor over the background of these figures then it will remind you of this button. Victuallers (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

were they framed?

Many people think they were framed as there are many clues like how could they buy so much gun powder when it is controlled by the goverment etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.241.124 (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

They may have Been i could add a section revaling evidence of this but I need to check copyright rules. Cooltiger989 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to white nationailst website

I removed a link today to a video clip taken from a television programme on a website called http://www.podblanc.com I didn't get the edit summary quite right but these are my reasons for removal:

  • The film clip is quite long and was taken from a British television programme but has no attribution, so I suspect it is a copyright violation.
  • The film mimics the destruction of a building with people inside it and then has a still added at the end saying "join the struggle now" so it is being used to encourage people to carry out acts of terrorism and murder and to join a politically motivated group. Quite apart from the the first two points wikipedia is not a soapbox see wp:what wikipedia is not.
  • I don't like these nasty little racist bastards and I won't let wikipedia promote their obnoxious views without a fight. Richerman (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I quite agree with you, Richerman. Thanks for catching it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I also support the removal. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 13:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I have boldly moved this here:


Perhaps a sub article article Gunpowder Plot in popular culture can be cobbled together. --Secisek (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! - then it can go to AfD as being completely lacking in notability :) Richerman (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If something besides a "cobbling together" is done — e.g. some tracking down of a reliable source or two that analyze the roles of Fawkes, the Plot, and/or November 5 in popular culture — then we may have an article worth keeping. Surely someone has explored this and published about it. Anyone at a campus feel like searching JSTOR? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 15:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not have the trivia in there? When I read the article I was surprised to see it not there, since so many articles have "trivia" included. I propose moving it back. 92.67.190.106 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It can go in but should be included in the body of the text and not as a seperate section, see Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Richerman (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

the potential explosion

The data on the potential force of the explosion is unsourced, and I personally find it highly dubious: gunpowder is a low explosive and will only violently deflagrate if contained tightly, for example in a gun barrel or a metal pipe. It would appear to me that a simple pile of gunpowder would be more likely to produce a fire, great deal of smoke, but hardly the kind of explosion that would end an empire. 01:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.38.136 (talk)

You're forgetting at the time much of London was wood this only changed after the great fire of london, so it could of done a great deal of damage Cooltiger989 (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

1581

There was a similar allegation made that gunpowder would be used in 1581. At the trial of Campion and others for the non-existent Rome-Reims plot, it was said that the plotters intended to use a "confection of wild fire". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Rishton, the main target of the explosive charges, was condemned to death but, oddly enough, not executed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC) The Cecil family were responsible for both gunpowder plots, of 1581 and 1605. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.51.30 (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern spelling for the Monteagle letter

There has been a recent reversion of some corrections to the original spelling, but some of the reversion was still wrong: here's a transcripted extract from an online facsimile E&OE:

"my lord out of the loue I beare to ƒome of youere frendz I haue a caer of youer preƒeruacion therefor I vould aduyƒe yowe as yowe tender youer lyf to deuys ƒome epƒcuƒe to ƒhift of youer attendance at this parleament".

Any support for having the whole thing in standard, modern spelling? Most printed sources do. --Old Moonraker (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the old spelling is very quaint but for clarity I think it should be modernised. Richerman (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair 'enuff, I think the original quoted text came from the Parliamentary website. There was another point about the Monteagle letter that seems to have been lost in the rejig. The way I understand it, he was entertaining a group of prominent Catholics when the letter arrived. The letter was read out loud as a warning to fellow catholics that the plot had been exposed; and to tip off the conspirators. He then sent it to Salisbury to demonstrate his own loyalty to the crown. I can't put an immediate citation to this, it was either the Parliamentary website, or the Hoxton article on BritHistory online. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This isn't necessarily so. The Fraser book I have says that he couldn't read the handwriting (one must admit the handwriting is a mess), and so had someone decipher it for him. I haven't yet got that far in the Haynes work. Its quite easy to see though how "got someone to read it for me" could be translated to "read aloud". Fraser also suggests that Monteagle wrote the letter himself, but I've deliberately left this as a vague hint in the image caption, as her opinion isn't necessarily fact. Parrot of Doom 13:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I favour his brother in law, Tresham as the author! (Trevelyan, G. M. (1904). "Tresham mars the plot". England Under the Stuarts (2nd (2002) ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 89-91. ) Monteagle was a 'reformed' conspirator against the crown - from earlier plots. Hoxton was a nest bed of recusants, having been the home of the Spanish ambassador since Tudor times - they used his private chapel. I don't think Fraser is that well respected as a historian; the work is more populist than substantial and they've been numerous critiques of the theory. Kbthompson (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Northcote Parkinson suggests that Salisbury drafted the letter, and had someone (probably his secretary, Levinus Monck) copy it out in "a disguised and somewhat illegible hand". When the letter arrived at Monteagle's house, the latter opened it and handed it to Thomas Ward, his secretary, to read out loud. The only witnesses were Monteagle's servants. I think it's more likely that Salisbury wrote the letter than Monteagle. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. It seems to me that Tresham is the least likely of the three to have written the letter. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Well as with any conspiracy, you have to ask - who had the most to gain? Parrot of Doom 15:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Salisbury, as it allowed him to implicate his enemy the Earl of Northumberland, amongst other things, through the involvement of Thomas Percy. It seems that Salisbury may have known of the plot for some time before the letter arrived, and was just waiting for the right moment—the 5th November, the King's lucky day—to "discover" it. Thomas Ward had warned Thomas Winter about the letter, and Winter in turn told Catesby. Winter and Catesby met Tresham on 30 October. Initially they suspected that the letter had been written by Tresham, but he'd been away from London on the 26th, and persuaded the others that he hadn't written it. So all Tresham had to gain was a slit throat if the other two refused to believe him. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess we'll never know. The lack of confessions from the main players has seen to that. Parrot of Doom 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The main players couldn't have known that Salisbury knew about their plot long before the letter was written, from his own spies, Monteagle, and perhaps even Thomas Percy, who was seen leaving Salisbury's house on several occasions by a very reliable witness. I'm quite convinced that Salisbury was the real mastermind behind the plot, and chose carefully when and how to "discover" it.
On a slightly different subject, I know that no trace was ever found of a tunnel dug by the conspirators, but if they weren't digging a tunnel, then what were they doing between their first meeting in May 1604 and renting the undercroft in March 1605? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Drinking Ale, of course! Parrot of Doom 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
They sound like my sort of conspirators! --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[out] acquiring cheap non-combustible gunpowder from the Navy office ...! You're quite right, he appeared to be dining alone - unlike Salisbury - so, there may be an element of a stitch up. Wade was 'the link' to the conspirators. Kbthompson (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think sourcing gunpowder was a particular problem, soldiers had their wages docked for the gunpowder they needed, you could get it from merchant vessels. It wasn't as controlled a substance as we'd like to believe, lets face it you could chuck a bloke a tenner and get some out of the back door, and nobody would ever find out. As for Salisbury, he may have learnt about the plot some time before 5 November, but I can't see him actually instigating it - just imagine if his enemies had found out about it. Parrot of Doom 10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hutton

Ronald Hutton's wild speculation should not really be in a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.33.187 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Which road?

I'm quite certain that the plotters fled London along Watling Street, now known as the A5 through Dunstable. Does anyone have a source, or a map, that can help to confirm this? Parrot of Doom 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Nicholls in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004) agrees with you. In his article on Catesby he says

When, early on the morning of 5 November, news spread round London that Guy Fawkes had been captured red-handed in the cellars at Westminster, Catesby and several fellow conspirators fled north, hastening as best they might up Watling Street to the appointed Northamptonshire rendezvous, Percy and John Wright casting their cloaks into the hedgerows in an effort to ride faster.

Nicholls cites this to "TNA: PRO SP 14/216/136", although he doesn't explain exactly what that source is. I can't trace it online, except that Nicholls uses it again in his 'Strategy and Motivation in the Gunpowder Plot', in The Historical Journal 50 (2007), 787–807. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look at that and include it in the article once I've done with the Fraser book - unless of course you'd like to make your own additions. I wonder if there's a good high-quality 17th-century onwards map I could use, to illustrate? (hint) Parrot of Doom 21:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll be surprised if you can find better maps for the period than good county maps, especially those of John Speed. By the way, the web site gunpowder-plot.org identifies SP 14/216/136 as "Declaration of Ambrose Rookewood 2 Dec 1605". Moonraker2 (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. If I can find something half-decent, I'll make my own map. I feel the article could use a simple graphical illustration of where things are, for the benefit of non-UK readers. Although I'm determined to retain a few Britishisms throughout, such as Lady Day :D Parrot of Doom 22:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The TNA: PRO ref refers to the Catalogue of The National Archives. Curiously, that exact reference doesn't seem to exist, but SP 14/216 does, and consists of collected State Papers relating to the Gunpowder Plot. Possibly the ODNB author has appended the final /136 to refer to a page within the document "piece", though that form of reference should be for an "item" which is available separately from its parent piece. David Underdown (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually it should probably be SP 14/216 folio 136, compare http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/crime/g04/g04cs2s3.htm which shows Fawkes's confession labelled as SP 14/216, fo. 90 David Underdown (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank-you for the clarification. I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on how such things are archived, but would you be able to clarify its citation, based on what you've written above? Parrot of Doom 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd usually do something like Folio 136 in {{cite web|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/externalrequest.asp?requestreference=SP14/216|title=Piece details SP 14/216—The Gunpowder Plot: a collection of correspondence, depositions and papers, in two parts.|work=The Catalogue|publisher=[[The National Archives]]|accessdate=8 February 2010}} David Underdown (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, just make sure please to emulate the citation style used throughout the article please, if you choose to modify the citation (Citation not cite web, publisher as a url, etc). Thanks very much for this. Parrot of Doom 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

Titus Oates endorsed the Gunpowder Plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.171.34 (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Antonia Fraser and C. Northcote Parkinson are both novelists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.171.34 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Oates (who was born two generations after the Plot) was on the "no popery" side.
Parkinson was an historian who turned to fiction in later life. Antonia Fraser writes fiction as well as history. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Should have cometh"

Hoby really can't have written "to which the King should have cometh", and Marc Alexander's A companion to the folklore, myths & customs of Britain isn't much of a source for the quotation in any event. If this stays in, it needs to be better fathomed. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It was already in when I started, I just tidied it up. I'd have no objection to it being removed, if it seems unlikely. Parrot of Doom 22:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It's all right, I've found a much better source, which says (as I thought) "should have come". This was as Alexander quoted it, but there were other errors in his version. I've corrected it. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You know, I don't like that quotation box and I don't know what it's for. I think the quotation would be better as an ordinary part of the article, in some suitable place. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Stuff that needs doing

I think with a bit of fidgeting this would certainly pass a GAN, so I think it might be better to go straight for FAC. The aftermath section is still woeful, it needs much more historical impact. I think there are underlying stories through the plot that need linking up better (Vaux, Garnet, Garrett etc). Anyone else have any ideas of what else needs doing? I'm almost at the end of my two books. Parrot of Doom 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

1608 Monument

Oxford Art Online tells of some kind of monument installed in the Tower of London in 1608, dedicated to the failure of the plot. I've been unable to find anything more about this. Cand anyone help? Parrot of Doom 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"From Henry VIII’s reign the Tower’s use as a royal residence declined. Surviving from this period is the chapel of St Peter ad Vincula, rebuilt in 1519 after a fire; it consists of nave, chancel and a wide north aisle, all with tie-beam roofs and large windows. James Nedeham, who built the roof of St Peter’s, rebuilt the timber lodging at St Thomas’s Tower in 1532. In 1540 he reconstructed the Queen’s House (before c. 1880 better known as the Lieutenant’s Lodgings) with an ogee-braced timber frame and open first-floor hall, which was floored in 1607 to form an upper great chamber; in 1608 the extraordinary marble monument commemorating the failure of the Gunpowder Plot was installed here."

It appears to be the room in which Guy Fawkes was questioned. A Short History of the Tower of London, George Younghusband pp 46-7 describes it as bust of James I, and a florid inscription recording horror at the Plot, and recounting the numerous virtues of the King .... here-ish. hth Kbthompson (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I wonder what happened to it? Perhaps destroyed in the interregnum. Parrot of Doom 00:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I imagine its still there - it was in Younghusband's time. That part of the Tower is not open to the public. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Stype has a description of it as a sort of medallion - separate from the bust ...

"In an upper Chamber in the Lieutenant's Lodgings, is an ingenious Device to describe the Gunpowder Treason Plot, set up about that Time by Sir William Wade, Lieutenant of the Tower. The Monument consisteth of several Pieces of Marble, in Fashion round, inlay'd with Inscriptions on them; in the Middle whereof is a larger Stone. On the Extremities, several Coats of Arms of the Chief Nobility, as of Howard, Cecil, &c. It is scarcely legible, the Inscription being almost worn out. In the same Room, is a fine lively Figure of the foresaid King, with his Hat on, and, as it seems, very much resembling him. "

He describes it as 'well worn' in the mid-17th century. No word on whether it remains in situ! My guess is they never throw anything away. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I may email them, although as a large organisation the email would probably end up at the desk of a secretary and get filed in the bin. Parrot of Doom 09:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

John Whitcomb Bayley's The History and Antiquities of the Tower of London (1821) has a full description, including the full text of the Latin inscriptions, at pp. 130 to 133. It's online here. Moonraker2 (talk)

Mistake

The phrase "900 hundred" in the current text seems to be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.146.5 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out, and don't forget WP:BOLD! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Whynniard

It is remarkably hard to ascertain the date of John Whynniard's death. The Public Record Office seem to have a will of his, signed on the 26/11/1605. If so, he can not have died on 5/11/1605. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.78 (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To be sure that the Will hasn't been wrongly indexed or catalogued, you would need to see it. Also, Whynniard must have held enough property that you should be able to cross-check with other sources. For instance, according to this, para 137, by about 1611 his widow had married a man called Sir John Stafford, who was thus involved in property matters connected with Whynniard's interests. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
A French historical journal noted in 1953 "Autre étrangeté: la mort de John Whynniard, intendant de la Garde-Robe, lequel avait loué aux conspirateurs la cave aux poudres : mort soudaine, de cause inconnue, et survenue avant que l'homme eût fait aucune déposition" – Another curious thing, the death of John Whynniard, keeper of the Wardrobe, the man who had rented the powder cellar to the plotters: his sudden death, from an unknown cause, occurred before the man had made any deposition. — Revue historique, 209-210 (1953), p. 139. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
See Mark Nicholls, "Investigating Gunpowder Plot", page 216, note 27.
See PRO PROB 10/238; 11/107, fols 74v-6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.65 (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was my edit "blown up"?

Can I ask why it was my replacement of "blow up", "explode gunpowder", was reverted? "Blow up" is correct, but not only is it uneloquent, it forsakes any mention of actual gunpowder being used. And why was it reverted with "gunpowder isn't an explosive"? If nothing else, I would really like an explanation of that. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit, so I'm pleading "not guilty" to that, but I'd have to say I don't see much wrong with it. Our own article describes gunpowder as a low explosive, so I'm not certain the edit summary is correct. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Gunpowder doesn't explode, it burns. I think what you meant was "the conspirators planned to cause a large explosion beneath the House of Lords". It isn't correct to say that you can explode gunpowder. You can use it, when contained, to create an explosion, however. I think if you ask any man on the street what Guy Fawkes wanted to do, he'd say "blow up Parliament", and thus I think the wording is fine for the lead. Parrot of Doom 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem in it. Gunpowder is a low explosive and does explode. See The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
But it burns to create an explosion doesn't it? So by saying "to explode gunpowder", you're actually implying that you're setting fire to gunpowder so that it burns and creates an explosion. I see what you mean Parrot, but I still think it's pedantic to suggest it isn't an explosive.
I thought you would be using the wording on account of it being in the public lexicon, rather than as a technical term, but I believe it's wrong not to mention gunpowder's role in the actual explosion until the end of the first lead, and even then use just "explosives". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't burn to create an explosion. Set it off in the open and it'll just fizzle. The explosion only occurs if the resultant gases are contained, as in the barrel of a firearm, or a wooden barrel held together by iron bands. You may as well say that hairspray is an explosive. That's why before they died Catesby and the others didn't have their heads blown off, or the roof of the house fall down upon them—because the powder merely flashed, it didn't explode. I disagree with your point about where 'Gunpowder' should appear, I think its fine as it is. The primary aim of the Gunpowder Plot was to kill the King, not to create an explosion from Gunpowder. Parrot of Doom 12:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
So "blow up" is a much more accurate term I suppose? I didn't fain to know exactly the processes by which gunpowder explodes, but I felt it a much-needed replacement for the term that was there before it. I disagree with your disagreement, the fact that gunpowder appears so late is an important issue, whether or not it is the "primary aim". You're coming from a position of knowledge on the subject; people unaware of the subject need to know why the plot has the word "Gunpowder" in the title. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
So late? It appears in the seventh sentence! I'm not changing it, its fine as it is, and "blow up" is just about the simplest and most accurate term that could be used, even Guy Fawkes himself wanted to "blow the Scotch back to Scotland". This is a lead section, not a scientific analysis. Parrot of Doom 14:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[Bringing back indent] But in the summary: "The plan was to..." it isn't mentioned and then suddenly we are told that Fawkes was standing next to 36 barrels of the stuff. I'm not looking for a scientific analysis, such as the one provided for reverting my edit, I'm simply suggesting that in a plot which includes in its title the word "Gunpowder" and not "Blowing up the House of Lords", it should be mentioned as early as possible. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


Undermining of references

I am concerned about the 'tidying' of citations by Parrot of Doom, which has the effect of undermining them or removing them completely.

As an example of this, under the heading Which road? above, Parrot of Doom asked "I'm quite certain that the plotters fled London along Watling Street, now known as the A5 through Dunstable. Does anyone have a source, or a map, that can help to confirm this?"

I replied, with a reference to Mark Nicholls's article on Catesby in the ODNB (see above). Nicholls says "When, early on the morning of 5 November, news spread round London that Guy Fawkes had been captured red-handed in the cellars at Westminster, Catesby and several fellow conspirators fled north, hastening as best they might up Watling Street to the appointed Northamptonshire rendezvous, Percy and John Wright casting their cloaks into the hedgerows in an effort to ride faster." Although Nicholls's citation to his source was obscure, being only a PRO accession number, I traced it to the Declaration of Ambrose Rookewood dated 2 December 1605. Parrot of Doom commented (above) "Thanks, I'll take a look at that and include it in the article once I've done with the Fraser book - unless of course you'd like to make your own additions."

I added a citation myself as follows, under <ref name=rookwood>: "Declaration of Ambrose Rookewood, 2 December 1605 (TNA: PRO SP 14/216/136), cited in Mark Nicholls, 'Catesby, Robert', in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (OUP, 2004)".

Here, at 00:20 on 23 November 2009, Parrot of Doom deleted the citation from the article, with the comment "fix referencing problem for this para, and delete rookwood confession (will move it to 'further reading')"

Here, at 00:22 on 23 November 2009 Parrot of Doom added the citation to the Rookwood Declaration, still with its PRO reference, under a section headed 'Further reading'.

here, at 02:10 on 23 November 2009, with the edit summary "fix", Parrot of Doom edited that item, deleting all reference to Rookwood's Declaration, including its PRO reference, and converting the item into a bare mention of the existence of an ODNB article on Catesby by Nicholls, the new item reading "Nicholls, Mark (2004-09), Catesby, Robert (b. in or after 1572, d. 1605), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/4883, retrieved 2009-11-23 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)"

here at 01:38 on 26 November 2009 Malleus Fatuorum removed the amended item completely from 'Further reading' with the comment "where did this come from?" I see Malleus Fatuorum's point. The fact that there is an ODNB article on Catesby is neither here nor there for this article, and without any context a mention of it under 'Further Reading' added nothing very useful. The problem here is with Parrot of Doom, who asked for a source, was provided with one, and then moved it out of its context, before changing it until it was worthless, so that another user deleted it.

As a lesser instance of this trend, I found a source for a poorly referenced quotation and at this edit I corrected the quotation and cited it to p. 584 of John Nichols's The Progresses, Processions, and Magnificent Festivities of King James the First (1828), including a link to that page online at Google Books.

At this edit, at 12:14 on 18 November 2009, Parrot of Doom tidied the citation, deleting the description of the source ("quoting a letter from Sir Edward Hoby to Sir Thomas Edmonds, Ambassador at Brussels") and the Google Books link, which I suppose he considered to have no value. However, here, the next day, Parrot added back "Extract of a letter from Sir Edward Hoby (Gentleman of the Bedchamber) to Sir Thomas Edwards, Ambassador at Brussells". Without the link to the page, which is still not there, I guess that no one else would have been likely to do it. The general trend to tidy and delete information is clearly a bad one. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your second point - the quotation is correctly cited, and nothing has been lost, so I'm not certain what your point is. Your first point - if you'd read the FAC (and its talk page), you'd have understood why the citation no longer exists.
I have to say, a simple "what happened to these two citations" would have sufficed, rather than the post you've made, which I view as quite unhelpful. The majority of the citations (and the text, pre-copyedit) in this article exist only because I bothered to spend some money, read every single one of over 500 pages of source material, and spend a good 20-30 hours of my time improving this article. But obviously two citations are more important than that. Parrot of Doom 18:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel that you have understood the points I made, Parrot of Doom, and I imagine you know that you do not have ownership of the article. My comments were not just about two citations, but about the way you work. It seems your approach is to prefer tidiness ("correctly cited") to good information in appropriate citations.
You do not seem to have answered the points I made, except aggressively. What is "the FAC (and its talk page)", please? Why is it correct to delete links to online source material which is cited? Moonraker2 (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I understood them perfectly. It seems, however, that you did not understand my reply. This is the FAC. This is its talk page. And I'm getting quite sick and tired of people slinging around 'reminders' about 'ownership'. Never have I once assumed that I own any article, and I defy anyone to look for instances where I've made an article poorer.
page 584 of Nichols' book and the quote therein is still cited. Watling St is no longer cited, as per the quite difficult and tedious FAC process. In fact this one was so tedious I frankly couldn't be bothered reinserting the Watling St citation. Is Watling St particularly contentious, and does it require a citation? Maybe. If one is demanded then its easy enough to insert, but as I've already said I was quite certain that was the route they'd taken anyway, and anyone who studied the towns they visited while leaving London would likely form the same opinion.
To make the points you did, and somehow suggest that my inputs to this page have been problematic, is insulting after the work I put into this article. One missing citation from several hundred, and this is the thanks I get. I find this quite discussion to be quite sickening, and I think I'll leave it there before I say something I regret. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You say "I'm getting quite sick and tired of people slinging around 'reminders' about 'ownership'." But why would that be, if you do nothing to prompt people to 'sling' these reminders towards you?
I can find nothing in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gunpowder Plot/archive1 which justifies the removal of information in citations.
You say "One missing citation from several hundred...", so I find myself wondering "Why so much aggression and no apology?" You actually asked for that citation yourself, and then removed it in stages, which does not give an appearance of straightforwardness. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You want an apology, after writing that? You accuse me of poor practice, of article ownership, of aggression, while demonstrating ignorance of the FAC process, and failing to acknowledge that you were completely incorrect about a deleted citation—and then ask for an apology? Oh look, there go some pigs. With green beards. Being flown by Lord Lucan, over a frozen hell. Parrot of Doom 00:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me?

I see three broken citations in the reflist, and none of the citations appear to be clickable. I can't see anything wrong in the code. Is this just a problem at my end? I go back through the history, and they're even there when the article was made FA, which I don't recall. Parrot of Doom 11:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All the links seem fine to me. Which ones do you see a problem with? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
24, 25, 35. All "ref name" citations that are apparently missing text. They're red, and bolded. How odd, I've even purged my cache, still there. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right, they're buggered. When and how the Hell did that happen? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of the footnotes are missing. Its something to do with that. Parrot of Doom 14:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of the citations are also missing. The numbering in the article is different from the numbering in the references section. Parrot of Doom 15:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
There's probably a tag somewhere not been properly closed. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Naughty Malleus! Parrot of Doom 15:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah it wasn't you after all, apologies. Parrot of Doom 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Earlier centuries?

"The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot" - I've always known it as the Gunpowder Treason Plot. Which century is the term supposed to have fallen into disuse in? 217.28.5.247 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I certainly haven't seen it called "The Gunpowder Treason Plot" in recent times. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gunpowder_Plot/Archive_2&oldid=1136780554"