Talk:Richard Turnbull (theologian)

Notability
I think Richard Turnbull is notable enough to warrant an article for the following reasons:

--Oxonian2006 01:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. He is the master of a permanent private hall of the University of Oxford (in the University statutes "master" is used as the generic term for heads of PPHs: specifically, he is Principalk of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford). Arguably, all Heads of Houses at Oxford (and, for that matter, heads of colleges at Cambridge) are ipso facto notable.
 * 2. He has held a number of important official positions in the Church of England:
 * Member of General Synod for ten years
 * Chair of the General Synod Business Committee
 * Chair of General Synod working parties
 * Member of the Archbishops' Council
 * Chairman of the Winchester Diocesan Synod House of Clergy for five years
 * 3. He holds significant unofficial positions within the Church of England:
 * Chairman and Director of the Church of England Evangelical Council
 * A member of the committee that drafted A Covenant for the Church of England
 * 4. He has been brought to the attention of the media, with articles in:
 * The Guardian (three times that I have counted)
 * The American Daily
 * The Independent
 * Cherwell
 * Church Times
 * The Church of England Newspaper
 * Religious Intelligence
 * BBC website
 * BBC Radio 4 Sunday Programme
 * Blogs (e.g. wannabepriest, ugley [sic] vicar)
 * 5. He was appointed Principal of Wycliffe Hall at the age of 45. It is therefore quite possible that he will become a bishop.
 * 6. He has written a book (Anglican and Evangelical?) and a handful of other pieces.

Add to which he has ridiculous, nasty and immoral views on hell. Yes he warrants an article. Maybe there should be a criticism section - see http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,2090017,00.html. 164.143.240.33 12:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Contributers here would do well to read the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons (Be Dave 23:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Poor Article
This article is written badly, has a poor structure and is out of date (for instance compare the article on Wycliffe Hall). Moreover as Be Dave has pointed out much of it might contravene Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Who's keen to sort it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.99.236 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)