Talk:Gunpowder Plot/Archive 3

Correction

I don't really want to edit this article without further knowledge, particularly today as it is FA, but

"36 barrels of gunpowder – enough to reduce the House of Lords to rubble"

needs to be cited or removed. I'd go with the latter, because I'm pretty sure it's not true (an episode of Battlefield Detectives or Mythbusters or something disproved it, along with consultation from experts). Feyrauth (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read the whole article and not just the lead. In particular the Reconstructing the explosion section. Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just been reading that now. I suggest it should be rewritten by someone who's actually seen the television program they are citing. It concludes that it would have killed everyone in the room directly above the explosion, especially from flying chunks of the timber flooring, but would not have reduced the building to rubble. Feyrauth (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the television programme? If you have and you think the account is inaccurate then please feel free to fix it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The full programme The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend is on YouTube. The section showing the explosion is here and certainly most of the building is completely destroyed. The only bits left were three of the concrete walls of the undercroft - one was reduced to rubble and the other three were pushed apart and badly damaged (you can see this at 5 minutes in). The construction of the original building is shown in part one here at six minutes in. I think the sentence in the lead is fine but the bit about reducing the concrete walls to rubble in Reconstructing the explosion is not totally accurate. There again, it's hard to tell as they're not built to the full height they would have been. Richerman (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have seen this programme twice. The research and reconstruction of the House of Lords is both meticulous and convincing, and the resultant explosion demonstrated quite clearly that the House of Lords would have been totally destroyed if the plot had been successful. There is no doubt that everyone inside the building, and perhaps anyone near the building at the time, would have been killed instantly. The level of destruction in the vicinity of the explosion would also have been considerable.

Also, if the plot had been successful, then virtually the entire elite of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland would have been wiped out in one instant - an event far more effective and far more revolutionary than the subsequent English Civil War and abolition of the Stuart monarchy some forty-five years later.

Ds1994 (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

James's

There are 7 occasions in this article where possessions of King James are spoken of as "James's" to which I am trying to make minor edits to adjust them to correctly read "James' ... "

The difficulty arises when I save the page. I find the changes have not taken effect as they normally would when I take this action. I see at the top of the edit page that: "Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it."

Can I do anything to become an autocomfirmed user?

By the way, on November 5, 1930, my uncle Jack died as a result of a pyrotechnic prank on Fireworks Night in Isleworth, Middx.

Professoreugene (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

James's is the proper use. Parrot of Doom 21:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox illustration

Is labelled 'contemporary', though by the manner of dress of the figures it would appear to be late 17th or early 18th century.Gazzster (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of contemporary may help you out here. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 23:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No he's correct, and I've changed the caption. There are probably better, more contemporary images, to choose from. I'll track one down tomorrowish. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Was Catholicism outlawed or marginalised?

It currently reads: Catholicism became marginalised, but despite the threat of torture or execution priests continued to practise their faith in secret.. Did they just discriminate against them in hiring practices, or outlaw it entirely? Shouldn't it read "outlawed"? Dream Focus 23:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism was tolerated, but not explicitly (AFAIK) outlawed. For your average bloke, the trouble came when you refused to attend regular Church services. Then you were fined for recusancy. Priests, however, were different. They were effectively preaching the right of the Pope to decide who could be king and who couldn't. That's pretty much denying the right of your monarch to rule his realm. This at least is my limited understanding of things. I hope (in the coming years) to learn a bit more about this, and be able to speak with more authority on the subject. Parrot of Doom 00:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's about right. Catholicism per se wasn't outlawed, but priests were. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If you go here, and click on the box for page 6 it gives you a good idea of how Catholics were being treated by James I. I think maybe "persecuted" would sum it up more accurately. Richerman (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Marginalized" is pretty weaselly. And "James's attitude towards Catholics was more moderate than that of his predecessor, perhaps even tolerant. He promised that he would not "persecute any that will be quiet and give an outward obedience to the law",[9] and believed that exile was a better solution than capital punishment: "I would be glad to have both their heads and their bodies separated from this whole island and transported beyond seas." must read rather oddly to anyone not imbued with a proper English sense of things. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Captions

The King's daughter, Princess Elizabeth, whom the conspirators planned to install on the throne as a Catholic Queen

I have two problems here- principally which King are we talking about- if the browser orphans the image from the text, then the caption is ambiguous. Similarly with other captions- we refer to James but not which James.

My second problem is with whom (accusative relative pronoun)- Bywater ISBN 0 340 07596 1 says this is technically correct but usually omitted. Thompson & Martinet ISBN 019 431323 9 Section 51 b. advises that "The technically correct form is whom, but this is considered very formal and seldom used in spoken English. Instead of whom,therefore in spoken English we use who or that and it is more common to omit it altogether.(No judgement is given for the written case) If we are being pedantic, the Kings daughter is not the subject of this sentence as a person but as a judicial concept- thus requiring a non-personally relative pronoun- which or that (or omitted) T&M Section 52 b.

Moving on a few images we have the expression The undercroft beneath- sure this tautologous and should be the undercroft of.

Just a few thoughts when anyone wakes up from the sleep of the just. I did try to help out but I couldn't type fast enough.. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the caption on Princess Elizabeth's picture to read "King James's" instead of just "The King". I have to say though that I don't entirely agree with your point about "whom". While I agree that it would be rather stuffy in spoken English, this is supposed to be a formally written piece of work, so "whom" is in my view preferable. The subject of the sentence is Princess Elizabeth, and it would be unequovocally incorrect to refer to her as "that".

"The undercroft beneath" isn't tautologous, but what I suppose you're arguing is that "beneath" is redundant, because all undercrofts are beneath something. I'd argue for keeping "undercroft beneath" on two grounds though. The first is that "undercroft" is a rather unusual word today, and secondly that it identifies which undercroft we're talking about; the one beneath the Houses of Parliament, not the one under my granny's house, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

whom -- I'd simple omit it, as it fulfills all the criteria but I am not going to start a war.

undercroft- is a fairly basic architectural term- I can see the parallel with the the loft space above the mansion but would prefer the loft space of the mansion. I think the distinction could be made between 'the undercroft of King's College,(the entire building) and the undercroft beneath the King's kitchens (part of a building).--ClemRutter (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just not following you. Are you saying that you'd write "The King's daughter, Princess Elizabeth, the conspirators planned to install on the throne as a Catholic Queen"? That doesn't make sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of whom is fine (although I'm no expert), but the only variant I can see is "The conspirators planned to install the king's daughter, Princess Elizabeth (pictured) on the throne as a Catholic queen", which doesn't work. Parrot of Doom 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Scrub it- Blame it on lack of sleep- I'm imagining that this was subject and there was a main verb and object following- as in "The King's daughter, Princess Elizabeth, the conspirators planned to install on the throne as a Catholic Queen had dreadful fashion sense!"

FAR removed

Please the long-standing instructions regarding TFA at WP:FAR, as well as the newer instructions to discuss on article talk before FAR. I have removed Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gunpowder Plot/archive1 from WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In fiction

This article really needs an "in fiction" section. V for Vendetta, anyone? Seriously, cult works based on a historical event should be mentioned in the event's article... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

V for Vendetta is irrelevant to this article. Gunpowder Plot is relevant to V for Vendetta. There's a difference. Parrot of Doom 00:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

While I generally agree with what PoD has said, this is essentially moot as we have an entire separate article Gunpowder Plot in popular culture. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hardly moot. That article is linked as see also from this article's aftermath section. Aftermath does not treat culture comprehensively, dealing only with Shakespeare and religious commemoration. In other words, this article is incomplete, a criteria needed for GA (not to mention FA). I am not saying we should defeature it immediately, but if the popular culture section is not developed (created...), this will have to be done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If anything that looks remotely like a Popular Culture section appears by consensus in this article, you'll find me nominating it at FAR. Popular Culture is trivia, and trivia has no place here. Parrot of Doom 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I know some people in cultural studies who would disagree with you... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Those that can, do. Those that can't... Parrot of Doom 12:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you ask so nicely: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gunpowder Plot/archive1. Don't be discouraged, many of my Featured Articles were significantly improved after a FAR discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Material moved from WT:FAR

I'm wondering what all the fuss is about myself. I really do fail to see what it is about V for Vendetta that makes so many insist that it must be covered, whereas nobody mentions the 1923 film that predated it more than 80 years. And the Milton link seems to widely misunderstood. But those are discussions better had elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

V for Vendetta is quite popular; my interest in the GP article came from several friends who after my announcement that Wikipedia is featuring GP article asked "why doesn't it mention the V movie"? Certainly, a comprehensive section on cultural influences would discuss issues from influences on Shakespeare and 5th November celebrations (already covered in the article), to other influences (including modern pop-culture, something at this point totally omitted from the article). The lack of a section on cultural influences is what makes the article not comprehensive, and I cannot see the rationale behind people arguing that GT's cultural influences are triva and unencyclopedic (but this is indeed a discussion better held elsewhere). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good example of the problem with recentism. V for Vendetta may be popular now, but the 1923 film was popular then, yet you favour one over the other. Both are covered in the appropriate place, the Gunpowder Plot in popular culture article. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha, Wikipedia:Recentism (hey, shouldn't we have an article on recentism?) is actually relevant, but not the way you think. The GP article does suffer from lack of "long-term, historical view". While of course the history is crucial here, a section on modern influences wouldn't go amiss. The 1923 film is less known, although if it is getting significant coverage in scholarly sources, it should be discussed as prominently or more as the V movie. Mind you, I am using V movie as an example of (likely) the most popular GP-inspired popular culture artifact; I am hardly denying that there are more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I just can't get my head around people thinking that an article on one of the most important terrorist plots in English history, with such lasting consequences, could be improved with the addition of trivia. V for Vendetta tells us nothing about the Gunpowder Plot. Its a good film, albeit a historically inaccurate film, but that's all it is. Parrot of Doom 20:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me, how paragraph that would discuss how GP influenced culture and works of art throughout centuries, up to the modern day and Hollywood works, would be trivia(l). I again restate that the lack of such a paragraph makes the article not comprehensive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think this is a very good example of why editors ought not to be allowed to go barrelling off to FAR a few days, or in this case one day, after TFA. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is that it didn't influence V other than in the introduction of some rather superficial imagery. I've said elsewhere that a very good case has been made for the character of V being based on Oscar Wilde, not Guy Fawkes. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The even simpler answer is that the article does explain how the Gunpowder Plot influenced history. It was almost certainly directly responsible for English Catholicism being marginalised for 250 years. It was responsible in this country for the most well-observed and important annual celebrations that have passed virtually uninterrupted for over 400 years (currently being expanded and improved in Guy Fawkes Night). Compared to such huge societal changes, a 2nd-rate film that is very loosely based on the events of 1604-1605 is trivial. One might as well ask why the article on Jesus doesn't include a reference to the character of Jesus in The Big Lebowski. Parrot of Doom 21:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what I said when this issue came up on the Guy Fawkes page [1]. (Incidentally why is that in archive 8 and why is it not displayed on the talkpage?).

If V for Vendetta is mentioned in sources (books, scholarly articles etc) specifically regarding the Gunpowder Plot, then we reflect that in the article. However, the only references linking the two are ones specifically about the film/graphic novel, therefore it is logical to discuss it in the film/graphic novel but it does not seem relevant to discuss it here. Our articles are supposed to reflect how reliable sources discuss the topic. Quantpole (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)