Talk:Gunpowder Plot/Archive 4

Monetary values

How are you arriving at the equivalent monetary values for 1605 and 2008 (ref notes 5 and 6) and are these the preferable ways? Whichever way is used, it probably should be clearly indicated. And why use one way for one calculation of fines and another way for another? Presumably you are going to "Measuring Worth" at [1]. That calculator makes 5000 pounds worth 10m pounds in 2008, as you say. It does so on the basis of "average earnings". But it gives "only" 778,000 pounds on the basis of retail price index, which I guess is what you mean by "purchasing power". And there are other ways again: the site discusses several. Perhaps I misunderstand, but could you clarify? --Wikiain (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand. "Measuring Worth" is cited as the source of the present-day equivalent values, and the notes explain the basis of the calculations. Purchasing power isn't the same as retail price index; the RPI is just one way of measuring purchasing power. There's no "correct" way for equivalent values so long ago, but I think that the choices made here are reasonable ones. You might find it helpful to read what Measuring Worth itself has to say. The reason we opted to use two different measures is that in one case we're talking about the money raised from taxation and in the other the money that had to be found by one individual, i.e., state income vs personal wealth. Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence clarifies. Thank you. --Wikiain (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Matches

Do we think that Fawkes had a box of Swan Vestas on his person when captured, or is it more likely that he had one or more Slow matches? Parrot of Doom 19:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Northcote-Parkinson says "slow matches". Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nursery rhyme

What is the point of adding this rhyme if we cannot determine exactly where it came from? I investigated this matter while improving Guy Fawkes Night and found myself completely unable to explain its origin. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In my view, it's an important quotation, summing up the popular enthusiasm for commemorating the Gunpowder Plot. Something about it could perhaps be added in the text. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it important? I'm not being intentionally belligerent but I have been unable to find out where it came from, and cannot therefore demonstrate its importance or notability. Not one of the sources I've read gives it anything more than a fleeting mention. Parrot of Doom 23:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's important because it illuminates the context of the article. For generations, every English child was taught it, and for many of them it was all they knew of the Gunpowder Treason. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that something you can attribute to a source? I've never read anything of the like. Parrot of Doom 09:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a fair point, I'll see what can be done with sources. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Doubt

I who wrote about The Slimy Stuarts and it's the James I's own plot. Why delete it? The book has been used in school. And this is not the Fraser's page. If you want to delete it again, write the reason. At least, some of U.K students learned like this.--K84 (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

School children might learn from children's books, but students do not. Much as I like Horrible Histories, the books are not appropriate for information added to an encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think Scholastic's educational books highly though that does not count here. And I understand that as encyclopedia, Wikipedea's article showed general opinion, not minority. I'll search again. This time I agree to delete the doubt part. Lady Antonia Fraser's book's translation in Japanese has many error. Even reading it in English, I can't understand it's value. And I don't know about other source's author. So I thought Fraser's book is not enough. I read Antonia Fraser and still don't know how she has such high...what?...eh reputation is the right word? Would someone explain it to me?--K84 (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What "error"? Parrot of Doom 14:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Was the king behind the gunpowder plot?

I, too, have reservations about using a childrens' history book as a reliable source, not least one written in the flippant tone of Horrible Histories. That said, has anyone come across an assertion that the king was behind the plot as some sort of agent provocateur? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the king was behind the Gunpowder Plot is highly implausible. Most conspiracy theorists have suggested that Robert Cecil, the English Secretary of State, may have at least known of the plot for some time before he acted, or even initiated it himself. But that he might have done so on the orders of the king is vanishingly unlikely, and I've certainly never seen that suggested by a reputable scholar. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Some Catholic authors attempt to attribute the plot to Cecil. It does seem implausible, given that the plot may very well have succeeded.Gazzster (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't that implausible that Cecil may have been behind it. The plotters' failure was disastrous for Catholicism, but their success would almost certainly have been utterly ruinous. Cecil couldn't have failed, either way. Parrot of Doom 22:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

The Daily What links here and to Guy Fawkes Night. --Moni3 (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Early plots

Problems here: the Bye Plot, Main Plot and trials were in 1603, not 1604. So the ordering of the section is unclear as far as chronology goes. Also Sir Griffin Markham was not a lord. Fraser pp. 63–4. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Some minor adjustments may be required so any loss of flow is restored. Parrot of Doom 11:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

A quick look at the article history shows that this article is subject to long term persistent IP vandalism. Very few constructive edits have been made. Can we please just protect it from this nonsense? Parrot of Doom 13:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeat

The phrase "repeat offenders" appears in the article. In many cases, one could be executed for a single offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.66.149 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Susan Whynniard

The fact that Susan Whynniard was called a wife and not a widow on the 7/11/1605 is said to be proof that John Whynniard was alive then. The government might have been lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.203.240 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Camden

William Camden's written contribution to the government's effort should be mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.99.125 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Prayer book

The "Initial planning" section says "the five plotters swore an oath of secrecy on a prayer book". "Prayer book" would presumably be the "Book of Common Prayer" - a Protestant (Church of England) liturgy. It seems odd that these committed Catholics would swear a solemn oath on a Protestant book. Is "Prayer Book" correct, or was it a "book of prayers"? Baska436 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the source doesn't elaborate on the matter. Presumably the information comes from someone's confession - Wintour, Fawkes, Gerard, etc. Parrot of Doom 10:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should the term "prayer book" be specific to the Book of Common Prayer? The definition of a prayer book is "a book containing the prayers used at church services". When I was a Catholic (many years ago) we called the book we used at mass a "prayer book". Richerman (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor change

Since this article is semi-protected (and thus I cannot edit it) it would be appreciated if someone else could fix this for me: The external link that leads to the The Gunpowder Plot Society website points to the article on Ashby St. Ledgers (http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/ashby.asp) instead of the proper homepage (http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/index.asp). It's a minor change that easily can be corrected. Thank you. --195.75.73.1 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing out this mistake. Parrot of Doom 13:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Her Majesty had no issue, but I do

The Succession section begins:

Queen Elizabeth was unmarried, childless, and steadfastly refused to name an heir.

This is ungrammatical. "unmarried", "childless" and "steadfastly refused to name an heir" are treated as the three members of a list. But there are really two lists: the verbs with the subject "Queen Elizabeth" ("was" and "refused") and the two objects of "was" ("unmarried" and "childless"). I changed it to this:

Queen Elizabeth was unmarried and childless, and steadfastly refused to name an heir.

Malleus Fatuorum reverted that change, and reverted again when another user re-applied it. He said it was "ugly".

I'm not going to insist that other people have the same taste as me in prose. But we surely don't want the article to assert that "Queen Elizabeth was steadfastly refused to name an heir". Can't we avoid ugliness but still have a sentence?

How about this:

Unmarried and childless, Queen Elizabeth steadfastly refused to name an heir.

TypoBoy (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the choice between the two, I prefer what's already there. Your construction implies that the previous section was about Elizabeth, when it was actually about Catholicism. That's not to say there isn't a better way to phrase the information that's there, but I don't think it's a big issue either way. Parrot of Doom 18:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As a decent grammarian (but a less than pedestrian stylist) I object to the terminology. The list, as it was, was not ungrammatical; it's as simple as that. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be argumentative, particularly since Eric has graciously made the change I requested. But you seem not to understand the problem I was pointing out, especially when you talk about "the list". That's the crux of the problem: there were two lists, and they each needed a conjunction. The change that Eric made fixes the problem by removing one of the verbs. Now that there's only one verb, there's no need for a conjunction to join them. Previously, there were two verbs, but the conjunction that would join them was missing.

To put it another way, do you understand why this sentence requires two conjunctions?

Queen Elizabeth played jai alai, wrote sonnets, climbed Mount Everest without supplementary oxygen, steadfastly refused to name an heir, and was unmarried, childless, talkative, obese, and Swedish.

One conjunction joins the verbs, and the other joins the predicates of "was". TypoBoy (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No, there was one list, a list of three words. Your sample sentence is nothing like the one in the article at all. You're doing style, not grammar, and confusing the one for the other is pedantry. I do like the current version better, by the way. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So do I, but I reject absolutely the idea that there was anything ungrammatical about the initial version. Eric Corbett 03:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you say that the following sentences are both grammatical?

Queen Elizabeth steadfastly refused to name an heir.

Queen Elizabeth was steadfastly refused to name an heir.

The original sentence is grammatical only if the latter of these two examples is. It similarly treats "refused" as a modifier of "Queen Elizabeth", rather than as a verb of which "Queen Elizabeth" was the subject. TypoBoy (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You're quite simply wrong. Can we please drop this now? Eric Corbett 14:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

correction

Please correct "Journal of the Warburg and Courtald Institutes" to "Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes" (i.e., add a "u"). See [2] in ref #162. Thank you 76.14.86.123 (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for spotting this error. Parrot of Doom 08:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

The article says that the amount of gunpowder was 36 barrels. Information is available on what the weight of a barrel of gunpowder was at the time. I have tried to add this information, but it has been reverted several times by a single user claiming original research (OR). After each reversion I have substantially changed what I added, ultimately simply quoting sources verbatim so that there is no question of OR. But I get simple statements that my edit is OR, with justification such as "original research, now just fuck off, ok?", not really very useful.

I don't think there's any question of the actual weight of gunpowder used being irrelevant, the only question is whether it's sourced.

I'm posting here rather than reporting a WP:3RR as others have now joined in, so I'd ask if the following constitutes original research according to the Wikipedia guidelines. "guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder" is context; my addition is the footnote.

... guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder

Pol098 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how you know the barrels were full, or what size they were. Parrot of Doom 23:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother. I've just double checked the source, which says that Fawkes used barrels, hogsheads and firkins (the latter generally for transport). Only estimates are available for the amount of gunpowder in there, and they vary "between two and ten thousand pounds". So basically, your addition is original research and completely inaccurate. Parrot of Doom 23:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd drafted the following before seeing the previous comment, so I'll add it, though largely overtaken; we're basically agreed. A mention of estimates of the total amount seems to be in order in the article.

(This written before previous comment:) I see where you're coming from Parrot of Doom. At the time a barrel of gunpowder would have been a standard measure, though not nearly as consistent as at present (the "45.359kg" of the reference is obviously overstated); a warship loading a certain number of lasts or barrels of gunpowder would be loading a known amount. However, you are taking a barrel to mean merely a cask of some type (as container, not unit) of any size containing at least some gunpowder, not a standard barrel; you may be right. In the context of the plot the gunpowder was gathered in dribs and drabs, rather than defined full barrels. I believe hogsheads and firkins were also used, though I shouldn't think they'd have been counted as barrels (barrels, hogsheads and firkins would at the least be considered to be distinct types and sizes of cask) (the links I use refer to beer rather than gunpowder). Anyway, whatever the barrels actually were, it indeed can't necessarily be assumed that they were the standard gunpowder barrels (units) of the time. However, the amount of gunpowder used is a relevant fact so far as it can be established (which is not very far, apparently). Various people have estimated a total of between 2,000 and 10,000 pounds (~1-5 tons); perhaps we should state this range (with source)? The wide range (which I hadn't seen before) certainly suggests that there is no consensus for 36 standard barrels. Pol098 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you don't realize that this was original research. (Source 'A' says: "Fawkes guarded 36 barrels of gunpowder", source 'B' says: "a barrel, at the time, weighed 'x' amount", therefore, Fawkes had 'x' amount of gunpowder. Classic WP:SYNTH.) Wikipedia is not the Department of Weights and Measures, and "between 2,000 and 10,000 pounds" is quite a variation. The article says that Fawkes had 36 barrels of gunpowder and that it was enough to reduce the House of Lords to rubble. That's quite sufficient. No changes are necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)