Talk:John Stott

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV phrasing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The word "priest" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: 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)
thread_title:  May 2008 

message: 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 . Cpsoper (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ministerial controversy 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nott.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917063438/http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/events-updates/ to http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/events-updates/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130214053730/http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/remembrance-book/ to http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/remembrance-book/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118063140/http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/life-passion/biography/ to http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/life-passion/biography/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Hell

message: 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)
replies: text: I provided a rationale: I'm flatening them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Actually, I will. I see no rationale for not having them flattened and that particular layout is unneeded. if no one cares to even discuss it, the change is perfectly acceptable. :WP:STICK and all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Checking the history, it was you (using a different IP in the same range) who applied it so I don't see any reason given for the flattening, so I can restore without complaint. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  And Kevinalewis made the edit to state the obvious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war regarding references