Talk:Jeffrey John

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

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

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

University of Oxford

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Anglicanism Mid‑importance

	Jeffrey John is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Books

Could we have a list of his books please? I'm sure he's written more than just 'Loving, Faithful, Stable'

I think it's actually called "Permanent, Faithful, Stable" (ISBN 0232523649).

He also appears to have written "The Meaning in the Miracles" (ISBN 0802827942; ISBN 1853114340).

Any others? --David Edgar 16:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also "This Is Our Faith" (ISBN 0852311494) --David Edgar 16:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism by 3 bishops

I don't like the comment on "all three, when questioned, admitted they had not read/heard the talk" (paraphrase of the sentence by me), for various reasons. Firstly, it's clear that Wright at least has restated his strong disagreement since reading the full talk, and Pete Broadbent has recently made a statement implying similar things, if I'm correct in assuming he is likely to have read the full talk by now. I think that saying it like that indicates that they had absolutely no idea what they were condemning, which is very unlikely - Wright has explicitly stated the opposite, saying that he'd had lengthy chunks of it read down the phone, and charity towards the other two bishops assumes that they would have, too - especially as they're things that one can very easily imagine coming out of their mouths if they had, especially the bishop of Lewes. I don't know - it just seems that including it without qualification is a) a bit uncharitable towards them, and b) giving the demonstrably wrong impression about at least Wright, who has given us a fairly detailed account of the event.

I note that the sentences original author has actually removed that sentence now, but I figured I'd explain my reasoning anyway. TJ 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling sentence

he was the first person to have openly been in a sexually active gay relationship to be nominated to be a Church of England bishop. Owing to the consequent controversy, he was asked by archbishop Rowan Williams to stand down before he took up the bishopric.

I think this should be rephrased for clarity. Which bishopric are we talking about and how could he stand down before taking it up? Flapdragon 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are your questions not already answered later on in this article, in the paragraph beginning: "On 20 May 2003 his appointment as the new Bishop of Reading..."? Is it not sufficient to have the detailed information in this later part of the article, rather than extending the introductory paragraph? --David Edgar 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no justification for a sentence that doesn't make sense anywhere in the article. I shouldn't have to read the thing in detail to try and figure out what the first para was supposed to mean. I'm not advocating extending anything, just rephrasing the sentence so it's comprehensible. How can anyone resign from a job they haven't yet taken? Does it mean that he was appointed Bishop of Reading, but in some sense hadn't yet actually started the job when he was asked to step down? So he wasn't really bishop, just bishop-in-waiting? I have no idea how an Anglican bishop is appointed. Flapdragon 16:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He had been nominated bishop but not yet ordained such. Carolynparrishfan 21:09, 26 July 2007 (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 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for See of Bangor

I have added a paragraph on the claim by David Anderson that Dr John is on the shortlist for Bishop of Bangor.

Pould (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same as J. John Canon

Just a note, because for a second I was confused there 129.180.137.105 (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey John. 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/20100707083454/http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/07/03/jeffrey-john-in-line-to-become-bishop-in-church-of-england/ to http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/07/03/jeffrey-john-in-line-to-become-bishop-in-church-of-england/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]