Talk:Thomas Haweis

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

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I have studied Thomas Haweis, his life and work, for 40 years. Research in original archive documents - which Wikipedia rules prohibit being used in this biography, which must clearly mean that this article must perforce be inadequate to its subject - clearly show his pivotal roles (1) as Principal Trustee to the Countess of Huntingdon in establishing two cghurches which subsist to this day: the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion and the Free Church of England. He also played a pivotal role in the creating of the [London] Missionary Society. As indicated in the article, except where specific references are give, all of the information here is to be found in the works of Bishops Vaughan and Fenwick - check those before condemning my sources!----

issues to work on[edit]

As the author claims above, he is studying Haweis for 40 years. This makes it more than likely that some of the information used is never published before en so in conflict with Wikipedia:No original research. Especially because there is only one primary source to work on (as stated in the conclusion). In the present form the article is not good enough for Wikipedia. An article that is working towards a conclusion is probably good enough for a scientific magazine but not for an encyclopedia. Just the bare facts are good enough, stories and conclusions are not desired. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that the article is "working towards a conclusion". It isn't. Most of it is a straightforward retelling of Haweis's biography. Until I changed it, the article had a final section titled "Conclusion", but it wasn't really a conclusion in the usual sense that it winds up the threads of the text, presenting a new interpretation of the subject, as a conclusion is expected to do. It was more in the nature of a short historiographical section. The title was problematic and I changed to "Historiography". Did your multiple issues tag really help the author in seeing what the issue was? No, it did not.

The article does not state that there is only one primary source for Haweis, as you claim. It states that there is only one biography, by which the author obviously means only one book-length biography, the one by A.S. Wood from 1957 (the article misstated the name as "Wright", but it has now been corrected). There is also the entry in the ODNB, as I pointed out in my edit comment when I removed your "multiple issues" tag. Do you even know what the term "primary source" means? Obviously not.

The article has three sources, one of which is Wood's biography mentioned above, with the other ones being the books by Fenwick and Vaughan. Neither is a primary source for Haweis's biography (for that they are to be classified as secondary sources). Without actually checking the article against the sources, this degree of sourcing looks pretty good and I see no reason for any tag complaining about that.

You claim above that the author's familiarity with the subject makes Wikipedia:No original research likely. There is no reason to assume this. Neither of us can really tell without checking the sources, but then that is true for all Wikipedia articles. Are you going to put that tag on every article?

This type of aggressive tagging is not at all helpful for new users, nor is it really of any use for Wikipedia. The article can certainly be improved, but so can most Wikipedia articles, and tagging the hell out of a new article is far more likely to alienate an article author than anything else. If you really find this article unsuitable, I suggest that you nominate it for deletion rather than putting another stinking pile of badly-motivated tags on top of it. --Hegvald (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And do you think your aggressive counterattacking is useful? Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. It will have been useful if it makes you think twice the next time you consider putting a huge pile of unexplained and mostly undeserved tags on a new article by a new user. --Hegvald (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmina Christo[edit]

Google Books has a scan of a book of music, entitled Carmina Christo, or Hymns to the Savior, Designed for the Edification and Comfort of Those who Worship the Lamb that was Slain. It has 27 numbered pages, with 17 "hymns" (music and words), one of them a set piece. Temperley's Hymn Tune Index confirms this, dates the book to 1791, and furthermore has no second edition. HTI lists 24 musical compositions by Haweis. Haweis also published another book in 1792 with the same title (unfortunately), consisting of the words to hymns (referred to in the current text), which does have a second edition. These three books with the same title need to be distinguished. Bcjohnston (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]