Jump to content

Talk:John Stott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.160.89.97 (talk) at 04:13, 28 February 2019 (→Revert war regarding references). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

POV phrasing

Surely "committed his life to Christ" is POV. "Decided to commit his energies to evangelical christianity" might be better. BrendanH 14:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, I couldn't think how best to phrase it when I wrote it... I'll change it Sparticus 14:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The word "priest"

I wonder whether it might be better to describe him as something other than a 'priest'. Although priest is a common term for people of his office in the anglican church, it's one that many evangelicals - including quite probably him - would not be comfortable with. Is there not a more neutral term? Theology John 19:05, 21 Mar 2006 (GMT)

Fair point. I've amended to "presbyter". The Wednesday Island 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Maybe I'm being really stupid, but I'm not quite sure what the author's getting at in the section "early evangelical experience" with the phrase "where the executive committee that ran it considered him too invaluable a person to be asked to commit his time by joining the executive committee." Was he on the committee or not? Did they decide they must have him or that he was too insignificant in an individual to even consider for the committee or that he was too significant to consider wasting his time on a committee? Either way it seems POV to me unless someone can find a quote from a committee member at the time attesting to his invaluability (whichever form that takes). 163.1.64.145 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Invaluable" needs to be defined, and by whom the value was perceived? At first it seemed the phrase was a way of saying "he probably has better things to do with his time" but it might be more clearly written. drdarrow (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

An unregistered user made two edits adding unsourced contentious material. I've reverted these as they aren't beneficial to a well-written and referenced article. If the editor reads this, please register so we can talk to you and work together to improve wikipedia. Sidefall (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ministerial controversy

Given the considerable controversy generated by the Nottingham Statement, both in and outside of Anglican circles, I have included a short referenced section under ministry. The later tentative and rather vague references to this under 'controversy' are neither clear nor prominent enough, given its later significance, as Iain Murray's work indicates. It represents a significant, formal and public change of stance from the Thirty-Nine Articles, especially articles XIX, XX, XXII, XXV, XXVIII, XXX, and XXXI [1]. Cpsoper (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Stott. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Stott. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conscientious objector registration

@Walter Görlitz: Whereabout in that new reference you provided does it indicate that Stott registered as a conscientious objector? I can't seem to find it. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google says it's there, but I couldn't find it either, so I'll remove it. There are other hits on Google for "registered conscientious objector". More without the quotes. Also, you did not correctly add the dubious tag. You were to create a talk section, and you failed to. Let's use [2] and [3]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: Also, you did not correctly add the dubious tag. You were to create a talk section, and you failed to. The template documentation actually refers to it as a 'suggestion' so, with respect, the lack of a section on the talk page does not make the tag's addition 'incorrect'. I'm not sure where this aggressive tone is coming from.
But onto the matter at hand. Looking at more exhaustive sources on Stott's life, I don't know that that claim is substantiated. Steer 2009, ch. 2–3, discusses that period of Stott's life. From my reading of it, while Stott considered registration as a conscientious objector when he was not yet certain he would seek ordination, eventually he claimed to the Bishop of Coventry that he had his parents' acceptance in becoming an ordinand and, as such, the bishop accepted him and Stott was exempted from religious service, a status that would apply irrespective of his views on the morality of violence or war (Steer 2009, p. 45: "The result was that, since he was training for ordination, the British government gave John exemption from military service and he never needed to go before a tribunal as a conscientious objector."). While Stott's father was going to pull financial support, he eventually consented begrudgingly (Steer 2009, p. 48).
What do you make of it? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the template links to the talk page and if there's nowhere to talk... I may just go update the template documentation.
Based on your findings, we should remove "registered". His conscientious objector is not at issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term conscientious objector is a legal one. Are you suggesting the term is synonymous with pacifist? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. The references state that he was a conscientious objector. The sources also state that he reversed his opinion on whether he should or should not have been. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you distinguish between the terms conscientious objector and pacifist? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, regarding the other sources (one of which appears to be self-published), it would appear that we are in agreement that the information in them concerning Stott's being a conscientious objector ("having been excused national service as a conscientious objector"; "he signed up as a conscientious objector") is false. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How I distinguish them is immaterial. I don't believe that they are false. I will rely on the sources. If you would like to take the sources to WP:RSN, I won't stand in your way. As it stands, we have sources that call Stott the former. Do you have sources that call Stott the latter? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: How I distinguish them is immaterial. It's perfectly material. We are using these terms in Wikipedia's own voice – not merely in a quotation – so it's fair to ask what we mean by a term before we use it, provided it's not self-evident in the source (and given that you understand the term very as having a very different meaning than I do, presumably you would argue that it is not as self-evident as I might have believed). So what do you mean by conscientious objector and how is that different from your understanding of the term pacifist if at all?
I don't believe that they are false. Is that to say you are arguing that Stott was "excused national service as a conscientious objector [emphasis added]" and that he "signed up as a conscientious objector [emphasis added]" in spite of the information we have to the contrary?
I will rely on the sources. If you would like to take the sources to WP:RSN, I won't stand in your way. The issue is not that The Guardian is an inherently unreliable newspaper. As the guideline WP:NEWSORG provides, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors". Are you arguing that Steer 2009 – and Chapman 2012 and other more exhaustive sources – are not to be relied upon?
Do you have sources that call Stott the latter? … it's well known that Stott was a pacifist for that period of his life. If you do not want to do a ten-second Google search, I would point you to the three full-length biographies cited in the article that address Stott's life prior to his ordination: Chapman 2012, pp. 19–23 (under the heading "The Pacifist"), Dudley-Smith 1999, p. 110, ch. 7 (titled "Towards Ordination: 'An Instinctive Pacifist'"), and Steer 2009, pp. 7, 37, 45, 48–49. He was literally a member of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship (Steer 2009, p. 48). I trust we're on the same page here? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your approaches seem reasonable. It's too bad your behaviour isn't. No we're not on the same page. If you want to tag the article, feel free. I'm not sure why you don't simply supply the correct sources and the wording that you want since you clearly would rather bait and taunt my actions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: With respect, there is no baiting. And I supplied the "correct sources" in my second comment. (It wasn't in my first comment because I genuinely thought I might have missed the relevant passage in the 432-page document that you have since said that you did not look at before citing.) If "we're not on the same page", let's work toward building a consensus. My proposal would be to remove the incorrect sentence. So where do my "approaches" lead to an incorrect conclusion? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having not heard back, I will remove the sentence accordingly. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Works cited

Chapman, Alister (2012). Godly Ambition: John Stott and the Evangelical Movement. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199773978.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-977397-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Dudley-Smith, Timothy (1999). John Stott: The Making of a Leader. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press. ISBN 978-0-85111-757-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Steer, Roger (2009). Basic Christian: The Inside Story of John Stott. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press (published 2010). ISBN 978-0-8308-3846-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Hell

Three quotes from the source signifying the commonly held Anglican view of Hell as a place of conscious, unending remorse and punishment, these Homilies being alluded to as of authority by the 39 Articles.

  • 'his justice condemn us unto the everlasting captivity of the devil, and his prison of Hell, remediless for ever without mercy, nor by his mercy deliver us clearly, without justice or payment of a just ransom.'
  • 'the foresaid articles of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence in God’s merciful promises, to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ'
  • 'those that have done evil, shall come unto the resurrection of judgement: very well they know also, that to them that be contentious, and to them that will not be obedient unto the truth, but will obey unrighteousness, shall come indignation, wrath, and affliction, and so forth.'Cpsoper (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war regarding references

@Walter Görlitz: In accordance with WP:BRD, I am going to ask that the changes you are wanting to make to the formatting of the references be discussed on the talk page as I don't see any rationale for them. Accordingly, I am going to revert to the status quo in the meantime. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a rationale: I'm flatening them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A rationale for flattening them. And until a consensus is reached, the existing version has been restored. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most references are flat. if no one comments by the weekend, I will restore the common practice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you will not be restoring anything in the absence of a consensus, in which case the provisions of WP:NOCONSENSUS apply. And I still see no rationale for (1) flattening them and (2) that particular column layout, apart from other stuff existing. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Stott&oldid=885460863"