Gunpowder Plot and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba/archive1: Difference between pages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
===[[Vithoba]]===
{{Gunpowder plotters|align=right|caption=A contemporary sketch of the conspirators. The Dutch artist, Crispijn van de Passe the Elder, probably never met any of the conspirators although it is known that he travelled to England around the time of the plot and may have met primary sources who could have informed his work. The sketch has become well known.|size=320px}}
The '''Gunpowder Plot''' of 1605, or the '''Powder Treason''', as it was known at the time,<ref>[[Antonia Fraser]], ''Thethen i got shot in thr dick with gunpowder third person. Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605'', London, 2002, Author's Note, pg. xv. ISBN 0-75381-401-3</ref> was a failed [[assassination]] attempt by a group of provincial [[England|English]] [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholics]] against King [[James I of England|James I of England and VI of Scotland]]. The plot intended to kill the king, his family, and most of the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] aristocracy in a single attack by blowing up the [[Palace of Westminster|Houses of Parliament]] during the [[State Opening of Parliament|State Opening]] on [[5 November]] [[1605]]. The conspirators had also planned to abduct the royal children, not present in Parliament, and incite a popular revolt in the [[Midlands]].


:<small>''Nominator(s): [[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]])''</small>
==Origins==
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=Vithoba}}</noinclude>
[[Image:JamesIEngland.jpg|thumb|left|Catholic conspirators plotted to kill King [[James I of England|James I of England and VI of Scotland]].]]
<!-- Please don't edit anything above here; just include your reasons for nominating below. -->
The plot was overseen from May 1604 by [[Robert Catesby]]. Catesby may have decided upon the plot when hopes of Catholic toleration under King [[James I of England|James I]] went down, leaving many Catholics disappointed. However, it is likely Catesby simply thought a Catholic future for England brought about by his drastic scheme. The plot was intended to begin a rebellion during which James' nine-year-old daughter ([[Elizabeth of Bohemia|Princess Elizabeth]]) could be installed as a Catholic [[head of state]].


I'm nominating this article for featured article because
Other plotters included [[Thomas Wintour|Thomas Winter]] (also spelled Wintour), [[Robert Wintour|Robert Winter]], [[John Wright (Gunpowder Plot)|John Wright]], [[Christopher Wright]], [[Robert Keyes]], Sir [[ Thomas Percye (plotter)|Thomas Percy]] (also spelled Percye), Lord [[John Grant]], Sir [[Ambrose Rokewood]], Sir [[Everard Digby]], Sir [[Francis Tresham]], and Catesby's servant, Thomas Bates. The explosives were prepared by [[Guy Fawkes]], an explosives expert with considerable military experience, who had been introduced to Catesby by a man named [[Hugh Owen (plotter)|Hugh Owen]]. The well known image (top right) of the plotters was created by the Dutch artist Crispijn van de Passe, who may have had access to first hand descriptions.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/9314/men.html | title = Men | publisher = Geocities | work = Paris, Left Bank}}</ref>
* I feel the article fulfills FA criteria.
* It covers all areas that a Hindu deity article should have. The article can be compared with FA [[Ganesha]] (the only Hindu deity FA) for reference, though Vithoba article differs in certain areas as Ganesha is a pan-Indian deity, Vithoba is a regional one.
* Vithoba article is a GA from 14 July 2008 and is peer reviewed on August 6, 2008.


[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The details of the plot were well known to the principal [[Jesuit]] of England, Father [[Henry Garnet]], as he had learned of the plot from [[Oswald Tesimond]], a fellow Jesuit who, with the permission of his penitent Robert Catesby, had discussed the plot with him. As the details of the plot were known through [[Confession#Roman_Catholicism|confession]], Garnet was bound not to reveal them to the authorities. Despite his admonitions and protestations, the plot went ahead,i like cereal yet Garnet's opposition did not save him from being [[hanged, drawn and quartered]] for treason in 1606.


'''Comments'''
==Planning==
* What makes the following reliable sources?
In May 1604, Percy leased lodgings adjacent to the [[House of Lords]] as the plotters' idea was to mine their way under the foundations of the [[House of Lords]] to lay the gunpowder. The main idea was to kill James, but many other important targets were to be present. Guy Fawkes, as 'John Johnson', was put in charge of this building and he pretended to be Percy's servant while Catesby's house in Lambeth was used to store the gunpowder with the picks and implements for mining.
** http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Foreword.htm
** http://www.dvaita.org/haridasa/index.html
* http://books.google.com/books?id=ltJI5KhFTRUC this is a google snippet, which doesn't allow you to gather the full context of the work. It also was originally published in the 1950's, surely there is something more recent? <s>ALSO, this is an encyclopedia, and the articles are written by individuals, and the author of the snippet you've pulled out isn't Hastings, it's a W. Crooke. Use {{tl|cite encyclopedia}} to format this correctly.</s>
* Again, the Eaton book is being used as Google snippets of a search, you can't get the full context by doing this.
* <s>Do you want last name first or first name first on the authors? Pick one and be consistent.</s>
* Same deal on the Chavan work, it's a google books search, was the printed source consulted to make sure the full context of the author's statements was understood?
* Rather than repeat myself with each use of Google Books searches, I'll make a general statement that you need to consult the whole work, not just the limited preview given by Google Books.
:: My concern isn't so much with using a convience link to the pages on Google Books, but a concern that the research on the article itself was conducted via Google Search without actually consulting the books and gaining the full context. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
: Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:: To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches]] for further detailed information. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::: I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
REPLY:
Thanks for your comments.
* [http://www.dvaita.org/haridasa/misc/bib.html Bibliography] is quoted at http://www.dvaita.org/haridasa/index.html
* http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Chap4.htm, the reference i used quotes page numbers and books of other authors. [http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Bibliography It's Bibliography]. Some of them, like Dhere's author is not English, but in [[Marathi]]. So quoting directly from Dhere, would make it difficult for readers to crosscheck the reference.
* Most Google books are provided only for reference (that is hard copies are consulted, though some like Hastings are from google books entirely), the Google books can be crosschecked by readers who want to check the source online. In some google books, only just 1 page is used, as in Hastings book, which is completely available there. If anyone wants, they can look into the hard copies.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
: CLARIFY in DETAIL: List of refs that are taken only from google books (All other books' hard hopies are checked, the google books version of these may or may not have the pages from where the text is referenced). Note most of the following do not have Vithoba as the central subject, but make mentioned Vithoba as a sub-topic or a passing reference:
:* Ref 2: (Crooke W. (2003). "Pandharpur", editor Hastings) entire article is present
:* Ref 10: (Zelliot, Eleanor (1988). The Experience of Hinduism: Essays on Religion in Maharashtra.), only 1 page is used as reference, that too just a 5-line note by the author.
:* Ref 11: (Chavan, V. P. (1991). Vaishnavism of the Gowd Saraswat Brahmins and a Few Konkani Folklore Tales), again only 5 lines are considered as that is the amount the author comments on the Shankra - Vithoba connection.
:* Ref 14: (Kelkar, Ashok R. (2001). "Sri-Vitthal: Ek Mahasamanvay (Marathi) by R.C. Dhere". Encyclopaedia of Indian literature 5) The whole encyclopedia entry is visible.
:* Ref 15: (Schomer, Karine; McLeod, W. H. (1987). Vaudeville in The Sants: Studies in a Devotional Tradition of India) The whole section(The Shaiva origins of god Vitthala) is visible on google books.
:* Ref 18: (Anon [1898] (1988). The Great Temples of India, Ceylon, and Burma) The whole section (Pandharpur and Jejuri) is available.
:* Ref 24: (Gokhale, Shobana (1985). "The Pandharpur Stone inscription of the Yadava king Mahadeva Sake 1192) The whole article is available.
:* Ref 33: (Ranade, R. D. (1988). Mysticism in Maharashtra: Indian Mysticism) The whole section(history of vitthala sampradaya) is available.
:* Ref 38: (Zelliot, Eleanor; Berntsen, Maxine (1988). The Experience of Hinduism: Essays on Religion in Maharashtra) The whole section "Influence of Shaivism" is available.
:* Ref 41: (Keer, Dhanajay [1954] (2005). Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission) 1 para that is all the author comments on Vithoba and Ambedkar
:* Ref 45: (Pillai, S. Devadas (1997). Indian Sociology Through Ghurye, a Dictionary) The 2 page entry on Vithoba is completely visible.
:* Ref 53: (Kiehnle, Catharina (1997). Songs on Yoga: Texts and Teachings of the Mahārāṣṭrian Nāths) A footnote discusses the word "Kannada", in connection to Vithoba.
:* Ref 59: (Flood, Gavin D. (2003). The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism) There are 2 paras dedicated to Haridasa, both available on google books.
:* REf 83: (T. Padmaja (2002). Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: History, Art, and Traditions in Tamilnāḍu) All pages where Vittala is discussed, are avilable.
:* ref 84: (Ranade, R. D.. Mysticism in Maharashtra: Indian Mysticism) The entire article on Bhanudas available.
:* Ref 87: (Rao, Vasudeva (2002). Living Traditions in Contemporary Contexts: The Madhva Matha of Udupi) The whole table is avilable where 8 deities of Upudi mathas are listed.
:* ref 9 and 85: (Eaton, Richard Maxwell (2005). A Social History of the Deccan, 1300–1761: Eight Indian Lives) The entire section "Pastoral tribes and religions of Desh" available, also the Vitthala temple in Hampi is discussed only in 1 page (the earlier and later page also available to check validity of the argument), which is available.
--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 07:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
* formatted reference as encyclopedia.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 16:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
* "last name first name" format used for consistency.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 17:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


REPLY to comments on 2 OCT:
However, when the [[Plague (disease)|Black Plague]] came again to London in the summer of 1604 and proved to be particularly severe, the opening of Parliament was suspended to 1605. By Christmas Eve, they had still not reached Parliament and just as they recommenced work early in 1605 they learned that the opening had been further postponed to [[October 3]]. The plotters then took the opportunity to row the gunpowder up the [[River Thames|Thames]] from Lambeth and to conceal it in their rented house. They learned by pure chance that a coal merchant called Ellen Bright had vacated a cellar under the Lords, and Percy immediately took pains to secure the lease.
* "you can show that the website gives its sources and methods" criteria is fulfilled.
[[Image:Eliz bohemia 2.jpg|thumb|right|[[Elizabeth of Bohemia|Princess Elizabeth]], the eldest daughter of King James, was supposed to inherit the crown and rule as a Catholic queen Elizabeth II]]
* Dvaita.org is referenced 70 times on wikipedia. [http://www.domaintools.com/enwikipedia/dvaita.org], Dvaita.org is mentioned at [[Intute]], a free online service providing you with a database of hand selected Web resources for education and research. [http://www.intute.ac.uk/artsandhumanities/cgi-bin/browse.pl?id=200661]--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 11:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Fawkes assisted in filling the room with gunpowder, which was concealed beneath a wood store under the House of Lords building in a cellar leased from John Whynniard. By March 1605, they had filled the [[undercroft]] underneath the House of Lords with 36 barrels of gunpowder concealed under a store of winter fuel<ref>[http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf Houses of Parliament factsheet on event] accessed 6 Mar 2007</ref>. Had they been successfully ignited, the explosion could have reduced many of the buildings in the Old Palace of Westminster complex, including the [[Westminster Abbey|Abbey]], to rubble and would have blown out windows in the surrounding area of about a 1 [[kilometre]] radius.
* The book "Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine" (the website I have used is a ebook version of the book [http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/]) used as a reference (44) here, [http://www.martynmission.cam.ac.uk/CDSingh.htm#_ednref44 Henry Martyn Centre, Westminster College, Cambridge CB3 0AA, UK]. Used as reference (3) here Non-English [http://translate.google.co.in/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://www.awker.com/hongshi/special/arts/4art12.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Tirupati%2BBalaji%2Bwas%2Ba%2BBuddhist%2BShrine%2522%26start%3D30%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN] and Columbia University site - non-English article [http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/sheitel/4757333677.pdf]--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


----
The conspirators left London in May and went to their homes or to different areas of the country, because being seen together would arouse suspicion. They arranged to meet again in September. However, the opening of Parliament was again postponed.
* Hi, in line 3, "worshipped prominently" did you really mean "worshipped predominately"? '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Purple">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Orange">Spiel</span>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Pink">Chequers]]'''</span> 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Thanks, nice suggestion.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::No probs, happy to help. Also I tried to link Kole, but that place in India doesn't yet have an article. Is it known by other names, such as perhaps being yet another name for [[Kolar]]? If not you could go up one level of Geography with a phrase such as Kole, <nowiki>[[district name]]</nowiki> district. '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Purple">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Orange">Spiel</span>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Pink">Chequers]]'''</span> 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: I am not so sure about the exact geography either, i am sure it is in the state of [[Maharashtra]], as per reference. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Found it, it is in [[Satara district]]. [http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/SATARA/places_Kole.html] --[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::That's good. Also I've just spotted in the last sentence of [[Vithoba#Devotional works]] That it opens a bracket at "(monkey god," but doesn't close it. '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Purple">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Orange">Spiel</span>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Pink">Chequers]]'''</span> 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Done.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 11:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for resolving my concerns, not sure I yet feel qualified to assess whether an article meets the FA standard or not, but as my concerns have been addressed perhaps whoever is assessing this candidacy could count me as '''Unqualified Support''' '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Purple">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Orange">Spiel</span>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Pink">Chequers]]'''</span> 12:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
----
*<s>'''Oppose''' per criterion three concerns:
**[[:Image:Vitthal.png]] - fails [[WP:NFCC]]#1 as an object still in existence. Whether or not photography is "allowed" is not relevant to copyright. Even if it were, surely there are other statues ([[:Image:Vithoba_Gutenberg.jpg|''cough'']]).</s>
**<s>[[:Image:Vithoba Gutenberg.jpg]] - incorrect copyright tag (the copyright owner did not release this - rather, its term expired). Please update accordingly.</s>
**<s>[[:Image:Purandara.jpg]] - needs a verifiable source per [[WP:IUP]]</s>
**<s>[[:Image:Sant-Tukaram.jpg]] - needs a verifiable source and image summary per WP:IUP.</s> [[User:elcobbola|<font color="red"><i>'''Эlcobbola'''</i></font>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 19:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


REPLY:
The weakest part of the plot was the arrangements for the subsequent rebellion that would sweep the country and provide a Catholic monarch. Due to the requirement for money and arms, Francis Tresham was eventually admitted to the plot and it was probably he who betrayed the plot by writing to his brother-in-law [[William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle|Lord Monteagle]]. An anonymous letter revealed some of the details of the plot. The letter read, 'I advise you to devise some excuse not to attend this parliament, for they shall receive a terrible blow, and yet shall not see who hurts them'.
* [[:Image:Vitthal.png]]: There is other statues, but Pandharpur's Vithoba statue is the oldest image, on which all other images are modeled. In Hinduism, certain regional Hindu deities like [[Khandoba]], [[Meenakshi]], [[Balaji]] are attached to a place, here [[Jejuri]], [[Madurai]], [[Tirumala]] respectively. So the central image is important. Also the iconography section referes to the main image's characteristics.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 04:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
* [[:Image:Vithoba Gutenberg.jpg]]: <nowiki>{{PD-old}}</nowiki> added
**I've changed this to {{tl|PD-UK}} and {{tl|PD-US-1996}}. Elcobbola, could you check if I added the proper tags? Confirmation of PD status in the UK: [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20583] <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">[[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] </span><sub>([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]])</sub> 21:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
* [[:Image:Purandara.jpg]] and [[:Image:Sant-Tukaram.jpg]] commented out. Have requeted uploader of Punrandara to add source information. [[:Image:Sant-Tukaram.jpg]] points the source to http://www.poetseers.org/spiritual_and_devotional_poets/india/tukuram/. Have contacted "Poetseers" website by mail to check the status of the image. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 07:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I corrected the tag/sourcing for the Gutenberg image. I'm not the biggest fan of commenting out, as it tends to be [[WP:BEANS]] for someone unaware of this discussion to come along and uncomment out, but I've stricken as they're "technically" removed. The crux of the issue with [[:Image:Vitthal.png]] is, again, that it is an object that still exists. The temple itself could release a free image, the template could change policy to allow photographs, or someone could ignore the policy and take a photograph. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="red"><i>'''Эlcobbola'''</i></font>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 14:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
: I appreciate Эlcobbola's help in fixing the tag at Gutenberg img. Thanks.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 16:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The comments are removed.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:: If [[WP:IAR|Ignore the policy]] is suggested for a photo in the temple, then shouldn't it be done here? In my opinion, the fair use rationale is valid, though i will respect a third opinion saying the photo be removed, if it is only hurdle between the article and FA status. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 06:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The rationale doesn't even discuss free replacability (NFCC#10C and [[WP:RAT]]), let alone apply to an image that passes it (NFCC#1). IAR can be applied when following policy would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. A ''free'' encyclopedia is never hurt by requiring a free image when one ''could still be obtained''. Has http://www.maharashtra.gov.in been asked to release a free version? There are several pictures on Flickr - have any of those uploaders been asked to release a free version? Has an image [[WP:RP|been requested]]? We don't ignore policy because it is an inconvenience. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="red"><i>'''Эlcobbola'''</i></font>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 14:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: I have mailed the site, there was no reply.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Disputed img is removed. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Concerns stricken. '''No remaining image issues'''. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="red"><i>'''Эlcobbola'''</i></font>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 15:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


----
According to the confession made by Fawkes on [[5 November]] [[1605]] (Tuesday)<ref name = "timeanddate">{{cite web | url = http://timeanddate.com/calendar/index.html?year=1605&country=9 | title = 1605 in England | publisher = Time & Date}}</ref>, he left [[Dover]] on about Easter 1605 for [[Calais]]. He then travelled to [[St Omer]] and on to [[Brussels]], where he met with Hugh Owen, and Sir William Stanley. Next, he made a pilgrimage in Brabant. He returned to England at the end of August or early September, again by way of Calais.
'''Support''' in terms of prose. Could do with a little scrutiny, but not bad at all.
*"Historicity"—dear, English has some ugly words, and most readers won't know what it means, exactly. Why not "historical authenticity", which is my dictionary's sole definition?
*"Many conflicting theories exist"—Newsflash for all nominators: when you see "exist", check whether the superior "There is/are" can be substituted. This is the case here.
*Is it common in Indian English to space the initials of people's names? Better on a justified computer screen not to, I'd have thought, but it's no big deal.
*"Epithet ''for'', not ''of". I thought epithets were adjectives. Maybe it's a wider class ...
*Some of the paragraphs are big and grey; some I see are not easily divisible, but I haven't looked at all from that perspective. You might find some. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 07:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


REPLY:
Guy Fawkes was left in charge of executing the plot, while the other [[Conspiracy (political)|conspirators]] fled to [[Dunchurch]] in [[Warwickshire]] to await news. Once the parliament had been destroyed, the other conspirators planned to incite a revolt in the Midlands.
Thanks for the support.
* [[Historicity]]: Wikipedia has an article on it, which gives the meaning "the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth or legend" and articles [[Historicity of the Iliad]], [[Historicity (Bible Studies)]], [[Historicity of Jesus]] and [[Historicity of Muhammad]] exist on wiki.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 07:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
* "Is it common in Indian English to space the initials of people's names?": Sorry, i could not properly understand. What i was available to understand is, e.g. V. P. Chavan should be V.P. Chavan. Right? Indian English mostly follows the first style.
* Epithet: It is used as "A term used as a descriptive substitute for the name or title of a person". changed to "epithet for".--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 07:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


'''Support'''. My earlier lengthy comments are on the article's talk page and were all sufficiently answered/satisfied by the author. The author has picked a difficult topic, that of a regional deity, and brought out nicely its evolution theories without regionalising the subject. The plausible influence of other cults and faiths on the development of this worship and that of this deity on neighbouring socio-religions movements (such as the [[Haridasa]] movement) has also been dealt with well. In all, a good job.[[User:Dineshkannambadi|Dineshkannambadi]] ([[User talk:Dineshkannambadi|talk]]) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
==Discovery==
:Thanks for the support. [[Talk:Vithoba#comments]]: Link to [[User:Dineshkannambadi|Dineshkannambadi]]'s comments on Vithoba talk, for reference. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 12:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
During the preparation, several of the conspirators had been concerned about fellow Catholics who would be present on the appointed day, and inevitably killed. On Friday, [[October 26]] [[William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle|Lord Monteagle]] received a letter while at his house in [[Hoxton]], thought to be from his brother-in-law, conspirator Francis Tresham:


'''Comments'''
<blockquote>''"My lord out of the love i bear to some of youre frends i have a care of your preseruasion therefore i would advise you as you tender your life to devise some excuse to shift of your attendance at this parliament for god and man hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time and think not slightly of this advertisement but retire youre self into youre control where you may expect the event in saftey for though there be no appearance of any stir yet i say they shall receive a terrible blow this parliament and yet they shall not see who hurts them this councel is not to be condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm for the danger is passed as soon as you have burnt the letter and i hope god will give you the grace to make good use of it to whose holy protection i commend you."''</blockquote>
*Well, don't you think context is missing in the ''Etymology and other names'' section. You haven't mentioned any context for Crooke, R. G. Bhandarkar and all other big names there. Who are they. What makes them notable. [[User:Kensplanet|<font color = "red">'''Kensplanet'''</font>]][[User talk:Kensplanet|<font color="black"><b><sup>Talk</sup></b></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Kensplanet|<font color="green"><b><sub>Contributions</sub></b></font>]] 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
: All of them are authors or religious scholars for sure. Adding "scholar XYZ" before every name will make the text repetitive. Even FA [[Ganesha]] uses "Martin-Dubost says..", "Krishan notes that..", "Paul Courtright says that...", "..as Robert Brown explains.." The references indicate that they are authors. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 08:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


* Please resolve the concerns above about '''reliable sources'''; Support declarations over sourcing concerns have little weight. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Below is the same message, with modernized spelling and punctuation:
::I have answered the questions raised about RS, the commenter has replied "I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)" To prove that the source is a RS, i have included links to website articles of Columbia University and Westminster College for one and Intute recognizing the other as "Web resource for education and research". Also both articles provide their sources and have Bibliography sections. I have also addressed the google snippet issue, i would like to quote my fello wikiuser "Otherwise sources look good". Any suggestions what can be done? --[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 04:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>''"My lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care for your preservation. Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse to shift of your attendance at this Parliament, for God and man hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement but retire yourself into your country, where you may expect the event in safety, for though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow, the Parliament, and yet they shall not see who hurts them. This counsel is not to be condemned, because it may do you good and can do you no harm, for the danger is past as soon as you have burnt the letter: and I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you."''</blockquote>
::: Had requested the reviewer for comments. his/her reply can be read on [[User talk:Ealdgyth]].--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 13:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Monteagle had the note read aloud, possibly to warn the plotters the secret was out, and promptly handed it over to [[Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury]], the [[Secretary of State (United Kingdom)|Secretary of State]].<ref>Willson, p 224.</ref> The other conspirators learned of the letter the following day, but resolved to go ahead with their plan, especially after Fawkes inspected the undercroft and found that nothing had been touched.

The tip-off led to a search of the vaults beneath the House of Lords, including the undercroft, during the night of [[November 4]]. At midnight on [[November 5]] [[Thomas Knyvet]], a [[Justice of the Peace]], and a party of armed men, discovered Fawkes guarding a pile of [[Faggot (wood)|faggots]], not far from about twenty barrels of gunpowder, posing as "Mr. John Johnson". A watch, slow matches, and touchpaper were found in his possession. Fawkes was arrested. Far from denying his intentions during the arrest, Fawkes stated that it had been his purpose to destroy the King and the Parliament.<ref>As King James put it, Fawkes intended the destruction "not only...of my person, nor of my wife and posterity also, but of the whole body of the State in general". Stewart, p 219.</ref> Later in the morning, before noon, he was again interrogated. He was questioned on the nature of his accomplices, the involvement of Thomas Percy, what letters he had received from overseas, and whether he had spoken with Hugh Owen.

He was taken to the [[Tower of London]] and there interrogated under [[torture]]. Torture was forbidden except by the express instruction of the monarch or the [[Privy Council of the United Kingdom|Privy Council]]. In a letter of [[November 6]], [[James I of England|King James I]] stated:
<blockquote>''"The gentler tortours [tortures] are to be first used unto him, ''et sic per gradus ad maiora tenditur'' [and thus by steps extended to greater ones], and so God speed your good work."''</blockquote>

The discovery of the Gunpowder Plot aroused a wave of national relief at the delivery of the king and his sons and inspired in the ensuing parliament a mood of loyalty and goodwill which Salisbury astutely exploited to extract higher subsidies for the king than any but one granted in Elizabeth's reign.<ref>Croft, p 64.</ref> In his speech to both houses on 9 November, James expounded on two emerging preoccupations of his monarchy: the [[divine right of kings]] and the Catholic question. He insisted that the plot had been the work of a few Catholics and not of the English Catholics as a whole.<ref>James said it did not follow "that all professing that Romish religion were guilty of the same". Quoted by Stewart, p 225.</ref> And he reminded the assembly to rejoice at his survival, since kings were divinely appointed and he owed his escape to a miracle.<ref>Willson, p 226.</ref>

==Trial and executions==

[[Image:GuyFawkes.JPG|thumb|Wax figures of Fawkes and his conspirators executed. [[Madame Tussauds]], [[London]]]]
[[Image:gunpowderhdq2.png|thumb|Seventeenth century print of the members of the Gunpowder plot being hanged, drawn and quartered.]]

On hearing of the failure of the plot, the conspirators fled towards [[Huddington Court]] near [[Worcester]], a family home of [[Thomas Wintour]] and [[Robert Wintour]]. Heavy rain, however, slowed their travels. Many of them were caught by Richard Walsh, the Sheriff of Worcestershire, when they arrived in [[Stourbridge]].

The remaining men attempted a revolt in the [[Midlands]]. This failed, and came to an end at [[Holbeach House]] in [[Staffordshire]], where there was a dramatic shoot-out ending with the death of Catesby and capture of several principal conspirators. Jesuits and others were then rounded up in other locations in Britain, with some being killed by torture during interrogation. Robert Wintour managed to remain on the run for two months before he was captured at Hagley Park.

The conspirators were tried on [[January 27]] [[1606]] in [[Westminster Hall]]. All of the plotters pleaded not guilty except for Sir Everard Digby who attempted to defend himself on the grounds that the King had gone back on promises of Catholic toleration. [[Sir Edward Coke]], the attorney general, prosecuted, and the [[Earl of Northampton]] made a speech refuting the charges laid by Everard Digby. The trial lasted one day (English criminal trials generally did not exceed a single day's duration) and the verdict was never in doubt.

The trial ranked highly as a public spectacle and there are records of up to 10 shillings being paid for entry. It is even reputed that the King and Queen attended in secret. Four of the plotters were executed in St. Paul's Churchyard on [[30 January]]. On [[January 31]], Fawkes, Winter, and a number of others implicated in the conspiracy were taken to Old Palace Yard in [[Westminster]], in front of the scene of the intended crime, where they were to be [[hanged, drawn and quartered]].

Fawkes, though weakened by torture, cheated the executioners. When he was to be hanged until almost dead, he jumped from the gallows, so his neck broke and he died, thus avoiding the gruesome later part of this form of execution. A co-conspirator, Robert Keyes, attempted the same trick, but unfortunately for him the rope broke, so he was disemboweled fully conscious.

[[Henry Garnet]] was executed on [[3 May]] [[1606]] at [[St Paul's Cathedral|St Paul's]]. His crime was to be the [[confessor]] of several members of the Gunpowder Plot, and as noted he had opposed the plot. Many spectators thought that his sentence was too severe. [[Antonia Fraser]] writes:
<blockquote>"With a loud cry of 'hold, hold' they stopped the hangman cutting down the body while Garnet was still alive. Others pulled the priest's legs ... which was traditionally done to ensure a speedy death".<ref>[[Antonia Fraser]], ''Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot'', Anchor, 1997. ISBN 0-385-47190-4</ref></blockquote>

==Historical impact==
Greater freedom for Catholics to worship as they chose seemed unlikely in 1604, but after the plot in 1605, changing the law to afford Catholics leniency became unthinkable; [[Catholic Emancipation]] took another 200 years. Nevertheless, many important and loyal Catholics retained high office in the kingdom during King James's reign.

Interest in the demonic was heightened by the Gunpowder Plot. The king himself had become engaged in the great debate about other-worldly powers in writing his ''Daemonology'' in 1597, before he became King of England as well as Scotland. The apparent devilish nature of the gunpowder plot also partly inspired [[William Shakespeare]]'s ''[[Macbeth]]''. Demonic inversions such as the line ''fair is foul and foul is fair'' are frequently seen in the play. Another possible reference made in Macbeth was to [[equivocation]], as Henry Garnett’s ''A Treatise of Equivocation'' was found on one of the plotters and a resultant fear that Jesuits could evade the truth through equivocation:<ref>Frank L. Huntley, "Macbeth and the Background of Jesuitical Equivocation", ''PMLA'', Vol. 79, No. 4. (Sep, 1964), pp. 390–400.</ref>
<blockquote>
Faith, here's an equivocator, that could<br/>
Swear in both the scales against either scale;<br/>
Who committed treason enough for God's sake,<br/>
Yet could not equivocate to heaven<br/>
- Macbeth, Act 2 Scene 3</blockquote>

The Gunpowder Plot was commemorated for years after the plot by special sermons and other public acts such as the ringing of church bells. It added to an increasingly full calendar of Protestant celebrations that contributed to the national and religious life of seventeenth century England.<ref>David Cressy, ''Bonfires and bells : national memory and the Protestant calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England'' (1989).</ref> Through various permutations this has evolved into the bonfire night that occurs today.
Historians{{Who|date=July 2008}} have considered the possible events that may have followed the successful implementation of the Gunpowder Plot, with the destruction of Parliament and the death of the king. Most have concluded{{Who|date=July 2008}} that the violence of the act would have instead resulted in a more severe backlash towards suspected Catholics. Without the involvement of some form of foreign aid, success would have been unlikely{{Fact|date=July 2008}}, as most Englishmen were loyal to the institution of the monarchy despite differing religious convictions. England could very well have become a more "Puritan absolute monarchy", as "existed in [[Sweden]], [[Denmark]], [[Saxony]], and [[Prussia]] in the seventeenth century" {{Fact|date=July 2008}}, rather than the path of parliamentary and civil reform that occurred. It is, however, difficult to tell what would have emerged out of the resulting chaos, or to know which faction would have come to the fore ultimately.

==Commemoration==
{{mainarticle|Guy Fawkes Night}}
[[Image:Bonfire4.jpg|thumb|Bonfires are lit every 5th of November to commemorate the plot.]]
The fifth of November is variously called Fireworks Night, Bonfire Night or [[Guy Fawkes Night]].
An [[Act of Parliament]] (3 James I, cap 1) was passed to appoint 5 November in each year as a day of thanksgiving for "the joyful day of deliverance". The Act remained in force until 1859. On [[5 November]] [[1605]], it is said the populace of London celebrated the defeat of the plot by fires and street festivities. Similar celebrations must have taken place on the anniversary and, over the years, became a tradition — in many places a holiday was observed (it is not celebrated in [[Northern Ireland]]).

It is still the custom in Britain on, or around, 5 November to let off [[fireworks]]. Traditionally, in the weeks running up to the 5th, children would make "guys" — effigies supposedly of Fawkes — usually formed from old clothes stuffed with newspaper, and equipped with a grotesque mask, to be burnt on the 5 November bonfire. These effigies would be exhibited in the street to collect money for fireworks. This practice is, however, becoming increasingly rare. The word ''[[guy]]'' came thus in the 19th century to mean a weirdly dressed person, and hence in the 20th and 21st centuries to mean any male person.

Institutions and towns may hold firework displays and bonfire parties, and the same is done on a smaller scale in back gardens throughout the country. In some areas, particularly in Sussex, there are extensive processions, large bonfires and firework displays organised by local [[Sussex Bonfire Societies|bonfire societies]]. The most extensive of this kind takes place in [[Lewes]].

The Houses of Parliament are still searched by the [[Yeomen of the Guard]] before the State Opening, which, since 1928, has been held in November. Ostensibly to ensure no latter-day Guy Fawkes is concealed in the cellars, this is retained as a picturesque custom rather than a serious anti-terrorist precaution. It is said that for superstitious reasons no State Opening will be held on 5 November, but this is untrue: for instance, the State Opening was held on 5 November in 1957.

[[Image:GuyFawkes2005.jpeg|thumb|right|120px|400th anniversary of the plot, commemorated on a 2005 [[British two pound coin]].]]
A commemorative [[British two pound coin#Special Issues|British two pound coin]] was issued in 2005 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the plot.<ref>[http://www.royalmint.gov.uk/Corporate/BritishCoinage/CoinDesign/TwoPoundCoin.aspx United Kingdom £2 Coin], Royal Mint</ref>

The cellar in which Fawkes watched over his gunpowder was demolished in 1822. The area was further damaged in the [[Burning of Parliament|1834 fire]] and destroyed in the subsequent rebuilding of the [[Palace of Westminster]]. The lantern Guy Fawkes carried in 1605 is in the [[Ashmolean Museum]], [[Oxford]]. A key supposed to have been taken from him is in Speaker's House, Palace of Westminster. These two artifacts were exhibited in a major exhibition held in [[Westminster Hall]] from July to November 2005.

According to Esther Forbes, a biographer, the Guy Fawkes Day celebration in the pre-revolution American Colonies, was a very popular holiday. In Boston, the revelry took on anti-authority overtones and often became so dangerous that many would not venture to leave home{{Fact|date=November 2007}}.

==Conspiracy theories==
Many at the time felt that [[Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury]] had been involved in the plot to curry favour with the king and enact more stridently anti-Catholic legislation. Such theories alleged that Cecil had either actively invented the plot or allowed it to continue when his agents had already infiltrated it, for the purposes of propaganda. These rumours were the start of a long lasting conspiracy theory about the plot. Yet while there was not the 'golden time' of 'toleration' for Catholics that Father Garnet had hoped for at the start of James' reign, the legislative backlash was not as a result of the plot. It had already happened by 1605, as [[recusancy]] fines were re-imposed and some priests expelled. There was no purge of Catholics from power and influence in the kingdom after the gunpowder plot despite puritan complaints. The reign of James I was, in fact, a time of relative leniency for Catholics, few being subject to prosecution.<ref>Peter Marshall, ''Reformation England 1480–1642'', London, 2003, pp. 187–8.</ref>

This did not dissuade some from continuing to claim Cecil's involvement in the plot. Father John Garrett, namesake of a Jesuit priest who had performed Mass to some of the plotters, wrote an account alleging Cecil's culpability in 1897. This prompted a swift refutation a year later by the eminent historian S.R Gardiner who argued that Garrett had gone too far in trying to 'wipe away the reproach' that the plot had exacted upon generations of English Catholics.<ref> S.R. Gardiner, ''What Gunpowder Plot Was'', London, 1887 p. 1–4.</ref>Gardiner portrayed Cecil as guilty of nothing more than opportunism. Subsequent attempts to prove Cecil's responsibility, such as Francis Edwards's 1969 work, have similarly foundered on the lack of positive proof of any government involvement in setting up the plot.<ref> Francis Edwards, ''Guy Fawkes: The Real Story of the Gunpowder Plot'', London, 1969</ref>. There has been little support by historians for the conspiracy theory since this time, other than to acknowledge that Cecil may have known about the plot some days before it was uncovered. However with many Internet websites suggesting Cecil's full involvement and postulating a profusion of theories, the idea lives on. It is unlikely either side will ever produce the evidence needed to convince the other of the veracity of their argument.

==Modern plot analysis==
According to historian [[Antonia Fraser|Lady Antonia Fraser]], the gunpowder was taken to the [[Tower of London]] [[Magazine (artillery)|magazine]]. It would have been reissued or sold for recycling if in good condition. Ordnance records for the Tower state that 18 [[hundredweight]] of it was "decayed". This could imply that it was rendered harmless due to having separated into its component chemical parts, as happens with gunpowder when left to sit for too long - if Fawkes had ignited the gunpowder, during the opening, it would only have resulted in a weak splutter. Alternatively, "decayed" may refer to the powder being damp and sticking together, making it unfit for use in firearms. In this case the explosive capabilities of the barrels would not be greatly affected.

''[[The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend]]'', a study on an [[ITV]] [[television programme|programme]] presented by [[Richard Hammond]] broadcast on [[1 November]] [[2005]] re-enacted the plot, by blowing up an exact replica of the 17th century [[House of Lords]] filled with test dummies, using the exact amount of gunpowder in the underground of the building. The dramatic experiment, conducted on the Advantica Spadeadam test site, proved unambiguously that the explosion would have killed all those attending the State Opening of Parliament in the Lords chamber.<ref name=Times>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article584830.ece ''Gunpowder plotters get their wish, 400 years on'' Adam Sherwin] ''[[The Times]]'' accessed 18 Jan 2008</ref>

The power of the explosion, which surprised even gunpowder experts, was such that seven-foot deep solid concrete walls (made deliberately to replicate how archives suggest the walls in the old House of Lords were constructed) were reduced to rubble. Measuring devices placed in the chamber to calculate the force of the blast were themselves destroyed by the blast, while the skull of the dummy representing King James, which had been placed on a throne inside the chamber surrounded by courtiers, peers and bishops, was found a large distance away from the site. According to the findings of the programme, no-one within 100 metres of the blast would have survived, while all the stained glass windows in [[Westminster Abbey]] would have been shattered, as would all windows within a large distance of the Palace. The power of the explosion would have been seen from miles away. Even if only half the gunpowder had gone off, everyone in the House of Lords and its environs would have been killed instantly.<ref name=Times/>

The programme also disproved claims that some deterioration in the quality of the gunpowder would have prevented the explosion. A portion of deliberately deteriorated gunpowder, at such a low quality as to make it unusable in firearms, when placed in a heap and detonated, still managed to create a large explosion. The impact of even deteriorated gunpowder would have been magnified by the impact of its compression in wooden barrels, with the compression overcoming any deterioration in the quality of the contents. The compression would have created a cannon effect, with the powder first blowing up from the top of the barrel before, a millisecond later, blowing out. In addition, mathematical calculations showed that Fawkes, who was skilled at the use of gunpowder, had used double the amount of gunpowder needed.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/31/nfawkes31.xml ''Guy Fawkes had twice the gunpowder needed'' Fiona Govan] ''[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]]'' accessed 18 Jan 2008</ref>

A sample of the gunpowder may have survived. In March 2002, workers investigating archives of [[John Evelyn]] at the [[British Library]] found a box containing various samples of gunpowder and several notes that suggested they were related to the Gunpowder Plot:
#"Gunpowder 1605 in a paper inscribed by John Evelyn. Powder with which that villain Faux (sic) would have blown up the parliament.",
#"Gunpowder. Large package is supposed to be Guy Fawkes' gunpowder".
#"But there was none left! WEH 1952

==References in pop culture==
The graphic novel ''[[V for Vendetta]]'' by [[David Lloyd (comic artist)|David Lloyd]] and [[Alan Moore]] and its 2006 [[V for Vendetta (film)|film]] adaptation contain frequent references to November the 5<sup>th</sup>, including opening with a description of the Gunpowder Plot, and the protagonist's costume based on the classic depiction of Guy Fawkes.

Guy Fawkes day was used in an episode of ''[[The Avengers (TV series)|The Avengers]]''. In this episode entitled "November Five" the Avengers investigate the theft of a nuclear warhead. The thief plans to detonate it in the [[Palace of Westminster|Houses of Parliament]] on November the fifth, just like Fawkes.

In [[John Lennon]]'s song, "[[Remember (John Lennon song)|Remember]]", the date is referenced in the final line. The last verse is, "No, no, remember, remember the fifth of November," followed by the sound of an explosion.

The [[Kate Walsh (singer)|Kate Walsh]] song "Fireworks" is about her disliking Guy Fawkes day because it reminds her of perhaps a former lover or someone otherwise close to her.

==See also==
*[[Popish Plot]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==Bibliography==
*Croft, Pauline (2003). ''King James''. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-61395-3.
*Stewart, Alan (2003). ''The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & 1''. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN 0-7011-6984-2.
*Alan Sutton ''The Gunpowder Plot: Faith in Rebellion'' (Hayes and Sutton 1994)
*Alan Wharam ''Treason: Famous English Treason Trials'' (Alan Sutton Publishing 1995)
*Willson, David Harris ([1956] 1963 ed). ''King James VI & I''. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd. ISBN 0-224-60572-0.
*Esther Forbes, ''Paul Revere and the Times He Lived In'' pg. 89-94 (Houghton Mifflin,1942)

==External links==
*[http://www.gunpowderplot.parliament.uk The History of the Gunpowder Plot (Produced by The Parliamentary Archives)]
*[http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/ukandireland/a/gunpowderindex.htm The Gunpowder Plot of 1605]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07081b.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'': The Gunpowder Plot]
*[http://www.show.me.uk/gunpowderplot The Gunpowder Plot (Website exploring the history of the plot for younger users)]
*[http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf The Gunpowder Plot (House of Commons Information Sheet)]
*[http://www.gunpowder-plot.org The Gunpowder Plot Society]
*[http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14934-1850999,00.html iTV "Gunpowder Plot" Program]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?]
*[http://www.bonfirenight.net/gunpowder.php A summary of the Gunpowder Plot events]
*[http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5567/publications.html Publications about the Gunpowder Plot]
*[http://www.bcpl.net/~cbladey/guy/html/song.html Songs for Fawkes Day celebration]
*[http://www.bcpl.net/~cbladey/guy/html/maina.html The Center for Fawkesian Pursuits]
*[http://www.exmsft.com/~davidco/History/fawkes1.htm A contemporary account of the executions of the plotters]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/launch_gms_gunpowder_plot.shtml The Gunpowder Plot Game] [[BBC]]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1605605,00.html Interactive Guide: Gunpowder Plot] [[Guardian Unlimited]]
*[http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/9314/men.html Analysis of the Sketch of the Plotters]
{{Gunpowder Plot}}

[[Category:Gunpowder Plot| ]]
[[Category:Conspiracy]]
[[Category:Anti-Protestantism]]

[[ar:مؤامرة البارود]]
[[bn:গানপাউডার প্লট]]
[[da:Krudtsammensværgelsen]]
[[de:Gunpowder Plot]]
[[el:Συνωμοσία της Πυρίτιδας]]
[[es:Conspiración de la pólvora]]
[[eo:Pulva konspiro]]
[[fr:Conspiration des poudres]]
[[gl:Conspiración da pólvora]]
[[hr:Izdaja prahom]]
[[id:Plot Bubuk Mesiu]]
[[is:Púðursamsærið]]
[[he:מזימת אבק השריפה]]
[[nl:Buskruitverraad]]
[[ja:火薬陰謀事件]]
[[no:Kruttsammensvergelsen]]
[[nn:Krutsamansverjinga]]
[[pl:Spisek prochowy]]
[[pt:Conspiração da pólvora]]
[[ro:Complotul Prafului de Puşcă]]
[[ru:Пороховой заговор]]
[[simple:Gunpowder Plot]]
[[sl:Smodniška zarota]]
[[fi:Ruutisalaliitto]]
[[sv:Krutkonspirationen 1604]]
[[vi:Âm mưu thuốc súng]]
[[tr:Barut komplosu]]
[[zh:火药阴谋]]

Revision as of 13:11, 13 October 2008

Vithoba

Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz (talk)
Toolbox

I'm nominating this article for featured article because

  • I feel the article fulfills FA criteria.
  • It covers all areas that a Hindu deity article should have. The article can be compared with FA Ganesha (the only Hindu deity FA) for reference, though Vithoba article differs in certain areas as Ganesha is a pan-Indian deity, Vithoba is a regional one.
  • Vithoba article is a GA from 14 July 2008 and is peer reviewed on August 6, 2008.

Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://books.google.com/books?id=ltJI5KhFTRUC this is a google snippet, which doesn't allow you to gather the full context of the work. It also was originally published in the 1950's, surely there is something more recent? ALSO, this is an encyclopedia, and the articles are written by individuals, and the author of the snippet you've pulled out isn't Hastings, it's a W. Crooke. Use {{cite encyclopedia}} to format this correctly.
  • Again, the Eaton book is being used as Google snippets of a search, you can't get the full context by doing this.
  • Do you want last name first or first name first on the authors? Pick one and be consistent.
  • Same deal on the Chavan work, it's a google books search, was the printed source consulted to make sure the full context of the author's statements was understood?
  • Rather than repeat myself with each use of Google Books searches, I'll make a general statement that you need to consult the whole work, not just the limited preview given by Google Books.
My concern isn't so much with using a convience link to the pages on Google Books, but a concern that the research on the article itself was conducted via Google Search without actually consulting the books and gaining the full context. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: Thanks for your comments.

  • Bibliography is quoted at http://www.dvaita.org/haridasa/index.html
  • http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Chap4.htm, the reference i used quotes page numbers and books of other authors. It's Bibliography. Some of them, like Dhere's author is not English, but in Marathi. So quoting directly from Dhere, would make it difficult for readers to crosscheck the reference.
  • Most Google books are provided only for reference (that is hard copies are consulted, though some like Hastings are from google books entirely), the Google books can be crosschecked by readers who want to check the source online. In some google books, only just 1 page is used, as in Hastings book, which is completely available there. If anyone wants, they can look into the hard copies.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
CLARIFY in DETAIL: List of refs that are taken only from google books (All other books' hard hopies are checked, the google books version of these may or may not have the pages from where the text is referenced). Note most of the following do not have Vithoba as the central subject, but make mentioned Vithoba as a sub-topic or a passing reference:
  • Ref 2: (Crooke W. (2003). "Pandharpur", editor Hastings) entire article is present
  • Ref 10: (Zelliot, Eleanor (1988). The Experience of Hinduism: Essays on Religion in Maharashtra.), only 1 page is used as reference, that too just a 5-line note by the author.
  • Ref 11: (Chavan, V. P. (1991). Vaishnavism of the Gowd Saraswat Brahmins and a Few Konkani Folklore Tales), again only 5 lines are considered as that is the amount the author comments on the Shankra - Vithoba connection.
  • Ref 14: (Kelkar, Ashok R. (2001). "Sri-Vitthal: Ek Mahasamanvay (Marathi) by R.C. Dhere". Encyclopaedia of Indian literature 5) The whole encyclopedia entry is visible.
  • Ref 15: (Schomer, Karine; McLeod, W. H. (1987). Vaudeville in The Sants: Studies in a Devotional Tradition of India) The whole section(The Shaiva origins of god Vitthala) is visible on google books.
  • Ref 18: (Anon [1898] (1988). The Great Temples of India, Ceylon, and Burma) The whole section (Pandharpur and Jejuri) is available.
  • Ref 24: (Gokhale, Shobana (1985). "The Pandharpur Stone inscription of the Yadava king Mahadeva Sake 1192) The whole article is available.
  • Ref 33: (Ranade, R. D. (1988). Mysticism in Maharashtra: Indian Mysticism) The whole section(history of vitthala sampradaya) is available.
  • Ref 38: (Zelliot, Eleanor; Berntsen, Maxine (1988). The Experience of Hinduism: Essays on Religion in Maharashtra) The whole section "Influence of Shaivism" is available.
  • Ref 41: (Keer, Dhanajay [1954] (2005). Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission) 1 para that is all the author comments on Vithoba and Ambedkar
  • Ref 45: (Pillai, S. Devadas (1997). Indian Sociology Through Ghurye, a Dictionary) The 2 page entry on Vithoba is completely visible.
  • Ref 53: (Kiehnle, Catharina (1997). Songs on Yoga: Texts and Teachings of the Mahārāṣṭrian Nāths) A footnote discusses the word "Kannada", in connection to Vithoba.
  • Ref 59: (Flood, Gavin D. (2003). The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism) There are 2 paras dedicated to Haridasa, both available on google books.
  • REf 83: (T. Padmaja (2002). Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: History, Art, and Traditions in Tamilnāḍu) All pages where Vittala is discussed, are avilable.
  • ref 84: (Ranade, R. D.. Mysticism in Maharashtra: Indian Mysticism) The entire article on Bhanudas available.
  • Ref 87: (Rao, Vasudeva (2002). Living Traditions in Contemporary Contexts: The Madhva Matha of Udupi) The whole table is avilable where 8 deities of Upudi mathas are listed.
  • ref 9 and 85: (Eaton, Richard Maxwell (2005). A Social History of the Deccan, 1300–1761: Eight Indian Lives) The entire section "Pastoral tribes and religions of Desh" available, also the Vitthala temple in Hampi is discussed only in 1 page (the earlier and later page also available to check validity of the argument), which is available.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • formatted reference as encyclopedia.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "last name first name" format used for consistency.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

REPLY to comments on 2 OCT:

  • "you can show that the website gives its sources and methods" criteria is fulfilled.
  • Dvaita.org is referenced 70 times on wikipedia. [1], Dvaita.org is mentioned at Intute, a free online service providing you with a database of hand selected Web resources for education and research. [2]--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The book "Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine" (the website I have used is a ebook version of the book [3]) used as a reference (44) here, Henry Martyn Centre, Westminster College, Cambridge CB3 0AA, UK. Used as reference (3) here Non-English [4] and Columbia University site - non-English article [5]--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, in line 3, "worshipped prominently" did you really mean "worshipped predominately"? ϢereSpielChequers 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, nice suggestion.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No probs, happy to help. Also I tried to link Kole, but that place in India doesn't yet have an article. Is it known by other names, such as perhaps being yet another name for Kolar? If not you could go up one level of Geography with a phrase such as Kole, [[district name]] district. ϢereSpielChequers 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not so sure about the exact geography either, i am sure it is in the state of Maharashtra, as per reference. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Found it, it is in Satara district. [6] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That's good. Also I've just spotted in the last sentence of Vithoba#Devotional works That it opens a bracket at "(monkey god," but doesn't close it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Done.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for resolving my concerns, not sure I yet feel qualified to assess whether an article meets the FA standard or not, but as my concerns have been addressed perhaps whoever is assessing this candidacy could count me as Unqualified Support ϢereSpielChequers 12:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

REPLY:

I corrected the tag/sourcing for the Gutenberg image. I'm not the biggest fan of commenting out, as it tends to be WP:BEANS for someone unaware of this discussion to come along and uncomment out, but I've stricken as they're "technically" removed. The crux of the issue with Image:Vitthal.png is, again, that it is an object that still exists. The temple itself could release a free image, the template could change policy to allow photographs, or someone could ignore the policy and take a photograph. Эlcobbola talk 14:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate Эlcobbola's help in fixing the tag at Gutenberg img. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The comments are removed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If Ignore the policy is suggested for a photo in the temple, then shouldn't it be done here? In my opinion, the fair use rationale is valid, though i will respect a third opinion saying the photo be removed, if it is only hurdle between the article and FA status. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The rationale doesn't even discuss free replacability (NFCC#10C and WP:RAT), let alone apply to an image that passes it (NFCC#1). IAR can be applied when following policy would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. A free encyclopedia is never hurt by requiring a free image when one could still be obtained. Has http://www.maharashtra.gov.in been asked to release a free version? There are several pictures on Flickr - have any of those uploaders been asked to release a free version? Has an image been requested? We don't ignore policy because it is an inconvenience. Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have mailed the site, there was no reply.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Disputed img is removed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Concerns stricken. No remaining image issues. Эlcobbola talk 15:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Support in terms of prose. Could do with a little scrutiny, but not bad at all.

  • "Historicity"—dear, English has some ugly words, and most readers won't know what it means, exactly. Why not "historical authenticity", which is my dictionary's sole definition?
  • "Many conflicting theories exist"—Newsflash for all nominators: when you see "exist", check whether the superior "There is/are" can be substituted. This is the case here.
  • Is it common in Indian English to space the initials of people's names? Better on a justified computer screen not to, I'd have thought, but it's no big deal.
  • "Epithet for, not of". I thought epithets were adjectives. Maybe it's a wider class ...
  • Some of the paragraphs are big and grey; some I see are not easily divisible, but I haven't looked at all from that perspective. You might find some. Tony (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: Thanks for the support.

  • Historicity: Wikipedia has an article on it, which gives the meaning "the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth or legend" and articles Historicity of the Iliad, Historicity (Bible Studies), Historicity of Jesus and Historicity of Muhammad exist on wiki.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Is it common in Indian English to space the initials of people's names?": Sorry, i could not properly understand. What i was available to understand is, e.g. V. P. Chavan should be V.P. Chavan. Right? Indian English mostly follows the first style.
  • Epithet: It is used as "A term used as a descriptive substitute for the name or title of a person". changed to "epithet for".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. My earlier lengthy comments are on the article's talk page and were all sufficiently answered/satisfied by the author. The author has picked a difficult topic, that of a regional deity, and brought out nicely its evolution theories without regionalising the subject. The plausible influence of other cults and faiths on the development of this worship and that of this deity on neighbouring socio-religions movements (such as the Haridasa movement) has also been dealt with well. In all, a good job.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Talk:Vithoba#comments: Link to Dineshkannambadi's comments on Vithoba talk, for reference. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Well, don't you think context is missing in the Etymology and other names section. You haven't mentioned any context for Crooke, R. G. Bhandarkar and all other big names there. Who are they. What makes them notable. KensplanetTalkContributions 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
All of them are authors or religious scholars for sure. Adding "scholar XYZ" before every name will make the text repetitive. Even FA Ganesha uses "Martin-Dubost says..", "Krishan notes that..", "Paul Courtright says that...", "..as Robert Brown explains.." The references indicate that they are authors. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please resolve the concerns above about reliable sources; Support declarations over sourcing concerns have little weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I have answered the questions raised about RS, the commenter has replied "I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)" To prove that the source is a RS, i have included links to website articles of Columbia University and Westminster College for one and Intute recognizing the other as "Web resource for education and research". Also both articles provide their sources and have Bibliography sections. I have also addressed the google snippet issue, i would like to quote my fello wikiuser "Otherwise sources look good". Any suggestions what can be done? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Had requested the reviewer for comments. his/her reply can be read on User talk:Ealdgyth.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunpowder_Plot&oldid=244982687"