This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nottinghamshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Nottingham and
Nottinghamshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NottinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject NottinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject NottinghamshireNottinghamshire articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
POV tag added
Oh dear. I'm not sure whether to revert
this rewrite of the article or not; on the one hand it introduces lots of new information about the subject, but on the other it's horrendously
POV-ridden, using completely inappropriate terms such as "victim", "bravely", "courageous", &c. Could an editor who is familiar with the subject matter do a thorough POV cleanup?
DWaterson00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Is it unreasonable, or even 'POV-ridden', to describe a man who died in prison soley because of his religious beliefs as a 'victim' of state persecution? Also, given that a Baptist had recently been burnt at the stake for 'heresy', surely it is beyond dispute that Helwys descision to return from exile was 'brave'? Of course, it is possible to write about extra-ordinary lives in such a dry way as to minimise their significance, but I would argue that THIS would have call into question the neutrality of the author!
Yozzer6613:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, official
Wikipedia policy indicates that all editors should write in as dispassionate, neutral, and objective a manner as possible. This allows the facts to speak for themselves, and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions without being lectured to. As I said above, your edit was very helpful in providing new information on the subject, but it would be helpful if you could go through and tone down your language somewhat. As a guide, perhaps you might like to read
this tutorial and the
policy guidelines. Thanks.
DWaterson21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Thomas Helwys. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.