Talk:Thomas Helwys
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Anabaptist work group. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] 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? DWaterson 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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! Yozzer66 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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. DWaterson 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
