Talk:John Foxe

message: "Second edition The Actes and Monuments ' accuracy was immediately attacked by Catholic writers like Thomas Harding and Thomas Stapleton but most notably in the Dialogi sex, contra summi pontificatus, monasticae vitae, sanctorum, sacrarum imaginum oppugnatores, et pseudomartyres (1566)."
This is a quote from the article. Thomas Harding in that case has a link to the article Thomas Harding. This must be a mistake. The article "Thomas Harding" is about a Lollard martyr, whereas the Thomas Harding who attacked Foxe was a Catholic apologist. 
I'm not absoultely sure, but there must be two diff. Thomas Hardings. I will try to find that out. Maybe someone else can help.
Sorry for my bad English, I'm not a native speaker.
:According to the Oxford DNB, there are two Thomas Hardings, one of whom was the author who attacked Foxe (1516-1572), the other a Church Historian of the 17th century, with no mention of the Lollard. Hackloon 14:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right to remove the link, but I think your professor is mistaken. Harding the apologist shows up as being appointed to some sort of jurisdiction over certain English monastic communities in 1570. For more details see ODNB on "Thomas Harding (1516-1572)" and "Thomas Harding" by H. de Vocht in The English Historical Review, 35 (1920) 233-44. Also of interest and relevance is the ODNB article on Jewell, which (inter alia) states that Harding's "Confutation of a booke intituled ‘An apologie of the Church of England’" was published in 1565.Hackloon 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Any Lollard martyr would not only have died before 1566 but way before that year since Lollardy was around in the early 15th century, i.e. a century and a half earlier. Deposuit (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Many sources say 1517. E.g John Foxe: a biography, written by Dr. Thomas Freeman, Research Officer for the John Foxe Project Team. I don't know if we have different dates because historically we are uncertain, or whether there's been a blunder that has been perpetuated - in any case, there is no citation here and I propose that the date be changed to 1517. StAnselm 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The encyclopedia article from which the article was largely taken is probably mistaken.  See Mozley, 12.  I've corrected it.--John Foxe 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be honest, I'm still not totally sure - if it's a mistake, it's a very widespread one. I think I'll do some more research and add a little bit on the uncertainty. StAnselm 01:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of Birth?

message: Text refers to "unfashionable religious opinions."  Wouldn't "unorthodox" or "subversive" be slightly better?  I think that people were martyred for something that was more serious than just being unfashionable.  William Tyndale translated "ekklesia" as "'congregation' rather than 'Church'" as his entry states.  That was a direct challenge to the authority of the church and his was more than an opinion that was merely "unfashionable."  "Unfashionable" seems to trivialize both the martyr's opinion and the objections to it.
"Dangerous" might even work.  The doctrinal differences may seem insubstantial now but they could be very, very unhealthy then.
Just a thought.  I made no change.
Richard Ong (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The word "unfashionable" is too arch for the context.  I've reworded thus: "Foxe was, after all, describing the burning of human beings for holding religious opinions disapproved by the state church."--John Foxe (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Accuracy. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Foxe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709092855/http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/index.html to http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516215821/http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/apparatus/introessays.html to http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/apparatus/introessays.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709092855/http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/index.html to http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Foxe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927013934/http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/apparatus/freemanessay.html to http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/apparatus/freemanessay.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517030350/http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/apparatus/loadesearlyreceptionessay.html to http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/apparatus/loadesearlyreceptionessay.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927013934/http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/apparatus/freemanessay.html to http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/apparatus/freemanessay.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Until now, section 6 stated as follows, 'He published the first true Latin edition of his famous book at Basel in August 1559, although the segment dealing with the Marian martyrs was "no more than a fragment."(ref Mozley 1940)'
Fortunately, the 1559 version can be downloaded.  The claim about the Mary Tudor segment being "no more than a fragment" is clearly false.  I've added evidence to the wikipedia Foxe's Book of Martyrs webpage at the table of editions at section 4 and in section 4.1 and in footnotes there.  They are referenced at section 6 of the John Foxe wikipedia webpage.
The statement 'although the segment dealing with the Marian martyrs was "no more than a fragment."(ref Mozley 1940)' should surely be deleted.
Patrick Hamilton (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1559 version of Foxe 

message: Hello folks, good morning, I have just removed the mention that the Earl of Surrey was a Roman Catholic as it is not proven that he still was, at the time of his death and the Wiki is not room for speculation. I correctly put Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, who had been executed for treason in January 1547. Leito.Cmj (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: "Please make specific reference citations for key facts, and avoid creating footnotes of extraneous information, because this is a wiki, not a hardcopy text."
Someone has provided bits and pieces, mostly from a single source, and without covering the key checkable factual data.  It's wonderful if you add information here, but as this is a wiki, not an old-fashioned text document, we prefer to avoid making the page itself more and more complex, rather we split extraneous data onto separate wiki pages.  If the information does not merit a separate page, and cannot be worked into the article main text, consider whether it merits addition at all.
Key data such as dates and places at which some event occured, in history, must have relatively ancient sources as their basis.  When you ascribe all such data to some relatively recent source, and especially when only one such source is cited, this seems both lazy, and somewhat suspicious.  Please at least quote your "source"'s citation such that someone might more easily chase up some more original source.  Otherwise really what it reads like is an advertisement for so-and-so's late twentieth century book, or a service which provides access to material that is still in copyright. 
The reason for not putting 'footnotes' in hover text hidden in <ref> tags is obvious where I have tried to provide a better (older, and electronically freely available) reference for a 'factoid' that has been @$*!$*-ed inline in the text, and now cannot easily amend the text surrounding this citation point, because so much of the previous contribution has been put inside the ref hover thing, and it is a complete @@$##!$# mess.
I cannot easily improve on this inclusion, because of the way the text I am trying to improve has been split between 'main body text' and 'stupid footnote-like hover text'
:Take a deep breath and go slowly. John Foxe (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup request : AVOID FOOTNOTES THIS IS A WIKI