User:Docdev

User:devg May 2014 Planning to add, now adding pages for your reading in the Commons Special Pages. The content of the new pages will be linked to the original article. Much of what I now observe about Actes and Monuments will surprise people, but the information is all supported by my disertation and also published articles. {[ Linkedin, Devorah G. Greenberg, Ph.D.]}Docdev (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

January 2014 I didn't expect to see this year. I was in hospice in May -- not expected, but I came back. IN LAST 6 MONTHs at Louis Brier Home for the elderly (or decepit, I'm only 60). I'm posting new info on the Actes and Monuments -- not at Wiki--too much, but sections of my project will be posted deliberately at various sites. I will forward this note to Central Commons where, I believe, are copies of the Guttenberg impress of Queen E I and my hand-coloured copy should be with the article, Wiki A&M --

Did you know there's a BBC Foxe/A&M site that recommends viewers wanting more to see Wikipedia: A&M. They can choose from anyone's ... but I say things in a way that they hadn't seen before, but were obvious, once pointed out--and have become 'commonly known' since 2004 my Diss defense. It's a bit sticky because I've demonstrated now that the 'Book of Martyrs', really, didn't exist. See article section of A%M: Books of M'.

I'd have to say now that the title was a name given the text A&M by Edmund Grindal (Bishop of London 1559- )who wanted an (English Bk of M) and had already acquired materials to that end. Grindal wrote to Foxe in 1558 to delay printing his Latin version 'til we have more copious intellligence' and 'can build a nobler edifice'. For Archbishop Parker, A&M served to link the present Eliz church with the church of the Anglo-Saxons. Foxe is credited with editing the A-S works that were commissioned by Parker. We know that's not true, b/c Foxe couldn't read A-s script. Parker also-had to have been involved with the production of A&M. It certainly answered his desire for a legitimate ground for English innovations in doctrine, etc. BUT we can show no connections at all between the two men--which is unbelievable. Officially the text had no links with either the Church or the royal court--which, in part, explains why were not able to identify the third figure in the Dedication portrait, Capital Cee. We now can with assurance b/c a tombstone carving discovered of Cecil that very ressembles, indeed represented very well in a woodcut, is the Queen's first minister, Cecil. NOW why didn't we know that? People in the 16th century would have kmnown --- so, how and when did we lose sight of that information? When did corresondence b Foxe and Parker disappear? Foxe wrote to everyone, and he worked in the Archb. library ... the text literarly supports that Parker instigated changes b the first and second editions 1563/1570. Other anamolies support finding that the title 'Book of Martyrs' may have been commonly used in Foxe's own time--in order to deflect attention away from it being, not a martyrology, but a history. 'Foxe as Historia, Patrick Collinson's essay in the intro to TAMO- The A%M Online, was the first time Foxe was referred to as an historian, by a credible historian--who would be the only one to do it. Collinson's article and others provide sold ground for my observation that Foxe was a great historian, but not thee greatest revisionist ever' (Collinson -- b/c Foxe was writing counter history ... which Ryan Netzley and Anderson prove by calling A&M 'purely polemical' and claim as 'new' in the 16th c.--They've not read Amos Funkenstein or Annette Yishoko Reed's Eusubius History presented as 'Jewish Christianity' and his book as a counterhistory. I wrote all this b/c someone in editing perhaps might advise me? I won't be likely back here for a few days... Docdev (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

7 November 2011

I'm beginning to understand some of how to get around in wiki. I am enormously grateful to the contributors who cleaned up so much of technical mess for 'The Acts and Monuments'.

Thank you.

Perhaps of interest to readers
I hadn't intended to write the article on The Acts and Monuments. I had in mind a different article, which I will still produce, but it needed a clearer description of what Acts and Monuments was, even in its first inception (16th century).

I was surprised to find that the WIKI entry for acts and monuments had nothing at all to say, and served only to link us to the "Book of Martyrs", "Foxe's" no less. John N King still calls the work that he studies "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" (as in, _Print Culture J F Bk M_ 2006, and _Selected Narratives_ 2009). Fair enough, IF the name Foxe is included as part of the title, it makes sense. To call it, however, quote John Foxe's -Book of Martyrs- (Ital), end quote, perpetuates an historical lie or, at least, misconstrues the relationship between John Foxe and the Acts and Monuments, and the books of martyrs produced under that name.

The WIKI article on 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs' demonstrates one of the problems deriving from conjoining the author and the book. It misunderstands and misassigns attributes and effects of the text to the author, and the reverse. Even scholars as experienced as Prof. Patrick Collinson and Dr. Thomas Freeman fall into the trap of attributing to the intention of the author, effects of his text, a danger that I am not alone in highlighting.

It is not helpful to have such mythic, generalized conclusions asserted as historical fact, and on so little evidence, really. If the author of the article 'Foxe's Book to Martyrs' wants to salvage and improve what they've got, I have a couple of suggestions that might work. Otherwise, once I figure out how to do it, I would recommend deletion of that article. Most of what it says of historical value is contained also in the 'John Foxe' article, which is a more coherent and useful account.

(Last two paragraphs copied to book of martyrs page)

Technical Special:My talk

I am profoundly disabled by Parkinson's disease. A voice-activated system, Dragon, helps me.

I found learning my way around the wiki system for editing, confusing wearying and time consuming and even after all that I still couldn't do it at all well.

I also appreciate that you do make it difficult somewhat for people to enter articles, to get serious entries, and not just spur of the moment jottings.

I read all your notes that I could find, and I get it, why cut-and-paste would be troublesome. In my case, however, most of my materials are alreay written.

Question, How can I best contribute (cut and paste) to improving existing articles, and creating new ones without having the alarm bells go off?

Special entered above, because I really do need technical support to wikify articles. Is this among the things that special covers?

Question, (repeat) How can I best contribute (cut and paste) to improving existing articles, and creating new ones without having the alarm bells go off? Most of my material is already written and requires 'cut and paste'.

Also, I'd like to see the Wiki Quality Assessment re-assesed. I belive the C- was assigned on the basis of technical inadequacies.

Docdev (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Docdev (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)