Talk:R. C. Sproul Jr./Archive 1

message: The following comments were added well after this discussion ended but interspersed among the comments above in violation of WP:TPG. I move them here to avoid confusion since the commenter was not a participant in our original discussion. Their intended contexts can be found in the page history. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 216.184.68.81 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 216.184.68.108 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Now it sounds like you're venting, FW. :-) You two seem to be more knowledgeable of the particulars of the case, but I will say that I don't think FW's hypothesis about Sproul's motive for not seeking an appeal is persuasive: There could be a number of other reasons why he wouldn't seek appeal, and selecting one arbitrarily is an argument from silence. Anywho, this is not the place for speculations or discussions of these matters except as it relates directly to the article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Later comments

message: His father is Robert Charles Sproul and he's Robert Craig Sproul, yet he's called R.C. Sproul, Jr. Is he actually a "Junior", though?Jlujan69 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's certainly called "Junior", which just means "younger" and is used to distinguish a father known by the same name (in this case "R.C."). It's not on his birth certificate or anything. --Flex 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually "Jr." in the context of a person's name doesn't mean "younger." "Jr." is in fact a legal name denoting that a son has the same exact name as his father. If "R.C." were a "Jr." it would in fact be on his birth certificate. But obviously that can't be because his legally given name is Robert Craig and his father is Robert Charles. I agree with Jlujan69 but I'm not clear why it would be significant. Further thoughts? --Frame-work 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we can say that there are two meanings: the legal one and the colloquial one. For RCS Jr, it is the latter. --Flex 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in a name? 

message: I would recommend revising "Sproul and SPPC then requested pastoral oversight from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches and were accepted into that denomination." to "SPPC then requested pastoral oversight from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, and the congregation is now a mission church in that denomination." I think that's a bit clearer and more accurate based on the referenced statement on the CREC website. Kyriosity 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with it, and under ordinary circumstances, I'd say just do it. But, because of the above discussion, I think it is probably best to wait at least a week to allow other interested parties to weigh in. If no one objects, proceed. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer your previous version because, as I said in the lengthy discussion above, we should keep the "controversy" section short enough that it doesn't give undue weight to the matter. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine by me. Let's see if you get any objections. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status in CREC 

message: I made an edit that seems to me to be a starting point for a *neutral point of view* as a Biography that is civil, does not take a position on any controversial issues and therefore does not appear to resemble a *personal attack* and can help to start building an objective Biography.  hopefully nobody is offended, I'm just trying to be civil.TBDdat 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the existing article and R. C. Sproul were both in better conformance to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP before, and I approve of Yahnatan's reversions (not least because you also removed much information that had no bearing on neutrality such as formatting, wikilinks, and all categorization). Please describe why you think differently. PS, I moved your comment here because the conversation to which you appended it is long over. Let's just start with your concerns. PPS, I also reverted your curious deletion of information from :Image:Jr-copy-for-wiki.gif. What was that about? --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality