Battle of Middle Boggy Depot

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Anglicanism Low‑importance 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as High-importance). Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I would think that an article on a religious sect would mention if they petered out, transfiormed into another sect still around today, etc. Nothing of that sort here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.25.72 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Levellers because they were not "English Dissenters were English Christians who separated from the Church of England.", they were a group which consisted of many English Dissenter groups and others who believed in a political revolution, not a religious one. It would be like including the Labour party in such a list because many of the founders were from religious groups like the Methodists. --PBS (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be mentioned in this article of the views put forward in some reliable sources that "many of these sects were but a creation of a sensational press in the early 1650s" See page 35 in Blasphemy by David A. Lawton.

Can someone write something about the history of their persecution, and its repeal, such as Charles James Fox's attempts to repeal the Test Acts? Hgrosser (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian, Arian, English Presbyterian, Presbyterians in general -- other groups need a mention! BrainyBabe (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO these two things are so closely intertwined, that its pointless to have two articles, when we can have one thorough centralised article on the topic. They are interchangeable terms. I just wanted to see if anybody would "dissent" (pun intended) from the merge first? - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct procedure is to put a merge template on the page itself. See Help:Merging. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the 16th century Dutch mystic Hendrik Niclaes currently redirects to the 20th century entrepreneur Henry Nicholas (also true of his link in the Wikipedia article "List of Christian Mystics); has the information about the mystic been deleted? Noted that his followers "would not discuss their ideas and opinions with outsiders and sought to remain undetected by ordinary members of society"; are they still around, and still seeing to it that the ideas of Hendrik Niclaes remain a secret? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.173.41 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following description:

"the term Anabaptist was often used to describe sects who seemed to hold or practiced believers baptism or baptism by immersion by their opponents."

makes no sense. I'd edit it, but I honestly don't know what it's trying to say! It looks like part of the sentence was cut out. It should be fixed, but, barring that, it should be removed, as it detracts from the rest of the article.

--Ge0nk (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That text goes all the way back to the first revision of British Anabaptism, which I incorporated here. I have no idea what it ought to say :-( RossPatterson (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RossPatterson When you copied text from other articles as you did here at 17:23, 29 May 2011, you ought to try to meet the minimum requirements of the WP:Copying within Wikipedia which says "If material has been contributed by more than one author, providing a link in the edit summary is the simplest method of providing attribution." your editorial comment "Flesh out the skeletal listings a bit with a key paragraph or two lifted and lightly editted from their main articles." does not meet that minimum requirement. Also if you copy text from an article which has short citations make sure that you copy over the long citation (usually in the references section) which was not done for the text copied from the Diggers article. -- PBS (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and his book were the most popular expression of these guys. Needs some treatment in the article. — LlywelynII 01:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English Dissenters. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219193319/http://exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/seekers.html to http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/seekers.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the section Diggers because they were a political dissenters and not a religious dissenters, although many of them may have also been individually members of a religious dissenters grouping. For example William Everard (one of their leaders) went on to be a Ranter. -- PBS (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]