User talk:John Foxe/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, John Foxe/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I personally invite you to do so in my own sandbox (just follow the simple rules!). Again, welcome! — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 17:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BJU Literary societies

We have an article about Alpha Omega Delta, which should be linked to from the BJU article. Can you find an acceptable way to do so? Perhaps other societies should be mentioned as well. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Thanks

Nice to hear from you.

John Foxe 13:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Ask if you need any help with anything. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It's considered very poor form to edit remarks by another user, except in the case of personal attacks. It's better to delete obnoxious material outright, archive it, or refactor it by noting the personal attack that you removed. -Will Beback 17:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. There was no personal attack and nothing obnoxious about either of the comments removed. -John Foxe 09:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Out of curiosity, what affiliation do you have with Bob Jones University? I noticed your sizable and informative edits, many of which are very well-written and comprehensive. Due to your seeming substantial knowledge of BJU, I was wondering if you were a student or faculty member. Thanks.

Ah, I've been found out...It's just that the job of Chancellor wasn't as challenging as I'd thought it would be ;) John Foxe 12:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that Bob Jones III is an amatuer violinist. ;)

[edit] License tagging for Image:BJU.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BJU.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

Thanks for the good copy editing job on the Bob Jones University page. Some of your corrections were made to my own typos, or at least things I should have caught earlier myself.

John Foxe 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Always happy to help, but to be honest, it probably looked like I spent a lot more time on the article than I really did. I was cheating with SpellBound, a spell checker extension for Firefox that underlines typos in red just as if you were using Word. You should check it out - http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ :) It's not the smartest in the world though (sometimes plurals or words that are just uncommon or even acronyms like DVD get marked as typos). Moulder 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BJU-Bibb Graves

As an article about BJU, the focus should be on all things BJU. The text on people related to BJU should be brief: describe who they were and what their connection to the university is. I'll take a look at the other entry you mentioned. Rillian 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Will Beback 21:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: - this applies even to reverting IPs. -W.
In the future, please ask for help before performing 4 reverts. While I understand that you were reacting to another editor's reverts, a rule is a rule. -Will Beback 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ironside

Thanks much for the addition of that anecdote on the Ironside page! Since you're connected, do you have further info on the background of the honorary degree? Generally, there's reasons given during the presentation, and maybe a quote from that would be a nice addition. Akradecki 20:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Akradecki, but unfortunately BJU's records about such things are abysmal. The archivist once told me that she doesn't even know exactly how many honoraries BJU has presented. --John Foxe 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juanita Brooks

Hi John. "An ecclesiastical blacklisting?" Sounds like the Ostlings want the church to look authoritative. The only formal incident I'm aware of was a restriction of access to materials by J. Reuben Clark. Brooks formally asked the First Presidency for access to specific records in Church archives regarding the Massacre -- which were not held elsewhere. An appointment with the President was made but, when she arrived, the very conservative lawyer Clark took the appointment and denied her access. Her biography and written biographical comments by historian Jan Shipps do not address any other ecclesiastical action, and she was allowed access to church material in other projects. Brooks remained a member in good standing throughout her life. Thanks for your work on the Faith Promoting article. WBardwin 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bainton

As a previous contributor to the Roland Bainton article, I was happy to see someone making a new contribution. Your new paragraphs provided some needed additional biographical content, and the changes in wording help the text to sound more polished. Thanks for your work! --Lini 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Here

was embarrassed by the apostasy of his niece

In your recent edit on Fawn Brodie, this phrase requires mind reading of a dead man. It is POV. You can say "He claimed it was embarassing" (and cite it) but you cannot make the claim for him. --Blue Tie 01:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added some additional comments on the Talk page for the article. --Blue Tie 02:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:RobertBaird.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RobertBaird.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fawn Brodie & Frances Kelsey

I know I complained bitterly on that talk page - I hadn't realized you had done so much of the work single-handedly - or I would have tempered my comments some. Even though I disagree with some of the changes, I wanted to thank you for your hard work. Having worked on Frances Oldham Kelsey for some time - I know the effort that is needed. --Trödel 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. But I'd hate to take credit for that page as is. It seems no contributor has actually read Bringhurst's biography--although obviously someone took a picture of the cover. So I'll do that and afterwards hope to be ready to take on all comers.
Your Kelsey bio looks good, but I think she was basically just a lucky bureaucrat. (Explication is for some other day.) --John Foxe 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Unforunately it looks that way; however, after some research (at real libraries - <ahhh, wow>) because of such claims on the internet - that Kelsey was just a meddling bureaucrat that got lucky, I've come to belive differently. I'm currently reading a book on the thalidomide controversy Dark Remedy covering its continuous use since 1964 (even after being banned in Europe and the US) for treating the ENL effects of Leprosy (and later for symptoms of tuberculosis and in the 90s, HIV), its humanitarian FDA approval, status as a black market drug, etc. She does not appear to be foot dragging bureaucrat after all, but rather the right person at the right time.
Her unique background in teratogens and the unusual (for the time) expertise she had in chemicals that pass through the placenta, combined with the fact that the animal testing reported no medical effect (except for the so called "jiggle test"), led her to make a fortunate, and conservative, decision to require the applicant to prove that the animals actually were absorbing the drug before assuming it was safe. Additionally, her relationship with a former FDA official who advocated better scientific rigor before approving drugs helped provide the support she needed to stand her ground and identify tactics allowed under the weaker law
I totally agree with you, however, that it was incredibly lucky to have things turn out the way they did. Being that she was brand new - the drug was assigned to her because everyone thought it would be an "easy one," her background, her insulation from retribution since her husband was an assistant to the Surgeon General, the delayed introduction into the US, the findings of doctors in Germany, the rumors re thalidomide after the doctor wouldn't initially name the drug that he felt caused the birth defects in his presentation, etc.
Hopefully, I'll be able to capture and make concise much of that - and make the article much better reading :)
Thalidimode is also a victim of its own history - as the inspiration for, IMHO, too much regulation of the drug approval process, it later had difficulty becoming approved despite a history of successful black market treatments because patients refused to be in a properly managed clinical study - not because of fear of the drug, but because they refused to possibly be in the group that got a plecebo - they knew from experience it worked and refused to go without it.
Anyway that is probably more than you wanted to know - but I am very much fascinated by the story and love talking about it. ttyl --Trödel 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - I'll just report the info. I am looking for some info contemporaneous with the application - as opposed to after it - for reasons why Kelsey marked the application as incomplete, or other things about what happened before the "truth" came out. Unfortunately, I find the whole thalidomide story so fascinating that I just keep reading about it instead of focusing on what I am trying to find :) - last night I picked up a prescription and chatted with the pharmacist for about 15 min about thalidomide - whether she could dispense it, etc. The precautions seem a little over-the-top, but understandable. How do you know so much about Kelsey? --Trödel 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fawn Brodie Problems

Your efforts to improve the article are impressive. However, you have also introduced some problems. I want to bring these to your attention:

Much of the article is unsourced, but knowing the subject a but I recognize that things are true. I suspect that most of these unsourced statements are from Brimhall. Nevertheless, there are some that just stick out like a sore thumb and I will mention these.

Unsourced statement: Despite the religious prominence of her family, the Thomas McKays lived in genteel poverty, their property burdened by unpayable debt. The young Fawn was perpetually embarrassed that their house did not have indoor plumbing. (I seem to remember this from somewhere, but I think it needs a source. Not sure about adjectives like "genteel", "perpetually" and "unpayable", though these make for good writing!).

Multiple problems: Although Fawn grew to maturity in a rigorously religious environment that included strict Sabbatarianism and evening prayers on her knees, her mother was a closet skeptic who thought the Mormon Church a "wonderful social order" but who doubted its dogma. Words "rigorously", "strict" are POV. "closet skeptic" and 'doubted its dogma" are in need of sourcing.

Unsourced Statement: According to Brodie, in the late 1930s, while her father was head of Mormon mission activities in German-speaking Europe, her mother became a thoroughgoing heretic. (I believe she was much more gentle with her mother's "heresy", suggesting it was more a difference of lifestyle or something like that. Her mom's mental condition is also an issue so this is somewhat complex anyway).

Unsourced Statement: Fawn herself seemed to have had growing doubts about marrying Jenson.

Not quite fair to call Vardis Fisher just a novelist after his testament of man series.

POV: Well reseached and smartly written,. If you just delete that phrase, wikipedia takes no editorial stance.

POV: The brilliant (Nibley). Just remove "Brilliant" and you avoid wikipedia taking a stance.

Inappropriate title: Critical success with psychobiography. The section is predominantly about Thaddeus Stevens bio, not the critical success with psychobiography. I know you have a view that she was not engaged in psychobiography from the first. I disagree with you on that. I think the difference is that she later learned to couch what she did in more professional terms.

Editorializing: In one sense all biographers are psychohistorians. Any biography that refused to treat motives, character traits, and the depth of personality would be flat and uninteresting.

POV: some unidentified members of her extended family cruelly intimated was "just punishment" for her sins. (The word "Cruelly" is POV. This could be improved if it were a quote from Fawn or someone.)


Two other general comments: I think she is more widely known for her Jefferson book but I suppose that could be debated. However, more room is given to NMKMH than Jefferson. That seems wrong. But perhaps there is legitiately more to say. If so, then I think you should take some time to review her various stated motives with NMKMH.

Also, I reviewed both Nibley's response and the response to Nibley. Nibley's response is difficult to read but it at least make sense and tends to the scholarly. The response to Nibley is so bad... it is really awful.. that to include it as a link I feel demeans wikipedia.

However, I make no changes, as I have seen your edits and trust you as an honest and credible editor. --Blue Tie 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My efforts to redo "Fawn Brodie" is a work in progress. I decided to bite the bullet, read Bringhurst's biography--I assume you mean "Bringhurst" rather than "Brimhall"--and summarize appropriate parts of it. So far I've only made it to Brodie's Thaddeus Stevens biography, so that's why the title seems odd right now.
I agree that Brodie is better known for Jefferson than for Joseph Smith, except in Utah.
Some of the things you think are POV are, well...a friend describes certain ladies as having their hat pins stuck in too tight. Can you give an example of a biography that doesn't treat motives and character traits and that isn't flat and uninteresting? Was Nibley not "brilliant"? Is NMKMH not "well reseached and smartly written"?
The response to Nibley is indeed pretty bad. The problem is that without it, a casual reader might not realize how often Nibley quotes Brodie out of context. Brodie was right when she called Nibley "flippant"--my own description before I discovered that Brodie had used the word before me.
Before I make further changes to the Brodie page, I plan to go back and footnote all the statements that you have noted as unsourced. I agree that anything controversial should be sourced; it's my fault for not realizing that those things were (especially the outhouse--which the McKays called "Mrs. Grundy").

You are right, Bringhurst. Brimhall was her Uncle. I think you are doing a very excellent job on her article. When you are done, it should be nominated! I do agree that a biography often (not always) needs to deal with motives to be interesting. But there are different ways of doing it. (I am thinking about a book called "The Reason Why" about why the Charge of the Light Brigade happened. It researches the commanders and their actions but does not try to psychoanalyze them. It is a pretty interesting read.) Fawn really went out on limbs when she did it -- which makes for some wild and crazy guy sorts of things -- but it just "feels" wrong to me. Nibley was by all accounts (I never met him) an astonishingly brilliant man. But wikipedia cannot say that! It can quote someone who says so! But then it can quote someone who says he was dull and deceitful... or worse.. a depraved child molester. And NMKMH is absolutely well written. As for well-researched, that is harder to say... its a mixed bag. I believe it was reasonably well researched (particularly compared with prior 3rd person biographies) but the research was both slanted (not always her fault, but she has to take the blame) and not always well used -- or used at all! But in either case, wikipedia can not take an editorial position. It must stay Neutral on the quality of her work. As for NMTNH, I believe Nibley himself agreed that it was probably his worst published work ever. (Can't recall where I heard that). However, he also said that it was fundamentally sound, just not well done. Flippant might be the right word because as I recall he said he spat it out in almost no time at all (a weekend maybe?). It is a shame that the critique of Nibley that you found is so awful, but if that is the only one.. that is the only one. But I thought there was another one somewhere....

Incidentally, two things seem to stick out in her life to me. First, she seems and claims and appears to have some degree of admiration for the truth. Yet, she has this pronounced incident in the researching of the NMKMH book, where she lies. Both the Mormons and to the RLDS leaders. She claims that this caused her shame and grief, but she did it. Knowingly and consistently. And more than once. This is very hard to reconcile and I think it would be interesting to psychobiography Fawn! The second, is that she seems to have had some sort of sexual issues and she focused on these things. Where on earth did that come from? Could be all kinds of sources but first on my list would be some sort of child sexual trauma.

I have read MUCH of what Bringhurst has written about her but not all of it. I like his work, generally. I love the cover because she looks so attractive there and I never saw her that way until that was published. To me she was sort of a long-faced, slightly heavy and rather sad looking person - I did not think it was an attractive look. To each their own though. --Blue Tie 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing true is POV. Wikipedia can say anything without citation that's true beyond reasonable doubt. That includes the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were murderers, that Stalin was a moral monster, and that Nibley was brilliant. But not that he molested his own daughter.
Your book about the Charge of the Light Brigade sounds exactly like the sort of thing I was talking about in the sentence in which you accuse me of editorializing. I was trying to draw the distinction between treating the fullness of character and psychoanalysis. The burden of proof is on you to prove incorrect my statement that "Any biography that refused to treat motives, character traits, and the depth of personality would be flat and uninteresting." Without proof to the contrary that this statement is (not often but always) correct, your rejection of that sentence is itself simply opinion.
NMKMH was well-researched. What Brodie would have given for a set of Vogel's Early Mormon Documents. If you think that "well-researched" needs citation, by all means we can do that. But "well-researched" is not the same as "unbiased."
Speaking of Brodie photos, there's one in Bringhurst of Brodie as a fifteen-year-old in which she looks downright attractive.
--John Foxe 13:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


With regard to the idea that "Nothing true is POV", I quote from WP:NPOV, which is official policy:

  • Let the facts speak for themselves
You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Perhaps with that in mind you will see what has colored my thinking in this area. Just describe the facts (all relevant sides if necessary) and do not editorialize on them.

And, no, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove something you claim. It is upon you to cite and prove. That is how wikipedia works!

Putting both ideas together it means that you can quote someone who claims that Fawn Brodie's work was well researched. You should also, if appropriate, provide quotes by others who may claim otherwise. That is NPOV. I realize it does not make for the greatest writing, but it is the wikipedia way. In the case of well-researched, I still think it is not a matter of fact but opinion. And it is an opinion about which, some may differ. I consider it somewhat far better researched than prior biographies but not "well researched" by more modern standards. However, my own opinion (and yours) is not good wikipedia content. Opinions of others who hold some respect in the area and which are published is fair and good content, but contrasting opinions should be generously (in accordance with their respectability) considered.

I think that your edits are good, because you already support your opinions with quotes and facts. However, you should remove your opinions and just let the facts you quote, speak for themselves. I hope I am making sense. --Blue Tie 14:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, "Nothing true is POV. Wikipedia can say anything without citation that's true beyond reasonable doubt." Nothing you've quoted opposes that principle.
Having said that, I'm determined to provide citations everywhere in the Fawn Brodie article that you think are necessary. If "well-researched" is a problem for you, then I'll provide the evidence. --John Foxe 19:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


I suppose that with your general quality and your determination, it will not matter. However your views about truth and POV are contrary to wikipedia policy. I feel you should really acquaint yourself with these policies. I will not quote everything but I will give you some highlights:
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.
  • We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results.
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

Regards,

--Blue Tie 03:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we may be dancing around semantics here. I've said, "Nothing true is POV. Wikipedia can say anything without citation that's true beyond reasonable doubt." The standard for Wikipedia you've given here is that a "fact" is "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." A "fact" is by definition "true." So I think we're in agreement.
All the best,
John Foxe 12:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Maybe its semantics, but I do not think so. I think it is a matter of logic, assumptions, process and policy. For example, your statement "Nothing true is POV. Wikipedia can say anything without citation that's true beyond reasonable doubt.", upon which you rely, is not policy and is, in fact, potentially contrary to policy. This may seem idiotic to you, but it is the way it is. Wikipedia is edited even by children. Also by idiots, pedophiles, anarchists, pathological liars, people with chips on their shoulders, the mentally ill, homeless drug abusers, Nazis, Christians, Atheists, satanists, Scottsmen, political bloggers and so on. What one person sees as "true" another person does not see as "true". Even the concept of "flat earth" as a modern belief is given the respect of not being considered stupid, though the truth is, it is stupid. The reverse example (the truth of the Nibley's brilliance - which I accept) is similarly not the sort of thing that wikipedia considers valid "truth". The policies expressly address this and so they say that it is not a matter of what is true but rather "what is verifiable". When you say that Nibley was "brilliant", this is an opinion, not a fact. When you say Brodie's book is "well researched" that is an opinion not a fact. If you quote someone saying it is "well written" and that person is a solid, recognized authority expressing their view in a well vetted community, then you have a fact. The fact is not that it is well written but that someone who has a valuable opinion has said so. Note that as a result of this approach, wikipedia does not have opinions, but it may quote them. That is the fundamental matter. In our discussion, do you think that this is a matter of semantics or a matter of basic assumptions? (I consider either one valid, but I do not think it is a matter of semantics).

I would like to be clear-- I like your writing style and generally agree with what you write. As I said, I think your work could turn it into a good article or even a featured article. However, my comments are about how wikipedia likes things, not really criticisms of your writing. I do not think wikipedia rules lead to the best writing. Sometimes, following those rules destroys good prose. But I think that these rules are necessary when dealing with such a diverse community of editors as described above. And though you may be better than most of them, the rules must apply to all, even to those who should reasonably be above them. Granted it is frustrating at times, but what other solution can there be?

Having said that, it is also wikipedia policy that you do not have to leave an article in perfect condition. You take no hits for leaving it as you like it, but others may legitimately come around and change the POV things -- even if they are "true". --Blue Tie 13:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another attempt at reaching agreement. How about if I modify my statement to read, "Nothing factual is POV. Wikipedia can say anything without citation that is factual, that is, it is information about which there is no serious dispute."
--John Foxe 14:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:GoldenPlates.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:GoldenPlates.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation

I think the quotation on your user page should be attributed to somebody, anonymous if nothing else. It looks ambivalent to have a quotation thrown out without reference; it almost communicates plagiarism.

--Whiteknox 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the quotation marks. Hope that's satisfactory. All the best, --John Foxe 10:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that's better. Go ahead and remove this section. --Whiteknox 14:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/User_talk%7EJohn_Foxe_Archive_1_bfaa.html"