Talk:Jeffrey John

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=Start|listas=John, Jeffrey|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|auto=yes}}

{{WikiProject University of Oxford|auto=inherit|importance=}}

{{WikiProject Anglicanism|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}}

}}

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)

::Also "This Is Our Faith" ({{ISBN|0852311494}}) --David Edgar 16:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

: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)

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)

:He had been nominated bishop but not yet ordained such. Carolynparrishfan 21:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)