Talk:Gunpowder Plot

Gunpowder Plot is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Gunpowder Plot is the main article in the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 5, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 3, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted
November 6, 2010	Featured article review	Kept
January 28, 2011	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 5, 2006, November 5, 2007, November 5, 2008, January 27, 2011, November 5, 2011, November 5, 2014, November 5, 2018, November 5, 2021, and November 5, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

Christianity: Catholicism / Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Persecution of Catholics"

Firejuggler86, you changed "persecution of Catholics" to "Anglican rule" citing NPOV.[1] 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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 where the gunpowder intended to be used came from. 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)[reply]

Comment re Doubt (Was the king behind the gunpowder plot?)

As that talk page is now archived (Archive 4) I offer my comment here to answer the question raised over allegations Robert Cecil was behind it. Was not Robert Cecil, as Secretary of State who went to the House of Lords on ennoblement, bound to be attending parliament himself? I certainly agree with the doubt attached to what may have been written by 'Horrible Histories' as these books do not give sources to everything they mention in the ways many histories written for a more adult readership would. I recall (see last talk point) that in the 90s there was a TV documentary that may be archived online that mentioned Cecil's secret agents acted as agent provocateurs to interest Catholics in potential acts of treason so they could subsequently arrest them at opportune times. There is the question there may have been government collusion as Magnus Magnusson pointed out gunpowder was a government monopoly.Cloptonson (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags without discussion

Why was the overly detailed tag removed without discussion? The stated justification that it was based on other articles is not convicing. I'm not working on that article. For this article, I don't see the value of including a list of attendees using opaque colloquial titles, some of whom don't appear to be notable enough to have their own articles. I'm not edit warring with you over this (editor who removed the tag), but this manner of removing justified good faith tags added by another editor is not appropriate. Ben Azura (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strange changes of names

In he first 2 paragraphs: Catesby -> Catfood Guy Fawkes -> Kai Hawkes 141.15.24.12 (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]