Talk:Gunpowder Plot/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Grammar in lead

In the lead, I have a problem with the following sentence: "The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of England's Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state."

"during which .... was to be" seems like bad grammar. I suggest changing "was to be" to "would be" so the sentence reads: "The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of England's Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, would be installed as the Catholic head of state." Akld guy (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Jesuit?

In the section "Undercroft", Anne Vaux is described as a Jesuit. Only males can become Jesuits, so the label is inappropriate and should be changed to "Catholic", which is appropriate. Akld guy (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I've changed that. Although there must be a reason it was Jesuit in the first place, I'll check my sources. Parrot of Doom 07:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Akld guy (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Reaction" - three changes

In the section "Reaction", I've made the following three changes: Changed spelling of "Walter Ralegh" to "Walter Raleigh" (despite wrong spelling, it had been correctly redirected to the "Walter Raleigh" page). Linked "Main Plot" to its page (the unlinked state gave an entirely erroneous meaning to the sentence). Changed "...declared he had no knowledge of the conspiracy." to "...declared he had had no knowledge of the conspiracy." Akld guy (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling wasn't standardised back then and Raleigh/Ralegh used different versions of his name. The author this article uses as its main source uses "Ralegh", so I simply copied the style she used. Parrot of Doom 07:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge the non-standardisation of the time, but there was quite a discussion on the Walter Raleigh Talk page where the consensus was that he should be listed as "Walter Raleigh". That consensus has endured. My change was simply an attempt to introduce conformity between this page and that one. Akld guy (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough, to be honest I'm not really that bothered about it, using Ralegh just seemed like the appropriate thing to do considering the source material. Perhaps, around 1605, he used the Ralegh spelling. I don't know. If enough people weighed in on the matter I wouldn't object to a change, he's only mentioned in passing. Parrot of Doom 11:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected

I have full-protected the article for three days to prevent an imminent edit war. I'll go and have a look at the substance now; but I will say that generally speaking, considerable latitude should be given to the editors who did the hard work of improving the article to featured status in the first place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"more than sufficient"

@Parrot of Doom: Call it what you want, but "more than sufficient" is not logically equivalent to "enough", and "more than sufficient" is what the sources have been saying. This was even done by Fawkes on purpose. I'm open to rewording what I inserted, but not the strictly weaker statement "enough".--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Parrot of Doom 20:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Parrot of Doom: And why, if I may ask? Note that if Fawkes had used just enough, it would be called "enough" but not "more than enough", which clearly establishes the logical inequivalence. "more than enough" implies "enough" but not the other way around. This source and others clearly imply Fawkes used more than enough. Yes, the way I worded it was perhaps a bit too awkward, but not the logical content.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gunpowder Plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.show.me.uk/gunpowderplot/adults_plot_ac.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050215195506/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gunpowder Plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113083659/http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/bonfire-night/features/a-penny-for-the-guy-in-progress to http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/bonfire-night/features/a-penny-for-the-guy-in-progress

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gunpowder Plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223181716/http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/ to http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Church of England is not mentioned in the lead

Readers who do not know about the Church of England may be confused. The only line explaining what motivated the revolt is "Catesby may have embarked on the scheme after hopes of securing greater religious tolerance under King James had faded, leaving many English Catholics disappointed." Should we change the first sentence to something like:

• The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot or the Jesuit Treason, was a failed assassination attempt against King James I by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Robert Catesby who sought to end persecution of Catholics under the Church of England.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And Guy Fawkes states in its lead that they had "planned to assassinate King James I and restore a Catholic monarch to the throne. Maybe we could say:

• The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot or the Jesuit Treason, was a failed assassination attempt against King James I by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Robert Catesby who sought to restore the Catholic monarchy from the Church of England after decades of persecution of Catholics.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Persecution of Catholics"

Firejuggler86, you changed "persecution of Catholics" to "Anglican rule" citing NPOV. The article says "persecution of Catholics" in the body in wikivoice, so it should be fine in wikivoice in the lead as well.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"but there was none left"

Here, the source infers that this addition is in reference to the gunpowder itself, but it may as well be in reference to the plot, suggesting regret that, alas, there "was none left" to light the fuse. Why would someone in 1952 question the provenance of said gunpowder without providing further proof? Why should none of it have been left? No other source states what was done with it.84.164.194.186 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

On topic of the gunpowder, I recall in 1990s Magnus Magnusson presented a documentary about the Plot, arguing possibility of government collusion, mentioning that gunpowder at the time was a government monopoly, thus raising a question as to the source (who and where) of the gunpowder. So the person questioning the gunpowder left behind was perhaps justified in their disbelief if they were aware of the monopoly factor.Cloptonson (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)