This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@ 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)
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.
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)
Works cited
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)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.
@ 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)
Eternal Punishment is the traditional, confessional position in the Anglican homilies, the Westminster and almost all other Protestant confessions that address the issue, and this has been referenced. This has been reverted [4], at the least I would expect a decent reference to support the controversial assertion that annihilationism is as 'traditional as the other positions'. Cpsoper ( talk) 20:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the text I had added to the talk page before your latest comments were submitted: You have claimed that Eternal Punishment is 'no more traditional than the other two views' in the title of this edit [5], the references demonstrate otherwise. Stott's dalliance with Annihilationism is novel and remains controversial. It is perfectly in accordance with the sources cited to indicate this. You dispute this and suggest Annihilationism has been traditional, mainline, Evangelical doctrine - please show your source.
Since editing the page you've also removed an article by J I Packer [6] [7], on the grounds you dispute his understanding of Stott's position [8]. This seems inadequate grounds, unless RS sources can be cited to prove this. I have also added the JETS critique of Stott by Peterson [9] to illustrate how controversial his position remains. You have also removed this too, for reasons quite unclear.
1. 'You have entirely failed to acknowledge that problem'.Can you clarify what problem precisely you mean by this? Shall we open this up for wider discussion (rfc)?
2. I am asking for you to reference your own assertion which justified removing sourced information, please.
3. Is it not better to correct reference titles rather than just excise them, because as you state, you personally disagree with their authors?
4 I suggest discussion before further edits. Cpsoper ( talk) 20:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Q. 1. Are the references that have been removed appropriate to this section? 2. Should they be reinstated? Cpsoper ( talk) 19:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@ 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)
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.
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)
Works cited
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)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.
@ 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)
Eternal Punishment is the traditional, confessional position in the Anglican homilies, the Westminster and almost all other Protestant confessions that address the issue, and this has been referenced. This has been reverted [4], at the least I would expect a decent reference to support the controversial assertion that annihilationism is as 'traditional as the other positions'. Cpsoper ( talk) 20:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the text I had added to the talk page before your latest comments were submitted: You have claimed that Eternal Punishment is 'no more traditional than the other two views' in the title of this edit [5], the references demonstrate otherwise. Stott's dalliance with Annihilationism is novel and remains controversial. It is perfectly in accordance with the sources cited to indicate this. You dispute this and suggest Annihilationism has been traditional, mainline, Evangelical doctrine - please show your source.
Since editing the page you've also removed an article by J I Packer [6] [7], on the grounds you dispute his understanding of Stott's position [8]. This seems inadequate grounds, unless RS sources can be cited to prove this. I have also added the JETS critique of Stott by Peterson [9] to illustrate how controversial his position remains. You have also removed this too, for reasons quite unclear.
1. 'You have entirely failed to acknowledge that problem'.Can you clarify what problem precisely you mean by this? Shall we open this up for wider discussion (rfc)?
2. I am asking for you to reference your own assertion which justified removing sourced information, please.
3. Is it not better to correct reference titles rather than just excise them, because as you state, you personally disagree with their authors?
4 I suggest discussion before further edits. Cpsoper ( talk) 20:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Q. 1. Are the references that have been removed appropriate to this section? 2. Should they be reinstated? Cpsoper ( talk) 19:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)