Talk:Foxe's Book of Martyrs/Archive 1

Questions, ideas, suggestions

 * 1) Would it be possible and helpful to create a table of basic facts about the principal editions of the book? Say, date, title, major (new) features, and perhaps sources for each edition?
 * 2) Could a few illustrations of title pages (etc) be found to give an impression of the character of the work, and perhaps of the differences between editions?

Merging
I don't think they can be merged. Each is stronger separate.

The BkM page has its own truth value.

Errors of fact, out of date info, overgeneralization ... -- Thank you. I was rather attached to some of the info in the last two paragraphs that got rather chopped. I'll think about that.

Questions
the best source for most information on Acts and M. The early editions, is the online site. http://www.hrionline, for both the text and the essays introducing it.

There are several articles on some of the effects ascribed to later editions of acts and monuments/book of martyrs. The only comprehensive descriptions of specific later editions is in my own work Reflexive Foxe: the Book of Martyrs Transformed, diss, 2002, unpublished-- except that it is available online in any case. Google claims they've made book, search author, Devorah Greenberg.

Some elements of that work might benefit readers of this site. I'm inclined to rather to let them search out that work, then to second-guess what they might want/need.

1. I have a bibliography several pages long, identifying expands editions of books of martyrs published as Foxe in various forms 16th through 20th century

. I also hand colored the initial C showing the Queen with box day "and another", at that time they still haven't identified the third figure as Cecil. It is an original in that I colored it, and handed it out as souvenirs at the fourth Foxe Congress. I will scan it and take advice on whether it should be used.Docdev (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

revised text
14th, added text. I had thought the 'Book Marytyrs' page might merge with the John Foxe page, as it seemed to have the same info, but it seems to have fitted well enough here.

Will send colour copy of frontice piece, initial letter cee with Queen, etc tomorrow (15th). Docdev (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Re, Table of sigf editions: may be a bit much for this article, and would be better placed after the main text and ref/bibl. Info may alreadybe available through my biblilography of AM-BkM/Foxe--which could be attached, but is availalbe anyway, online.

Docdev (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On the table, I was wondering if it couldn't largely replace the text discussing the different editions, i.e. people could cut-and-shorten the bibliographic details from the text into the table, placing inline citations for support and for footnotes on more complex stuff? This would shorten the text (obviously desirable) and make the info easier to access and to compare (guess that's the proper job of tables!). Would have thought the edns section the proper place for this.


 * A table at the end of article would be more of a summary - would be appropriate in an article which was going into details of printings as its main point and needed to come up for air at the end - doesn't seem to be the case here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Table
If someone would undertake the structure and content, it would be fine to have...there's a lot of sigf texts. But if it were started and folks shared an interes to add to it ... et voila, une Wikyism (talk)

--- 25 Nov 2011, YES, really Wik'ists! Knowledge _is_ communal, co-ccommunication is our property. This is very cool... Gadamer claimed (paraphrased) that all understanding is agreement. We could prove out that thesis here. (talk)

Link to Acts and Monuments (?)
The article would benefit from a direct link to The AM Online -- so that someone following a trail here knows what they already have in use there.

no merge
Artcles should remain separate. BkM page ha its own truth value. Needs some correction .. and updating. Docdev (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WIKI page 'Acts and Monuments' should be linked to The AM, not to F's BkM.


 * Hvng sm trbl ndrstdg u, as trrbly bbrviatd! Seriously though, there is an overwhelmingly large overlap between this article and Foxe's Book of Martyrs - they are basically about the entity even if it was protean in its way of shape-shifting. Wikipedia's policy is to forbid Content Forks (WP:CFORK). The articles should be merged, if you say as you will can't prove this is NOT a content fork?Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

--- 26 Nov. Regards, I apologize for the short-title abbreviations. The Book of Martyrs is a mythic-historical construction-- whose authors/editors ignore-- might like to forget entirely- the connection to AM, but also were not willing to lose the cachet of Foxe's name. I'm uninformed re 'Content fork' --sigf to WIKIfolk. Pls advise, if possible. (talk) 26 November 2011


 * Sorry, lost the thread on this one, I should have replied earlier. The case for merging is simply that there should not be two articles covering, ahem, the same book, whatever that might mean. As with Grandad's Axe (grandad changed the shaft 11 times, and the head 3 times, but the axe always had grandad's name burnt into it with a red-hot poker), we intuitively feel despite the obvious ontological issues that it's still the same axe, I mean book. I think that Cuchullain's comments are good here; A&M is the more encompassing title, though Foxe's BoM is surely far more widely known among ordinary folk (like Wikipedia readers).


 * A "Content Fork" is just Wikipedia jargon for (near or partial, etc) duplication of articles - I suppose the idea is that each article is a thread through time, and if there are two threads we can imagine the original thread as having branched or forked: sounds suspiciously computer-program-geeky.


 * Therefore, we should keep both titles in some form, but most likely (it seems to me) FBoM should be a Redirect, perhaps to a (substantial) section of A&M. I'm not sure what you might mean by "linked to The AM" - this is a site outside Wikipedia? We can do that in any case. Then if someone searches for "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" (or just "Book of Martyrs") they will be sent to the right place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with that. Once again, all of this can be discussed in a single article, as appears to be done in other sources based on a cursory search through Google Books. I'd also agree that "Acts and Monuments" is the more common title in the sources, though "Book of Martyrs" is also common and needs to be discussed as well, and should be in the lead.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Improvements
Suggest that author scan the essays online w/ Acts and Monuments online. Go to Apparatus/essays. See Loades (a couple of intros), Collinson, for sure, Greenberg - only if it interests ... skip in favour of learning more about later editions (16-20th c.) Google says they've made a book of it, but available thr diss abstracts or such like Devorah Greenberg, Reflexive Foxe: The 'Book of Martyrs' Transformed, 16th to 21st centuries' (Diss, SFU,2002)

This is the only substantive analysis of the later editions. Some effective articles out on effects of some of the later editions ... very limited descriptions. Docdev (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)