Talk:John Knox/Archive2007-2010

Citations

What a pity that editors didn't give source notes when adding material as the article certainly has the basis of a Featured Article.--Bill Reid | Talk 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I will start to put in citations referring to the 1911 Britannica and the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. As these are onlytertiary sources, these should later be replaced by proper secondary sources. --RelHistBuff 12:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Starting a rewrite

As mentioned above, this article is largely derived from The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. One can see this by comparing it with current version. I got several biographies on Knox so I will start a gradual rewrite of the article with proper citations.--RelHistBuff 14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

I am putting this article on hold for three reasons:

• There are quotations without inline citations.
• "Conversion to Protestantism" does not really describe the section it heads. Either the conversion of Knox should be described in more detail or the heading should be changed.
• The article needs to be proofread. There are a few extra words and dropped words. These can easily be found by reading the article aloud.

If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. I have posted a fuller review of the article at its peer review page.Awadewit | talk 01:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently proofreading and will drop a line later this week. --RelHistBuff 07:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Biography project peer review

I have copied below the peer review in order to put my comments in on the progress for each item. --RelHistBuff 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

This is a very good article. You have done an excellent job of identifying sources in the prose when necessary and explaining when particular theories are only theories and not facts, a rare skill on wikipedia. I have carefully combed over the article, as you indicated that you would like to take it to FA eventually.

• The Wishart incident needs to be more fully explained. Why was Wishart arrested? Why was Knox prepared to die with him?

I will add more details. I removed the "prepared to die" part. That was text from the version before I started to work on it and it was not sourced. --RelHistBuff 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On the reason Wishart was arrested, the sources just say that he was teaching what was considered heresy and no more details beyond that.--RelHistBuff 09:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would put that in. Awadewit | talk 07:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Need to get back to the books. --RelHistBuff 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In order to introduce the subject of his arrest on the charge of heresy, I had to give some political background. The political intrigues surrounding Hamilton and Beaton are interesting and the sources provide more details on the how-and-why a former Protestant-supporter, Hamilton, became a supporter of Beaton's cause. But this would make the paragraph too long, so I just mention the act of parliament.--RelHistBuff 07:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• He was still in charge of three boys, the sons of Douglas and Cockburn who wearied of moving from place to place while being pursued. - This is the first readers hear of the three boys, so the "still" is awkward. More explanation is needed, I think, if this is an important part of Knox's life. If it is not important, a rewording is in order.

I have added details concerning the boys in the earlier section. There isn't much more that can be said about the boys but the basic info is put there in order to show that he was a fugitive with the boys. --RelHistBuff 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• The section entitled "Conversion to Protestantism" is not focused on Knox's conversion. Do we know more about the conversion itself? If not, I would suggest a new heading, one that reflects the material in that section.

I have changed the section title to "From a priest to a defender of reformers". Some new material has been added on the conversion. I hope to add more from Brown. --RelHistBuff 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• The paragraph divisions in "Conversion to Protestantism" could be better - think of each paragraph as being about a single topic.

Some paragraphs has been merged. I think more developments will occur once I get back to the sources. --RelHistBuff 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• The beginning of the "Confinement to French galleys" section does not focus much on Knox. Is there a way to make it seem less like a general history and more like a biography at this point? (More like the "From Geneva to Frankfurt and Scotland" section)

According to the sources, it looks like Knox really was swept about by the political tides. I added one sentence to explain how the French got involved. --RelHistBuff 10:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

But, since this is Knox's biography, it would be good to spotlight him in the tides more, I think. Awadewit | talk 07:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Need to get back to the books. --RelHistBuff 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I put Knox into the lead sentence of the paragraph so that brings the focus back onto him. I merged one sentence so that there are three sentences describing the "tides". Then the story of his time in the galleys follows. Hmm, funny how the ocean metaphor seems to fit here.--RelHistBuff 08:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• On his release Knox found that he could be of little use in Scotland in its existing state. - Perhaps explain a bit why?

Text removed. Old text without cites. --RelHistBuff 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• However, Knox found that England to be a very congenial place and felt sympathy for the English in their troubles. - Perhaps hint at what the troubles were?

Rewritten see below. --RelHistBuff 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• He found much work that needed to be done and the English were receptive to his ideas. - A few details, perhaps?

Rewritten see below. --RelHistBuff 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the pulpit he preached Protestant doctrines with great effect. - Explain the effect perhaps?

There is now an explanation of the mild nature of the English Reformation and how work needed to be done to convince the ordinary clergy and people. Added additional citations to specific pages in the sources. --RelHistBuff 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• When Mary Tudor ascended the throne, England was no longer a safe place for Protestants. - This needs to be explained to readers who don't know the history.

Added description of Mary's actions while Knox was still in London. --RelHistBuff 07:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Prose: While the article is, in general, well-written, I think that it could be improved even more by a good copy editor. Having someone else look at the sentences, someone who hasn't stared at them for hours, is generally a good idea. I did a quick copy edit of the lead; here are some additional prose issues from that section:

• he was caught up in the ecclesiastical and political maelstrom of that period - Could you be more specific here? (I love "maelstrom", by the way.)

Added the details and I hope it is clearer now. --RelHistBuff 22:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• He was licenced to work in the Church of England where he quickly rose in the ranks until he became a royal chaplain serving the King of England, Edward VI. - You have put the most important thing at the end of the sentence where readers are less likely to pay attention to it.

Slightly modified, hopefully better now. --RelHistBuff 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• After gaining the trust of English Protestants, he was able to influence the text of the Book of Common Prayer. - This sounds slightly sinister.

Modified, hopefully less sinister now. --RelHistBuff 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• He also made an attempt to return to Scotland where he was able to meet and to support the Scottish Protestants. - It is not clear from this sentence whether he succeeded in the attempt, which makes the second half of the sentence confusing.

Removed sentence. See below. --RelHistBuff 21:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• On his definitive return to Scotland - "final" perhaps?

His first return was short and not much happened, so I just removed "definitive". --RelHistBuff 21:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• He continued to serve as a religious leader during the reign of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots. - Unclear - "religious leader" of what and for whom?

Modified. --RelHistBuff 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations to consider:

• Many biographies have "Legacy" sections. If, after reading your sources, you think Knox has a legacy worth a section, you might include one.

I also thought a Legacy section would be good. Unfortunately, some of sources simply end with his death so any "Legacy" material would have to be harvested by paging through these sources again. But I think it would be worth the effort. --RelHistBuff 09:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This might be where those general histories would come in handy and where those "tide-like" statements would be the most useful.Awadewit | talk 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Added the Legacy section. It will probably evolve some more. --RelHistBuff 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are optional; you might think about removing this one. I don't think it aids the reader in any particular way and it is a bit unaesthetic.

I agree. I removed it. --RelHistBuff 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• It is always difficult to know how much information to assume readers have or how much they should be expected to gather from wikilinks. My overall impression from the article, however, was that perhaps a few phrases or sentences could be added in various places early on to explain the Reformation. I say this as someone who has a familiarity with the Reformation because I fear most readers will not know its history in any detail. Doing so will add some historical context to the biography. Later in the article, however, I felt that the historical context overwhelemed the details of Knox's own life. I wondered if this was because we know little about his life.

I will think about adding some text describing the background of the early reformers (Hamilton and Wishart) who were clearly influenced by the continental reformers in Germany and Switzerland. This could then be a jump-off point to explain some of the ideas of the Reformation. Concerning the later part of his life, there does appear to be lot of historical context (queens/kings, regents, nobles, politicians, etc.) but I have tried to keep the history to the absolute minimum touching only on events that actually affected him or that he influenced.--RelHistBuff 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added some details concerning Hamilton and Wishart which leads to additional wikilinks on doctrinal issues as well as continental reformers. I hope that will give enough historical context. --RelHistBuff 14:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• You may want to cite some more claims before FAC. This is up to you. Technically, the WP:V policy states that only "controversial" claims or claims "likely to be challenged" need to be cited, but I have found that at FAC, nearly everything needs to be cited. Perusing some recently promoted FA biographies would give you a good sense of this. I once heard that a rule of thumb was a minimum of one citation per paragraph but most FA articles have more. Also, all direct quotations need inline citations directly after them (I noticed some in this article were missing citations).

• You have used many images of buildings - what about also including images of Knox's works? I noticed that the title page from "Monstrous Regiment" is available.

Added the title page picture plus a painting and the picture from Beza's Icones. Removed the Perth photo. --RelHistBuff20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Before nominating for FAC, I would suggest that you spend a day or two perusing the manual of style and making sure that the article conforms to it as closely as possible. That way the nomination can be a discussion of content rather than dashes or quotation marks. I noticed, for example, that the article had a lot of unlinked dates.

The nit-picky nature of these comments demonstrates the already high quality that this article has reached. I look forward to seeing it refined. I don't know how familiar you are with the FAC process, but I have run the gauntlet quite a few times now and can offer advice on that front, if you would like. Awadewit | talk 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Next steps

After worked on Biography peer review items, then

• A-class reassessment
• MoS filtering
• Find another pair of eyes for copyedit
• WP:PR Peer review
• FAC

Other things to consider:

• Go through Peter Hume Brown
• Go through Thomas McCrie
• Rework lead

--RelHistBuff 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review

Birth

• I'm not entirely confident about the way this is presented. The suggestion is that most modern scholars now accept that his birth was between 1513 and 1515. But checking through Google and Amazon books, I find that more than a few modern books give the earlier date—enough of them, I feel, to justify using the form "born between 1505 and 1515", with the academic issue confined to a note.

• This brings me to a general point: the article more than once refers to modern sources, but I see little sign of modern sources used to source the article. Although there are some recent ones in the bibliography, they aren't cited. Most of the most recent cites are to MacGregor (1957), Whitley (1960) and Percy (1964). These don't strike me as very modern at all. However, you often cite McCrie (1850) and Brown (1895), and, frankly, I would never cite sources that old, except for the odd curiosity reason or seminal statement/discovery. I note also that Schaff appears among the tertiary sources as published in 1953, but this is a later edition. Schaff died in 1893. And I would point out that he is a historian with a Protestant bias who regarded the reformers as heroes. We do need more really modern sources. Not only for scholarly points like the date of birth but because, as far as religious biography is concerned, we are only just emerging from the age of hagiography. I note also that you removed modern citations to John Guy (2004), who is critical of Knox. It's not really the done thing to remove cited information from Wikipedia unless you can replace it with something better.

• On a more particular note, I wonder if "born in or near Haddington" might be a tighter formula than this stuff about Gifford, which you source to an 1853 book. According to Rosalind Marshall's biography of Knox, he later said himself that he came from Giffordgate, a street in Haddington. Either way, "in or near" would nail it without fuss, I think. ("Or" is always a wonderful word in such circumstances.) qp10qp16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you on the "born in or near Haddington" formula and dropping the reference to Gifford. The original uncited B-level version of the article had mentioned his birth place as Gifford and when I first started the rewrite, I had tried to keep the original text and cited with McCrie as support for the statement. As I was just starting the rewrite, I wasn't really comfortable yet to throw out the old text so I just added cites. After about the first two sections, I started replacing rather than supplementing the original text.
• Concerning his birth date, what modern sources did you find that used the 1505 date? Could you tell me what tools you used to find them? Normally one cannot get online access to them so I have only been using books. I am not trying to argue for or against the date; I just want to know how I can access better sources. To explain the current text, as the footnote says, it was from MacGregor where I got the information on Hay Fleming and his calculation of the new date. Percy also gives the Hay Fleming explanation. I checked Wilson (2000) through the Amazon online reader and he gives c.1515. Only McCrie, Brown, and Innes gave the 1505 date which would fit with MacGregor's explanation. It would be really interesting if there is a modern source claiming that the earlier date is true.
• Concerning sources, in fact, I had added the sources that I had to the list of sources that were already there in the original uncited B-level version of the article. The sources I added to the list and used for the article are in order of priority: MacGregor, Percy, Brown, McCrie, Innes, and Whitley. As I have more-or-less completely rewritten the article, I should really remove from the list of references the sources that I did not use (for example, Guy, Wilson,…). At least that is what I would prefer to do, but at the time I wasn't sure if that was standard Wikipedia practice. It was through my rewrite that the Guy cite disappeared. The cite was used for the explanation of the fourth interview between Mary and Knox. I rewrote and expanded the paragraph based on MacGregor. I didn't feel comfortable about keeping the Guy cite as I do not have the source, so I simply replaced the original with the expanded text and cited MacGregor. There were no substantial differences other than additional detail.
• Concerning Schaff’s biases, as I didn’t use Schaff at all, there should be no problem (again I should remove the tertiary sources from the list). Since you mentioned potential biases entering into the article due to the sources used, I can give you some info about this. According to MacGregor, it was Andrew Lang's 1905 book that first tried to discredit the older traditional view of Knox (the hagiography age you mentioned). I don't have a copy of Lang at the moment but I can get it. Following Lang, biographies went either way in terms of their biases (either critical or supportive). The question is then are the biographies of the 50s-60s better or worse than the more recent ones. I don’t deny that there are probably better biographies than the ones I used. But the only two recent biographies that I can find some information, Wilson (2000) and Roderick Graham (2001), seem to be biased in favour of Knox. Of the sources that I did use, Whitley obviously favoured Knox, so I used her book the least. I tended to concentrate on MacGregor because he did not ignore Knox's faults. I used Percy next. The older books were used for supporting material because they are often more detailed. What I could do is to go through the article and try to replace Brown and McCrie cites with MacGregor and Percy. --RelHistBuff 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no need to do that where they cite that which is unexceptionable. But where I have been querying them, as on a couple of points below, it might be worth replacing them or simply contrasting with them.

I don't know if removing a cite because you don't have a book is a valid action. When I was working on the William Shakespeare article, I longed to do that, particularly because I had no shortage of sources to pick from myself. But where the source seemed respectable (academic presses), I had to leave them, since Wikipedia is a co-operative venture, even when I couldn't check them myself. One way to keep safe, though, is to double the ref with one that one does have. That way, one can be sure the information is correct without any need to remove previous citations. On the other hand, I am always in favour of replacing one reference with another to a better source, particularly where there is a clash. We have to give more recent scholars credit for subsuming previous research, which most of them do. On the whole, we can't use an outdated source to challenge a recent one.qp10qp 00:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On the date of birth, I don't have access to special databases, but it's easy enough to toss phrases into Google Books or Amazon to test basic statements. For fairly modern books that quote the 1505–1515 range, the following came up quite soon:

• B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History. (1984)
• Arthur. F. Kinney. Tudor England: an Encyclopedia. (2000)
• M. E. Wiesner-Hanks. Early Modern Europe, 1450–1789: Cambridge History of Europe. (2006)
• Michael. A, Mullet, Calvin. Routledge, 1989.

There are others. I'm not giving references for anything here, just showing that the basic statement "Most modern scholars now accept Hay Fleming's conclusion that Knox was born between 1513 and 1515" may be challenged. Perhaps most do accept it, but clearly some don't. I'm not saying that these authors believe that Knox was born in 1505; I'm saying that when they give the whole range of possibility, that's scholar-code for "inconclusive", or "I'm not prepared to commit myself". One might prefer to assume that the writers and editors of these particular books haven't been concentrating, but I don't think that's likely. It's not just Wikipedians who scrutinise dates of birth. One problem with using MacGregor as a reference for what modern scholars accept is that he's not that modern himself now; scholarship is always fluctuating.qp10qp 01:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I will restore the Guy cite and I will rework the birth date / birth place part (putting more into the notes). I think it would be necessary to cite those history books. I will look up the info in those books via Google or Amazon, but if you already have the bibliographic info and page numbers where the 1505-1515 range are asserted, then that will save me the effort. I may not be able to get to the work until after the weekend. Oh, by the way, should I remove sources from the list of references that are not used? Clearly Guy will stay in with new additions from the modern books to the list. But should I drop Wilson, Schaff, etc.? --RelHistBuff 10:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Guy is available on those booksearches, but I've got a copy, so I'll check him against the Mary interviews when I come to them. I'll get the full refs for the 1505-1515 range too. In fact, I can edit that bit, if you want me to.qp10qp 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. --RelHistBuff 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Date range expanded and details put into footnotes. --RelHistBuff 15:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that saves the reader unnecessary thought. There's a disjunction with the first sentence now, though. I've added to the notes three sources for the stretching of dates. They may not be placed or formatted as you would wish, so feel free to tidy them. qp10qp20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

University

• In my view, the following passage is too long and rather unclear.

Early biographies have stated that Knox proceeded to further studies in the priesthood at the University of Glasgow noting that a “John Knox” is recorded to have enrolled there in 1522. However, his name was quite common, and the identification of the Glasgow student as the reformer cannot be made with certainty. Modern biographies state that Knox enrolled at the University of St Andrews and studied under John Major, one of the greatest scholars of the time.

On casting about, I found that it's not only early biographers that support the idea that Knox studied under Major at Glasgow. In my opinion, this passage might better be simplified, with the academic discussions displaced to the notes: both because the readers don't really need to know about the latter, and because they are complex and, in my opinion, unresolved. "Educated at the University of St Andrews and possibly at the University of Glasgow" might cover the matter in the main text. qp10qp 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Used your formulation and added details in footnote. --RelHistBuff 15:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's neater, I think; and it covers all the bases. qp10qp 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Degree

• Marshall thinks he did have a degree. Beza seems to have thought so, too. It's possibly not as straightforward as the article suggests.qp10qp 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the paragraph says "suggest that he was never awarded a degree", doesn't that leave it the degree issue sufficiently open?--RelHistBuff 15:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to me. I would read that as the article endorsing the suggestion. qp10qp 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As this appears to be speculation, I removed it. --RelHistBuff 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton

• Hamilton's execution may have affected Knox in his early years as a priest. This seems vague. Did Knox leave an account of how Hamilton affected him? Hager, for example, describes the effect of Wishart's execution on Knox as strengthening his commitment to the reform movement and intensifying his hatred of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. qp10qp 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement is from MacGregor. Brown and McCrie also mention Hamilton, but no one mentions an explicit account of how Hamilton affected him. I haven't looked at the primary source, but I assume Knox wrote about Hamilton, but did not go any further on how he felt about him. Hager sounds pretty explicit though (I guess you meant Hamilton's not Wishart's execution here). --RelHistBuff 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant Wishart's. It's an example of how to word specific effects; I couldn't find any for Hamilton. In my opinion, the sentence is unhelpful in its present form. Yes, it may have affected him; but this doesn't tell us anything.qp10qp 19:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was never very happy with the section on Hamilton and even after it got expanded, I still find it unsatisfactory. I had dropped the text on Thomas Guillaume and I think Hamilton ought to be dropped as well and that section should go straight to Wishart's story.--RelHistBuff 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. qp10qp 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wishart

• Wishart was a reformer who had fled Scotland in 1538 to escape punishment for heresy. He first fled to England where he preached against the veneration of the Virgin Mary and under further persecution, he took refuge in Germany and Switzerland. This cries out for an explanation. What persecution did he receive in reformed England and why? qp10qp 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this source (19th Century book, online in MS word format), Wishart's persecution was linked to the anti-protestant backlash which ultimately claimed the life of Hugh Latimer. Lurker (said · done) 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Explanation has been included. --RelHistBuff 15:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Castle

• It is not clear from the article how the reformers got control of a castle. Perhaps there should be a word on how this happened. Should English support be mentioned here? And should there be a mention of the fact that this led to their being called the "Castilians"?

• We also perhaps need to be given more information about Knox's religious thought at this point. Apparently he was preaching and teaching that the Pope was the antichrist and that the mass was abominable. This fanatical, ranting side of his character doesn't come over much in the article. Jenny Wormauld (an excellent historian) says that he went further at this time than any previous reformer in Scotland. qp10qp02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I will add text on the English support. Percy and Brown mentioned that they were called Castilians but it wasn't stressed or detailed, just mentioned. Is there a significance to the name? Percy has details of his first sermons. --RelHistBuff 07:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've come across the term a lot. It means "those in the castle". The details about the English support and the tenor of his preaching are very useful addditions, I think. qp10qp 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical context

• I feel there's sometimes a need for historical perspective in the article. For example, we are told that Hamilton was a regent without being told why there was a need for one. Also, in the lead, we are told out of the blue that Mary of Guise was ousted. Since the conflict between Mary, Queen of Scots, and Knox is such a centrepiece of the article, might it not be good storytelling (at the least) to introduce her earlier, when she came to the throne as a baby and when she left for France?

• The lack of this context also means that it is not explained why Hamilton called the French and why they should have been interested in launching this mission. It might be worth mentioning the influence of the Guises in France at this time. It was very much in their interests to support their sister. They were the uncles of the queen of Scotland and took that seriously.

• I find the following extremely weak; and I see that it's only sourced to McCrie (1853). Are there not other theories?

It is uncertain how he obtained his liberty. It is probable that he was released because the French court no longer had any reason to fight the Scots. In April 1548, Mary Stuart, the Queen of Scotland, married the Dauphin François, the future King of France, Francis II, hence there was no longer any advantage to seek quarrels with the Scottish clergy.

John Guy, a very good historian, says flatly that "Somerset arranged for his release and safe conduct to London". Marshall says that Somerset conducted a prisoner exhange to get back the English military experts captured at St Andrews; and that Knox might have been included because he was weakened by his time in the galleys. As for the idea that he was released because the French no longer needed to fight the Scots, they never had been fighting the Scottish state, as such, but the reformers; and nothing much had changed there. The Scots were always the allies of the French, at least until Mary was chased out. qp10qp 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither MacGregor or Percy comments on this and simply mentions his release. I could do remove McCrie's theory and leaving only "It is uncertain how he obtained his liberty." Then I can add a footnote giving the theories by Guy and Marshall. I will need the reference info.--RelHistBuff 10:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, p. 39; Rosalind Marshall (2000), John Knox, Edinburgh: Berlinn, p. 30. qp10qp 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Those Bowes

• I thought some of the stuff about his in-laws, Marjorie, and his reasons for going back and forth between Scotland and France were unclear. The following raises a few questions:

In the meantime, Elizabeth Bowes wrote to tell him of her husband's death, asking him to return to Marjorie in Scotland, which he did at the end of August.<|ref>However, according to Percy 1964, p. 171, it was Sir Robert who died. Richard had supposedly withdrawn his objection.</ref|>

• You seem to be noting a difference between two sources here; but that isn't reflected in the actual text. It's important, because the article suggests that Richard Bowes didn't mention Marjory in his will because he still objected to the marriage (this is reffed to Raine, an 1853 source; surely scholarship will have had more to say on this since). As such this is a contradiction. The note even makes it unclear whether Richard died at all. If this can't be clarified, I suggest cutting the whole thing, as it's not very important.

The text that cites Raine and Richard Bowes's will was in the B-level version. Looking at the Raine footnote, it looks like speculation anyway. I will remove the Raine text. I will rework the text on Elizabeth's request for his return and then put both versions in the footnotes, rather than only one. --RelHistBuff 09:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that Marjorie and her mother went with Knox to Geneva the second time. The article doesn't mention that as such (though it mentions that his sons were born there). But it would shed light on the reason for the correspondence and friendship between Knox and Elizabeth, which is not given in the article. If Elizabeth was a keen Protestant or interested in consulting Knox about religious matters, this might explain why she would go as far as to accompany Knox to Geneva. If her husband had died, that might be another reason, because she would be on her own. But I am not clear from the article whether he died or not. qp10qp 00:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the first paragraph, it says that he left Scotland with his wife and mother-in-law. You are right though that this is not consistent with Percy's rendition that Robert Bowes died. He does not mention that Richard died. So in Percy's case, it is a mystery. But MacGregor's version is consistent in that she would have been left alone. As for Elizabeth's interest in consulting Knox on religious matters, this is recorded in several letters she had with Knox, although no source says that she accompanied Knox because she was a keen Protestant.--RelHistBuff 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The following passage is not particularly helpful, I suspect:

Shortly after Knox sent the letter to the queen regent, he suddenly announced that he felt his duty was to return to Geneva. Historians have puzzled over this as he was at the height of his influence with the Scottish nobility. A seemingly obvious reason was that in the previous year on 1 November 1555, the congregation in Geneva had elected Knox as their minister. However, the congregation was already well-served by another minister, Christopher Goodman, and Whittingham, Knox's friend from Frankfurt, served as elder. It may had been that he sensed personal danger or that he had realised that true reform would never occur under the power of a weak queen regent.

• Marshall gives a much simpler and sightly different account: she says that that he was invited to be the minister and returned to take up the post. She doesn't say anything about the year before or his not really being needed. Whether she is right, I don't know; but if she is, there would be no mystery. Either way, I don't think the weak analysis of motives helps here. If the readers are simply told that he went back to be the minister, I don't think they would ask themselves questions about his influence with the nobles, or whatever. (And I'd say that though your source might speculate that Knox thought "true reform would never happen under the power of a weak queen regent"; it might equally be thought that such a power would be an ideal one under which to forge a religious revolution—which is indeed what happened.) qp10qp 00:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting clearer. qp10qp 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me the page number from Marshall concerning Knox's return to Geneva? --RelHistBuff 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Marshall, pp. 85–86. qp10qp 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Misogyny

• I wonder if the lack of sources from the most recent decades of scholarship is a reason for the glossing over of Knox's misogyny in this article. The only mention is the following rather apologetic statement: Knox's prejudices against women were not unusual in his day; however, even he was aware that the pamphlet was dangerously seditious. I disagree; I think that Knox's prejudices against women went far beyond the usual for the day. I mean, the very title The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women is singularly intemperate. If Knox's views were so standard, why did England and Scotland allow queens to reign? Why were Mary of Guise and Catherine de' Medici appointed regents? Why were there queens of Navarre? Why were Mary of Habsburg and Margaret of Parma appointed governors of the Netherlands?

• Knox's pathological virulence as a tract writer (and presumably sermoniser) does not come across to me in this article. The best way to show this would be to include an extract from one or two of his tracts. Monstrous Regiment would serve the purpose. A short analyis of Knox's views on women rulers would benefit the article at that point, I believe, because it is not fully clear that his revolutionary stance towards Mary of Guise and Mary Stuart (and, on paper, towards Mary Tudor) was based on misogyny. He believed they could not make good rulers because of their natural defects; but this wasn't just a random opinion: he based it on those bible stories in which female readers such as Jezebel were overthrown for the good of the state. He believed it was an instruction from God that women should not be allowed to rule (in Elizabeth's case, he got round this by saying that God had made an exception for her because she was so godly). His misogyny was part of his theology. qp10qp 01:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you will have to help me here. If you have sources on Knox's misogyny, then would you be able to come up with the appropriate text? I make no personal assertions in this article; the apologetic statement came from MacGregor. In fact, he says that Knox was anything but a misogynist and "if he was prejudiced, his prejudice were those of the age he lived in". Percy is no help either because he says that the pamphlet was "not more violently phrased than was the fashion of the age, on a theme that was the universal commonplace of that age". I suspected that among biographers there would be two strong contradicting point-of-views on this even though I only had one side of the story. As I only had those two sources (I ignored the older sources at this point), I kept it at that minimum statement. --RelHistBuff 06:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if biographers are the best source for his political and religious thought. Of course, I fully understand that you are not stating your own view; however, by stating only certain views, the article develops a bias, which is to overlook the negative implications of Knox's words and behaviour. I am not saying that you need to include the word "misogyny" if you don't want to: "prejudice against women rulers" would do (the readers would then decide for themselves if that amounts to the same thing, which I believe it does). But John Guy says plainly that "Knox was a fanatic, a misogynist, and a prude" (page 177). If you want a particularly neat source, what about Kingdon, in The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700, pages 197–9 (see further down, under "iconoclasm", for the full details of the book)? Kingdon, for example (he says more), says: that The First Blast "is a real classic of misogyny" (a pithy spot quote that could even go in the text, in the form "has been called..."?). Kingdon (as do many scholars) goes through Knox's argument, based on biblical examples, for deposing women monarchs. I still think one of the notorious statements about women that Knox made in the First Blast should be quoted, so that readers can judge his views for themselves (the choice needn't be based on original thought, because plenty of secondary sources quote that work; it is the done thing to do so, in fact). qp10qp 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing "has been called 'a real classic of misogyny'" and using Kingdon as a cite sounds like a good idea. I will put that in as well as the quote that Kingdon uses from the pamphlet. However, I am somewhat taken aback at Guy's rather strong statement. Partly because Guy is not referring to the pamphlet which is clearly misogynistic, but to Knox himself. I would hesitate putting Guy's quote into the article. In any case, putting in Kingdon should bring in balance. --RelHistBuff 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Guy is entitled to make this judgement. But I agree that it's more judicious to call certain works or views misogynistic. I just mentioned Guy's statement as well to show that the use of the word is not uncommon.qp10qp 17:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Kingdon quote and cite and a quote from First Blast has been included. --RelHistBuff 15:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. This is well covered now. qp10qp 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Iconoclasm

• a small incident precipitated into a riot. What was this small incident? Was it iconoclastic? qp10qp 01:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• One aspect of the article's giving Knox, in my opinion, too easy a ride is its underestimation of his effect as a troublemaker. Everywhere he went (apart from Geneva itself, where Calvin kept control), he instantly stirred up trouble. Often this was armed trouble. One way to show this would be to mention the incidents of iconoclasm that followed him around in Scotland, with his followers smashing up anything they thought of as idols. This was destabilising and one of the reasons why armed conflicts quickly developed. I feel the article should point out the elements in his theology that justified violence and iconoclasm. (In fact, there needs to be more on his theology altogether, I would say.) qp10qp 01:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• According to MacGregor, the small incident involved a priest trying to celebrate Mass and a lad in the crowd that repeated some vitriolic phrase from Knox's sermon. The priest cuffed him on the ear whereupon the lad threw a stone at the priest. It missed and broke an image. This started the riot. The mob gutted the church and the riot proceeded involving looting and iconoclasm.
• I wasn't trying to give Knox an "easy ride". I was trying to keep the article from becoming too long. MacGregor does give an analysis of the violence that followed Knox, but again, it leaned toward one view (that Knox did not advocate violence, but he did not do enough to prevent it) and I was certain there was another view (that Knox did advocate violence). Putting in only MacGregor's analysis would have not been neutral, so I refrained from it. As you seem to have the sources on this subject, I will need help on this part. --RelHistBuff 07:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, even by his own account, Knox told Mary that monarchs who exceeded their power might be resisted by force (Retha. M. Warnicke , Mary Queen of Scots, Routledge, 2006; page 71. I have this book myself). qp10qp 14:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

He made it clear in a number of tracts that resistance was acceptable in certain circumstances. In Mary Tudor's case, he advocates that she should be executed—and if that doesn't condone violence, I don't know what does (a ref for that could be: Robert. M. Kingdon, "Knox and the anti-Marian Resistance", in J. H. Burns (ed.) The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450-1700,, CUP, 1994; page 199).

On the other hand, I can see what MacGregor is saying. Knox, like Luther, always distanced himself from the violence that he quite willfully and knowingly caused; but do we leave that distancing unchallenged? I think the article at least needs to mention the outbreaks of rioting and iconoclasm that followed Knox everywhere he preached during the Wars of the Congregation. He was preaching against "idolatry", one of his favourite words, and so it was obvious that his teaching would trigger the smashing of church fittings, which would in turn be followed by reactions from those defending them. About the Perth events, he said that the "brethren" had brought in the necessary change, without criticising their behaviour. However, he did later use the term "rascal multitude", which might be taken as disapproval. My opinion is that, like all revolutionaries, he believed that you have to break eggs before you can make an omelette. In this case, the eggs were the established Catholic churches. As a man of the pulpit, he could distance himself from their actual physical wrecking with preacherly double-talk. qp10qp 16:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe even in MacGregor's analysis, Knox was not excused, so I think I can get some meaningful text out of that source. I will see Percy has something to say on this as well. --RelHistBuff 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I put in text on the violence that occurred in Perth, St Andrews, and Edinburgh. --RelHistBuff 12:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Really good. I think that with the misogyny, these edits go some way to balancing the treatment of Knox. qp10qp 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Knox and Queen Mary

• I found the following paragraph not really to the point:

On 13 December, Knox gave a sermon that alluded to a comparison of the queen with Nero. Mary sent for him again. This time, her advisors, James Stewart, William Maitland, and James Douglas were present. Knox explained the meaning of the sermon and asked if anyone present heard him say anything more than what he now presented. No one responded. Mary accepted his explanation and stated that she did not blame Knox for the differences of opinion. She asked that he come to her directly if he heard anything about her that he disliked. Despite her friendly gesture, Knox replied that he would continue to voice his convictions in his sermons and would not wait upon her.

This is roundabout and doesn't really deal with the issues themselves. Another thing is that I am finding it hard to map these first two interviews in exactly the way you have presented them. No one else seems to bother to mention two interviews at this point, and I'm interested to date the reference to Nero because, according to Guy and Warnicke, Mary summoned Knox on 4 September and Knox mentioned the Paul-Nero analogy during that interview (Warnicke, 71; Guy, 142). But the article doesn't mention Nero at this point and says that Mary summoned Knox on December 13 because he had mentioned Nero in a sermon then. Some crucial exchanges took place in the September interview, for example, Knox says, "If princes exceed their bounds and do against that wherefore they should be obeyed, it is no doubt but they may be resisted, even by power" (quoted by Guy, page 142). And the Paul-Nero point. By comparison, the passage above says little, in my opinion, and the Nero mention makes it overlap confusingly, I think. It just says more or less that he arrived, they agreed to differ, and he left. qp10qp 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• As I don't have a copy of Guy, I took a second look at MacGregor and also Knox's History which is the source for both Guy and MacGregor. It turns out that while the resistance quote is in MacGregor, the Paul-Nero quote is not. MacGregor devotes 10 pages just on the first interview alone, but he portrayed the conversation between Knox and Mary as cordial, so the original paragraph on the first interview just ended with the agreement to differ. I was curious about the missing Paul-Nero quote, however. But looking at the History, one can easily see that giving just the two quotes (Paul-Nero and resistance) is rather misleading. Knox said right after the Paul-Nero quote that he would accept Mary's authority "so long as that ye defile not your hands with the blood of the saints of God". Right after the resistance quote, Knox said, "For there is neither greater honor nor greater obedience to be given to kings or princes than God has commanded to be given unto father and mother. But so it is, Madam, that the father may be stricken with a frenzy, in the which he would slay his own children. Now, Madam, if the children arise, join themselves together, apprehend the father, take the sword or other weapons from him, and finally bind his hands and keep him in prison till that his frenzy be overpast; think ye, Madam, that God will be offended with them that have stayed their father to commit wickedness?" The two quotes if taken out of context of the long conversation appears to make Knox look worse than he should. I think what can be done is to keep what Guy wrote, but to add more from MacGregor. Or perhaps even better is to give a longer summary and avoid the quotes.
• The second interview also has a Nero allusion but it was in a sermon. Knox referred to "fiddling and flinging". The original paragraph can be shortened, however. I think the second interview is important in showing that Mary attempted a friendly gesture which was more-or-less rejected by Knox. --RelHistBuff 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to what you say above, I still can't follow the way you are reporting the initial interview(s). What do you mean by the second interview? 13 December? This is not given in any of my sources, and your paragraph that you have reinstated tells me nothing of significance and nothing that will even help me look it up. I can't find it in my sources and I can't find it in Knox. "Fiddling and flinging" is not part of any interview between Mary and Knox, as far as I can see. This is how the article had it before I added the authority and Nero quotes to the article's brief account of the first interview:

The following Sunday, he protested through the pulpit of St Giles'. This prompted Mary to summon Knox, just two weeks after her arrival. In this first exchange, Mary defended the Church of Rome while Knox expounded on reformed doctrine. When Knox finished his sermon, he respectfully took his leave.[76]

On 13 December, in an open denunciation, he gave a sermon that alluded to a comparison of the queen with Nero. Mary immediately summoned Knox again. This time it was more like a trial as her advisors, James Stewart, William Maitland, and James Douglas were present. Knox explained the meaning of the sermon and asked if anyone present heard him say anything more than what he now presented. etc....

I simply cannot work this out. You have suggested that the quotes I gave are misleading, but this is the emphasis in the sources, which cut through Knox's blather to the key points: For example, Warnicke treats it this way: "According to Knox's account of the interview, which only Lord James witnessed, Mary accused him of inciting a rebellion against her mother and of writing a book against her own authority. He responded it was his duty to disclose the tyranny of the pope, the Antichrist, and while he detested female rule, as long as her subjects found hers convenient, he was willing to accept her governance, noting that Paul had been willing to live under Nero's rule. Knox also remarked that if monarchs exceeded their lawful limits, they might be resisted, even by force." In other words, Warnicke goes straight to the core. She makes no mention of this "second" interview on the 13 December, which you give so much prominence. qp10qp 22:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• According to MacGregor, there was a first interview within two weeks after Mary's return and there was a second interview on 13 December. I will try to write out the details here on this talk page for discussion and then perhaps we can work out a summary. I am not trying to give it prominence.
• Concerning the first interview, I like Warnicke's formulation, "while he detested female rule, as long as her subjects found hers convenient, he was willing to accept her governance, noting that Paul had been willing to live under Nero's rule." I will get back to this following the weekend.--RelHistBuff 09:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That was from Warnicke, p. 71. I cannot find mention of the 13 December interview in Warnicke, Guy, or in Wormald's Mary, Queen of Scots or her Court, Kirk, and Community: Scotland, 1470-1625. That isn't to say that it doesn't exist, but I've ground my way through that part of Knox twice now and can't find it there...perhaps he has put it out of sequence somewhere else, or it may just be me (it's a difficult source to read). It seems odd that we should focus on it when, for the most part (I haven't got MacGregor) books don't seem to. You say you are not giving it prominence, but my quote above shows that originally the first interview was only touched on and this second one had a paragraph.qp10qp 13:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the original version of the first interview, there was a lot of conversation, but MacGregor made it seem cordial (and it did not include the Paul-Nero analogy). So I probably read it too fast, and as a result, I made the summary short. Clearly, too short and I agree it does need to be expanded as you have already done (with the additional cite to Warnicke). I think additional points could also be added from MacGregor. Concerning the second interview, I originally made it a paragraph, but there was no intention to make it any more prominent than the other interviews. In the second interview there is a quote from Mary: "I know that my uncles and ye are not of one religion, and yet I cannot blame you albeit you have no good opinion of them. But if ye hear anything of myself that mislikes you, come to myself and tell me, and I shall hear you." The fact that the interview is missing is mysterious though and I will also search through that part of Knox. If the second interview did take place, then I can write out the details as given by MacGregor and perhaps we can make a short paragraph on it. If it is not in the source, then it is better to drop it. --RelHistBuff 10:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The mystery is solved. I did not include the year 1562. The interview occurred a year later. The second interview is in Knox's History. I will try to expand the first interview as it is more important and reduce the second. --RelHistBuff 16:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I was looking in 1561, obviously, because that was the way it was presented in the article.qp10qp 17:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I modified the first interview using input from Warnicke and MacGregor. On the second interview, by looking at the source, it turns out the fiddling association to Nero is speculation. I instead used MacGregor's description of events that triggered the sermon.--RelHistBuff 16:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, though he was acquitted, he was tried for conspiracy to raise a tumult; in effect, his call for two Calvinist prisoners to be forcefully freed could be seen as a call to arms against the crown (Guy, page 187). The account in the article merely says that Knox sent out letters asking for a discussion (does this come under the MacGregor reference at the end of the paragraph?). qp10qp 18:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the whole paragraph was derived from MacGregor. According to him, Knox was tried for "unauthorised convocation of the queen's lieges". I assume this is what Guy refers to a "conspiracy to raise a tumult". MacGregor also gave the information on Knox's letters and Mary obtaining a copy.
• I am not sure why Guy referred to the conspirators as "Calvinists". I am fairly certain that that term was not used at the time. I don't think anyone would have known if the prisoners agreed on Calvin's points of doctrine. MacGregor called them "ringleaders" and "burgesses of Edinburgh". To be frank, I much prefer the original paragraph. It had the additional element of the nobles (Stewart and Maitland) attempting to intervene with Knox refusing. --RelHistBuff 17:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, of course, change any of my edits that you disagree with. Rather than reverting, however, I hope that we can reflect both versions. "Calvinists" doesn't matter to me in itself, but I did think the passage occasionally gave superfluous information, as in the names and jobs of the two men. And I thought the "convocation of lieges" was a difficult piece of old jargon, which in Knox's account is used before the hearing but not during it, where we have "convocation of...subjects" and conspiring to "raise a tumult". I don't think the legalistic niceties ever came to a point (Knox was asked to explain himself rather than charged with anything); Warnicke doesn't regard this as a trial as such but "a meeting in the presence of the queen for which his reminiscences are the only transcript, as the register lacks references to it." I felt the section on Mary and Knox needed cutting to the three most famous encounters: the debate about power, the confrontation about the marriage, and the accusation of illegally convening subjects of the Queen. The rest felt to me inessential. qp10qp 18:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try to work out a version of the fifth interview and cite it with both sources. --RelHistBuff 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated the paragraph and cited to Guy and MacGregor. I still have to put Warnicke in the Reference section for the Harvard referencing to work. --RelHistBuff 15:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• He was born a peasant. I'm not used to seeing the word "peasant" in the British context at this time. How many sources use it? And are we quite sure about this background? I suspect his parents may have been of humble means but aspiring. What sources I can find seem inconclusive. Is there any evidence? qp10qp 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at the sources again. The wording might have come from me. English is not my first language and I may have mixed the meaning of the English word "peasant" with the French word paysan. --RelHistBuff 11:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The word peasant could have come from the 1911 Britannica, which says "William Knox was "simple," not "gentle"- perhaps a prosperous East Lothian peasant." I'd delete the word "peasant". Lurker (said · done)17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I used "farmer" for William Knox in the first section. I dropped it from the lead section. --RelHistBuff 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• First picture: there's a convention that portraits should look into a page rather than out of it. I am uncomfortable with the way the first Knox portrait leads the eye off the page.qp10qp 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I will move it to the other side. --RelHistBuff 11:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks so much better. But I should warn you that not everyone on Wikipedia would agree with me. Have a look at an FAC discussion of the issue here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Priestley. qp10qp 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It definitely looks better. Hopefully Joseph Priestley will blaze the trail concerning lead section portraits.--RelHistBuff 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• It would be nice to see the portraits dated, since they aren't contemporary (apart from the Beza page). They romanticise Knox somewhat, and that bias needs to be balanced by dating, I feel.qp10qp 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I will check on the details of the portraits. I don't think the dates are known, but whatever details I have, I will add to the notes.--RelHistBuff 11:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• The decision to use names, without titles, is not one I would have made. For example, the regent James Douglas, after being introduced, is mostly called "Morton" in my history books. This is just a style choice, I suppose, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it challenged at FAC.qp10qp

Each source referred to the nobles in different ways. For example, Hamilton was referred to as "Regent Arran", "Earl of Arran", and "Châtellerault", in addition to his name. Sometimes a single source would use different titles in different sections to refer to the same person. This was terribly confusing, so I basically adopted the naming convention for non-royals which is indicated by the name firstly. What I could do is to add their titles at the first mention of their names. --RelHistBuff 11:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuts I have made

• I am making a few cuts to help get the article down in size a little. When I have finished, I will place referenced cuts here for scrutiny, in case someone feels that they need to go back in. qp10qp 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On 13 December, Knox gave a sermon that alluded to a comparison of the queen with Nero. Mary sent for him again. This time, her advisors, James Stewart, William Maitland, and James Douglas were present. Knox explained the meaning of the sermon and asked if anyone present heard him say anything more than what he now presented. No one responded. Mary accepted his explanation and stated that she did not blame Knox for the differences of opinion. She asked that he come to her directly if he heard anything about her that he disliked. Despite her friendly gesture, Knox replied that he would continue to voice his convictions in his sermons and would not wait upon her.

(Second interview) I will go back to source and try to figure out the differences between the first and second interviews and the Nero allusion.--RelHistBuff 11:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See above in previous section --RelHistBuff 15:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

During Easter in 1563, some of the Roman priests celebrated Mass, thus defying the law. As the queen had done nothing on this matter, some Protestants tried to enforce the law themselves by apprehending some priests in Ayrshire. This prompted Mary to summon Knox for the third time. She asked Knox to use his influence to promote religious toleration. He defended their actions using Biblical examples and noted she is bound to uphold the laws and if she did not, others would. She broke off the conversation, but the very next day, she surprised Knox by agreeing that the priests be brought to justice. She kept her word and on 19 May, 48 priests including the former primate of Scotland were tried and placed in custody.

(Third interview) Perhaps this could be shortened and brought back. Although this interview appears minor, it shows that Mary was trying to work with Knox. She said to Knox as such in the fourth interview, "I have sought your favours by all possible means." I believe this interplay between Knox and Mary is of interest to the reader. This also shows something of the character of Knox in that unlike the nobles, he was not easily charmed by Mary, the result as can be seen in his sermon leading up to the fourth interview. --RelHistBuff 11:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand, to be honest. As far as showing that Knox was not easily charmed by Mary is concerned, where does it show that? His criticisms of her were so extreme that I never thought for a second that he was charmed by her. Also, he is our only source for these interviews, and I don't think we should overprivilege his presentation of himself. The section seems to me to have got soggy again by straying from essentials.qp10qp 23:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One week after this incident, Parliament met in the presence of Mary. Knox was expecting that Parliament would act on the Book of Discipline. He was told that nothing would be done because the Queen would soon be marrying and only afterwards would action be taken on the position of the Kirk.

(from the fourth interview) Yes, this part could be dropped. --RelHistBuff 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

I am copyediting it at the moment. Might take me a couple more days. qp10qp 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Finished. qp10qp 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pause for breath

Just a couple of points I'd like to make about my current copyedit and review. I'm going to have to slow down a bit, because RL is going to take up some time in the next few days. But I fully intend to complete the copyedit (Legacy and Lead still to do) and the review. And I will do the edits promised above and will post all referenced cut material on this talk page that I haven't done so far.

In case my efforts come across as rather critical, may I just explain that this is my way of being interested. I would not bother if I didn't respect RElHistBuff's work and the quality of this article. If a reasonable number of my points are addressed, I will definitely support at FAC. Whatever happens, I won't oppose. I am just horribly fussy. qp10qp 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I am way behind you in any case, so the pause will give me a chance to catch up. I've taken care of Birth, University, Hamilton, and Misogyny, I believe. I will work step-by-step on the rest of your points. Thanks very much for your time and efforts!--RelHistBuff 23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ready to go?

I think this is ready for FAC. I will support, for sure.

Two tiny things:

• "calling nobles to convene in order to discuss the matter". Wasn't it slightly stronger than that? Didn't he want them to support the two detainees?

On the content of the letter, MacGregor seems to say the letter spoke in general terms. He said, "On October 8 he sent out letters to key places throughout Scotland, spreading news of the forthcoming trial of two Protestant burgesses, and summoning all who were concerned to preserve the Kirk against the evident danger." He then quoted Knox where he said, "And albeit there were no great danger, yet cannot our assembly be unprofitable; for many things require consultation, which cannot be had unless the wisest and godliest convene." It was from the word "consultation" that I paraphrased it to "discuss the matter". I will drop the paraphrase, but the dependent clause "In order to defend these men..." is still there. Looking at Knox's complete letter in his History, he did not make a explicit call for action other than defending the Kirk. I assume just making a convocation was considered to be illegal. Ruthven supposedly made a counterargument that Knox convenes the nobles regularly for sermons so it wasn't a clear matter of treason. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Someone will point out that some ISBNs are given and not others. There's no obligation to give them, but the listing should be consistent. If you can face a boring task, I suggest you add the ISBNs. For me, the quickest way to do this is by searching at [1]. This site will also give you OCLCs for the old books that don't have ISBNs; in my opinion, these are good to add as hyperlinks because the reader can then click straight to the book details (that's the way I do it, anyway, as at Catherine de' Medici's building projects).qp10qp (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will check again on the last interview, add the ISBNs, and then put it on the FAC queue tomorrow.--RelHistBuff (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Presbyterianism

This article raises an important issue which merits discussion. It describes Knox as a founder of Presybterianism. But according to one account, Smout's "History of the Scottish People", the organisation of the Church of Scotland in Knox's day was really "congregationalism with a dash of episcopacy", the real founder of presbyterianism in Scotland was Andrew Melville. Any comments? PatGallacher (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn’t quite say that Knox founded “Presbyterianism”. It says “Presbyterian denomination” and for that, one has to examine the word, “Presbyterian”. If one uses the adjective only to refer to the form of government, then in that strict definition, Melville was the person largely responsible. However, the meaning of the adjective has evolved to refer to the whole of the denomination (i.e., its Reformed theology, its anglophone members, its worldwide distribution, and its polity). Given that, the Presbyterian denomination was founded by the iconic Knox (as supported by the cite). It is a fine line, but rather than spelling out the different connotations of the word “Presbyterian” in this article, I believe that would be better done in the Andrew Melville article. I hope to work on that article some day soon.--RelHistBuff (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a cite which is the Christianity Today article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very good cite, we need a better examination of this issue. The best I have seen is T.C. Smout's "History of the Scottish People", but there ought to be better in Church history's of the period. Is there no recent serious history of the Scottish Reformation?PatGallacher (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really an issue of the history of the period during the Scottish Reformation, but it is more of what current Presbyterians ("his spiritual progeny" according to the article) consider who is (or are) their founder(s). Anyway, I take your point and I will look for a better cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many possible cites, so I just took two. I did add a further note on Melville. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger

I was under the impression that Chrono Trigger was to be on the main page today, so why is this old dead uninteresting guy up instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.97.167 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Old, yes. Dead, yes. Uninteresting - well, we'll see if Chrono Trigger is remembered in 500 years. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for a list of upcoming dates and the featured article discussions. Tempshill (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of section

This has just been removed:

The Parliament did not approve the plan, however, mainly for reasons of finance. The Kirk was to be financed out of the patrimony of the Roman Church in Scotland. Much of this was now in the hands of the nobles, who were reluctant to give up their possessions. A final decision on the plan was delayed because of the impending return of Mary Stuart, the queen of Scotland.

Why? Is this information seriously disputed? Which bit(s) are inaccurate? --Mais oui! (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

St John the Baptist Church

Are we sure we're mentioning the correct church? This is the Scottish Episcopal Church, which isn't the St John's Kirk where Knox preached. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The church name is from the source, MacGregor. I found the St John's Kirk website sometime ago when I was searching for a photo. The story of what happened at the church ties in with the source information. I also found your photo on wiki in which you claim it is a photo of St John's Kirk. So instead of asking the church for permission to use their photo, I used yours instead. Later I dropped it from the article as someone reviewing the article noted that it had too many building photos. Then you put the photo back in. I didn't do anything because it wasn't a big deal. Note that there are at least three St John the Baptist's, one is the Scottish Episcopal church you mentioned on Princes Street, another is a Catholic church on Melville Street, and the third is the Church of Scotland church (the one where John Knox preached) on St John Street. Is the church in the photo you took the same church as St Johns Kirk? If not, then I will remove the photo and you should update your image description page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My photo is definitely of St Johns Kirk (see image in the top right of page). -Dudesleeper / Talk 19:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything is fine then... well, nearly, when the vandalism stops. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Theology

Did he have one, or did he just roam about mingling with bigwigs? Said: Rursus ☻ 09:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For this excellent article. It has a smooth flow, covers everything important that happened in his life with excellent descriptions, and is very interesting to read. Thanks to whoever put work into this article 77.250.25.165 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

neutrality?

in the condensed story of his life at the beginning of the article where it says: Eventually, when she was imprisoned and James VI enthroned in her stead, he openly ridiculed her in sermons. He continued to preach until his final days. This seems to be a little siding on the "he was bigoted" side of things. Please review this and see wether it should be changed or not. thank you 190.152.16.82 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, according to the sources he called for the death penalty. I replaced that part of the text. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)